Genuine Freedom

Having been involved in politics in the past, and being a rather avid spectator in the political arena, I have heard a lot of opinions about what constitutes freedom. Those on the Right have one view, those on the Left another. The religious sectarians have yet another view about freedom, and that differs from one faith to next, with almost no two demonination or religion having the same one.

For example, people of a libertarian philosophy argue that freedom means freedom from government involvement and government regulation. I am free insofar as there are no political restraints to my behavior. The socialist would argue that quite the contrary, freedom means freedom from economic need, and one cannot be free unless he has all of his basic necessities provided.

The Fundamentalist Christian would say that freedom means freedom from fleshly desires of certain kinds, mostly those that are sexual and involve alcohol. Buddhists would argue that freedom is freedom from all desires completely.

The Philosopher would argue that freedom is the power to exercise choice and make decisions (as opposed to being bound by determinism). The street definition of freedom is probably something to the effect of "doing what I want whenever I want," which is awfully vague and entails perhaps all of the other definitions provided above.

I'm not certain that any of these definitions adequately provides an explanation of what genuine freedom truly is.

Perhaps the religious definitions come closest to reality, in the sense that I believe Freedom is ultimately a Spiritual Condition. Yet I do not believe that it entails the freedom from one particular thing. Rather, it seems that genuine Freedom stems from the ability to exist and co-exist in a world of conflict without being a party to that conflict. Among other things, it is a liberation from our biological condition to first preserve the self, it is failure to be commanded by the desire to see the individual elevated above other individuals and above the rest of humanity. Nothing could better express liberation and freedom than this.

For what is it that can constrain me if I am not bound by some biological and psychological need to acquire things from other people and at the expense of other people. In a world of limited resources, I am constantly in a competition for the consumption of those resources, whether they are physical, emotional, or psychological. If I am freed from the need to fill those obligations to myself, then I am free to love and help all of those around me. What could be more liberating than this? Certainly not the fulfillment of basic physical needs, for one will only be unsatisfied and want more. Certainly not the fulfillment of emotional needs, for the same circumstance will result.

The Marxist is wrong--you cannot eliminate need by trying to fulfill it. It takes the elimination of the root, the Ego. This flies in the face ultimately of the Marxist and Capitalist alike, for the Marxist seeks a political solution and the Capitalist an economic one. The psychologist is incorrect for she argues for the establishment of the self. I want to be freed from the self. For if I am free from looking out for my own needs and instead am concerned only with the needs of others, then I am perfectly fulfilled at all times, for others will always be in need.