On
Living The Good Life — Part I
WHAT
IT MEANS TO BE FREE
Leroy
Garrett
It
is claimed that men are freest when they are most unconscious of
freedom and that “the shout is a rattling of chains.”
While it may be true that some of those who talk so much about
freedom are but rattling the chains of their own bondage, it hardly
follows that the freest people are the most unconscious of their
freedom. This study not only assumes that man is to be conscious of
the problem of freedom, but that he is to enter into the age-long
struggle to obtain this cherished prize. “The history of the
world,” Hegel writes, “is none other than the progress of
the consciousness of Freedom.”
Studies
on freedom are often so abstract and technical that the reader finds
himself unable to work out a functional program of liberation. We
must learn to avoid the fate of the proverbial ass who starved to
death midway between two haystacks because he could not decide from
which to eat. Freedom is largely a matter of making the right
decisions. This study proposes to describe freedom and to give in
detail what a free man is like. It seeks to do for freedom what the
apostle Paul does for love in his letter to the Romans. Since freedom
is a vital part of the good life this chapter will spell out the
moral principles that are basic to freedom. It will also warn of the
obstacles that must be avoided.
Recently
the Institute of Philosophical Research completed six years of
research on
one
idea
—freedom! This illustrates the immensity of the subject.
Freedom is always one of the most important subjects in any reputable
philosophical system. It has challenged the greatest minds of
history. Let this chapter, therefore, be thought of only in terms of
an outline
that
may be filled in through a lifetime of study.
Kinds
of Freedom
“The
only freedom which deserves the name,” writes John Stuart Mill,
“is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we
do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts
to obtain it.” This is the freedom
to
do as one pleases.
Over
against this is the view that one is only free
to
do what he ought.
Is
a man free to abuse his body with narcotics or alcohol? Mill would
say yes. No one has the right to forbid a man from doing what the man
himself thinks is best, so long as his conduct does not interfere
with the liberty of others. The terrific urge to prevent another
person from making a “mistake” must be resisted, unless
indeed persuasion can turn him from his course. Mill thinks one
should warn the man who is about to walk across an unsafe bridge, but
once the man has been informed and still chooses to endanger his
life, there is nothing more one can do. Or is it true that one is
free only to do what is
right?
Some
thinkers relate freedom to goodness. Philo argues that only the good
man is free, and Cicero identifies goodness as freedom. Wisdom and
freedom are also related. Jesus says, “You shall know the truth
and the truth shall make you free.” Can a bad man be a free
man? Can one be ignorant and yet be free? Is a man free to commit
such acts as suicide so long as he renders no in justice to another?
These questions are enough to show us that there are different kinds
of freedom. A man may be free in one sense and yet unfree in another.
1.
Natural
Freedom.
This
is the liberty one has by virtue of being born human. Rousseau
complains that though man was born free he is everywhere in chains.
Aristotle on the other hand argues that some people do not have the
nature of free men. He thought it both natural and necessary that
some men be slaves, and so it is now unjust for such ones to be under
the rule of a master. Jefferson referred to natural freedom when he
wrote in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths
to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among
these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Natural
freedom is the inherent ability to do those things that are
characteristic of man —grow, reason, build, bargain, procreate,
and choose between many alternatives. Man may not use this freedom or
it may be denied him, but he nonetheless has it potentially. He is
capable by
nature
of
behaving as a free man. Both good men and bad men are free in this
sense.
2.
Social
or Political Freedom.
This
is the freedom Mill speaks of when he says that one should be free to
do as he pleases so long as he does not jeopardize the rights of
others. This includes the liberty to travel, to exchange ideas, to
think for oneself, to choose one’s own vocation, to bargain, to
vote, and many others. Bertrand Russell calls this “the absence
of external obstacles to the realization of desires.” Thomas
Hobbes puts it this way: “A free man is he, that in those
things, which by his strength and wit he is able to do, is not
hindered to do what he has a will to do.” Social freedom may be
thought of as the exercise of natural freedom that is controlled only
by the necessary restraints of social order. Only the hermit can
exercise his natural freedom without thinking of others. The hermit
can swing his fists in the air whenever and wherever he pleases. The
man in society, however, while free to swing his fists must keep them
away from the other fellow’s nose. As one man put it, “The
man may be free to swing his fist, but when his fist comes in contact
with my nose, that is where his freedom ends and mine begins!”
