Are we free?
First of all, I want you to be aware of the fact that just being able to think about this philosophical, unanswerable question is a true privilege that’s nothing but a product of either boredom, an acid trip, or perhaps a healthy mixture of both. We’re not about to find the meaning of life, and neither are we trying to fill up a shelf with yet another self-help book. That’s why I encourage you to throw away your high expectations immediately and get comfortable with the fact that there are some questions our limited brains are not capable of answering (or perhaps they are?). However, if you enjoy the simple act of thinking about it anyways in an attempt to procrastinate productively without it feeling like a contradiction, then you might as well continue reading. Of course, that is a decision you are, although limitedly, free to make yourself.
Just before you start complaining about my critical thinking towards freedom: No, I am not questioning the limits of a governmental freedom, or accusing politicians of fascism or secretly having built a mental shrine for North Korea’s sweetheart Kim Jong-Un. Neither am I talking about some spiritual, sacred order or system that we’ve inevitably been imprisoned in, the second we took the first breaths and screams of our existence (pre-loss of virginity, obviously). The real intention behind asking this question is to figure out how far the limits of our individual freedom can be stretched, whether we can measure our levels of freedom at all and if freedom is the right personal goal to pursue in the first place.
The oh-so-edgy, self-proclaimed buddhist that I was at the age of sixteen, three years ago I would have probably preached about something along the lines of liberation, right after stating that we are, in fact, not as free as we think we are. I’d most likely refer to Siddharta Gautama’s teaching about how we cling to what we believe our Self consists of, when the real task in life would be to liberate ourselves from it. Clinging to our desires, for instance, cannot lead to anything but suffering, leading us to being stuck in a vicious cycle of joy and pain. Considering the fact that the Buddha believed we could liberate ourselves from everything that leads to pain and suffering in our lives, reaching the state of Nirvana, it seems as if, from a buddhist point of view, we are in fact able to stretch our personal boundaries to a point of complete liberation and freedom. The only issue that started to bother me was the question of how much we would still be ourselves if we did manage to reach that state. Would letting go of everything that matters to us, such as our desires, longings, attachment to friends and cravings for human validation and acceptance, really make us feel happy and fulfilled? Is complete freedom from all of the things that bring pleasure as well as pain really what would create the best possible life, or should we accept the suffering in exchange for happiness?
Traveling a little further in time, we’re forced to face the horrible realisation that we still haven’t found the answers humankind has been looking for for so long. However, both Sartre and Camus had some opinions on freedom, which were interesting enough for me to continue working on my quest to find the answers to unanswerable questions. Sartre was convinced that every human being is condemned to be free, because with freedom there comes responsibility to act. The ability to make decisions independently, and having to deal with its consequences, seemed to be enough to believe that we are indeed free. In some ways, I suppose this makes sense: We are free to use our body that’s been given to us and take advantage of its abilities, in the same sense that we’re free to do whatever we decide to do with what’s being done to us. However, to what degree do we act independently and how much are our actions, opinions and feelings influenced by external factors? I’d love to think that I’ve just unashamedly eaten half a package of chocolate chip cookies because my own free will decided to do so, but how much of an impact did the price tag saying ‘50% off, limited edition’ have on my decision to torture my body?
Although Camus and Sartre were supposedly pretty good pals back in the days, he seemed to disagree with his fellow French philosopher. Camus stated that life is absurd and we are not free. We feel this constant urge to pursue the futile task of finding a meaning in a meaningless word, when the most meaning we can get is to oppose distress, pain and death. He believed that the real task in life was to rebel against what he called ‘the Absurd’, by realising that although freedom is relative and there is no predetermined meaning, we should embrace our limits and revolt against the meaninglessness of our lives. It’s easy to draw links to the Buddhist idea of acceptance and finding a sense of peace in the life that’s been given to us. The important difference is that Camus encouraged the act of revolting against life, while also finding contentment in our situation, purely because we take the freedom of doing so, after experiencing the enlightenment of the simple fact that life is absurd.
What is clear to me is that we might have different interpretations of what freedom actually is. To some people, freedom might be a synonym for the ability to do whatever their minds can imagine, whereas for others, freedom could be synonymous to happiness, sharing a similar sense of contentedness. It almost seems like the state or feeling of freedom is purely subjective, leading me to believe that, since it can’t be an objective truth, it doesn’t really exist. I acknowledge that our fears and insecurities limit us, as well as the idea that clinging to our cravings and desires is hindering us to achieve personal and emotional liberation. Even Sartre made a good point by stating that there lies freedom in the ability to do as we please, but as contradictory as it sounds, there is always a chance that the consequences of our actions will limit our freedom in one way or another. The way Sartre described how responsibilities that come with freedom seem more like a burden rather than a feeling of liberation could be an indicator that perhaps freedom is not necessarily the right recipe for happiness and fulfilment, suddenly not sounding so appealing after all.
Perhaps we are free, but we are certainly not limitless. This means we are partly free to decide our own actions, but there will always be limitations as to what we’re capable of doing, as well as being too influenced by external factors to say that our actions are entirely a consequence of our own initiative and free will. I do believe there are different, and even altered levels of freedom, some people being closer to the feeling of liberation after perhaps taking advantage of the teachings of Buddhism or Absurdism, but there will always be different sides of our lives that simply happened to us, without influencing them ourselves. One example is as simple as being born in the first place, doomed to live through decades of suffering and happiness, with the innate instinct to survive. In some ways we could even say we’re slaves to our primitive desires, imprisoned in the product of our environment that we’ve become, as well as being driven by delusions in a world we don’t see as it actually is. With this many factors playing a role in our perception and subjective feeling of fulfilment and liberation, I’m not even entirely sure to what degree I find the task of pursuing freedom attractive anymore. I guess that both you and me will have to make that decision on our own, because despite all of our limitations, maybe that's the only thing that we are indeed free to do, after all.