Social
or political freedom is
circumstantial
in
that it depends upon external circumstances. If one is locked in jail
he is no longer free in this sense. The poet may claim that “Stone
walls do not a prison make, nor iron bars a cage,” but it is
nonetheless true that bars and walls are among those external
restraints that deny man of free social intercourse. The circumstance
of bad government or corrupt political leaders will also restrict
liberty. Or it may be an unfortunate marriage, poverty, lack of
education, or poor working conditions that restricts one’s
freedom.
3.
Economic
Freedom.
Economic
freedom is the right to own what one gains by his labor. It is
closely related to all other forms of freedom. The importance of
money to the good life can here be stressed. One may be socially free
to do many good things, such as enter college or travel the world,
but may lack the financial ability to do so. It is obvious enough
that limited finances is a great impediment to man’s freedom.
Lack of funds can even threaten his sanity.
4.
Physio-psychological
Freedom.
This
is the ability of the body and mind to do that which the person is
otherwise free to do. This differs from natural freedom in that it
has to do with the physical and mental ability to obey the will.
Natural freedom has to do with
inherent
rights,
while
physical freedom refers to the
corporeal
ability
to
act. A cripple may wish to play basketball, but he is not physically
free to do so. A dullard may wish for higher education, but he is not
free to pursue it regardless of the financial and social advantages
available.
Psychological
freedom also has to do with one’s
ability
to choose
his
own course of action. How much is man “pushed from behind”
by hereditary and environmental factors? Spinoza contends that man
only thinks he is free psychologically, while in reality his actions
are pre-determined by the thousands of factors that make up his
personality, over which he has no control Can the whimpering child
act other than as he is acting? Can the school bully do other than as
he does? Man is a compound of needs, drives, urges, instincts. Each
of these is related to many factors that reach far into his
background.
Here
we have a very real problem in the study of freedom. While the
evidence demands that man be viewed in part by hereditary and
environmental factors, he nevertheless possesses the power to choose
between alternatives. Man has proved his ability to rise above both
environment and heredity. While he is motivated by his desires, he is
capable of choosing what desires he shall carry out. He may desire to
smoke and drink with the gang, and he may desire to run with the
varsity relay team. He is free to make his choice. Psychological
factors will have their influence to be sure, but by his own will he
casts the deciding vote.
5.
Moral
Freedom.
Here
we have that kind of freedom that is essential to being
a
truly free man.
It
is for the most part the sense in which we use the term freedom in
this study. To be free is to be
morally
free.
While social freedom depends upon circumstances and
physiopsychological freedom depends upon natural factors, moral
freedom is spiritual and depends upon the acquisition of goodness and
wisdom. Jesus says, “If the Son shall make you free, you are
free indeed.” This is moral freedom. The man who is morally
good is free because he is ruled by his better self. It is the moral
man who is not enslaved to his passions and desires.
It
is here that the poet can speak of the inadequacy of iron bars and
cages. One may be morally free while in prison or on the rack. While
the other freedoms are circumstantial or natural, moral freedom is
acquired
—either by one’s dedication to moral principles or by the
grace of God, or both. In Christian terms moral freedom means to be
free of sin. A free man in Christ is one in whom Christ lives anew.
It is a matter of voluntary enslavement for the Christian. While he
was a slave to sin, he is now a slave of Christ.
Moral
freedom depends upon character and state of mind. This is why Cicero
says, “It is character and not circumstance that makes for
happiness.” This is true only to a degree. While a man on the
rack may be morally free, he can hardly be happy. There is a measure
of good fortune necessary to happiness, but it is character that is
most important. Whitehead tells us that it was this “freedom
beyond circumstances” that Plato groped for and that the
Christians found.
Toward
a Definition
From
the foregoing account of the kinds of freedom it may be concluded
that the following points are necessary ingredients of freedom as
generally viewed:
(1)
The ability to make one’s act his own. If I am free then my
action must proceed
from
me
and
it must achieve something
for
me.
It
proceeds from my own self.
(2)
The ability to be one’s own master rather than to be dominated
by another. In the case of spiritual dedication the free man
voluntarily
submits
himself to a power greater than himself.
(3)
The ability to act as one wishes for his own good according to his
own judgment and conscience.
(4)
The ability to act as one ought according to the moral and spiritual
principles that are acquired from his own search for truth.
Mortimer
Adler observes that the free man is one “who has in himself the
ability or power whereby he can make what he does his own action and
what he achieves his own property.” Cicero concurs with this
idea in pointing out that he who is free is one “whose
enterprises and courses of conduct all take their start from himself
and likewise have their end in himself.”
With
these suggestions to work with we are ready to give our definition of
freedom:
Freedom
is the ability to act according to what one believes to be right,
which is based upon one’s own concept of the Ideal Man, which
results from his own search for moral and spiritual truths, all of
which implies the inherent power to change one’s character by
choosing those alternatives that will make him what he wants to
become.
Basic
to this definition is the implied warfare between
the
self
and
another.
I
am free when I do what
I
believe
is right. I am unfree when dominated by anything outside myself. My
definition is essentially that of
moral
freedom,
which I believe to be the only
real
freedom.
By this I mean one cannot be free unless he is morally free, despite
the fact that there are different kinds of freedom. I am not
morally
free
to do some things that I may be
legally
free
to do. Too, I may be physically
and
economically
free
to do many things that I am not morally free to do.
My
definition also shows the place of moral and spiritual education in
the struggle to be free. It implies that there is a moral order and
that one can discover it through investigation. It provides for both
reason and revelation in the search for truth. It appeals to the
Christian ethic by its reference to ideal personality. It suggests
that man is inclined toward the good by its reference to man’s
natural ability to choose those values that will transform his
character into his image of the ideal.
Basic
Principles of Freedom
If
we succeed in evaluating the idea of freedom we must determine what
underlying principles support it. Why is freedom a good idea anyhow?
Perhaps it is better for man to be unfree if there are no basic moral
principles that uphold freedom. The following are ideas that we feel
must influence both individual and social thinking if men are to be
truly free.
1.
The
principle of the dignity of human personality.
This
is the key that unlocks the box that contains many other keys. The
poet David had this key when he realized that the answer to his
question “What is man?” is that man was created “a
little lower than God.” The sacredness of the human soul
answers many questions. Prostitution is wrong because men and women
are made in the image of God. Slavery is wrong because it degrades
personality. Each of the Seven Deadly Sins is a disregarding of this
principle.
Pride
is
undue concern for the self to the neglect of others;
covetousness
is
the over-stressing of the self as the expense of others;
wrath
is
violence toward a person.
Envy
is
hatred of the happiness of others while
gluttony
despises
the soul by gorging the body.
Sloth
is
the refusal to advance humanity by being indolent; it reaps without
sowing thus violating the law of reciprocity.
Lechery
is
the sin against the body of another for sexual gratification.
Freedom
cannot exist among a people that do not hold human life sacred.
Respect for self and others provides an atmosphere for freedom. One
is free to develop his body and mind if he conceives of himself as
part of God’s handiwork. If he respects the person of others he
will also respect the feelings, rights and property of others.
2.
The
principle of individuality of personality.
This
differs from the first principle in that it is especially conscious
of the
uniqueness
of
personality. It recognizes that men are to be dealt with individually
rather than in categories. It is unfair to divide the human family
into such classifications as liberals, conservatives, capitalists,
communists. A person might be conservative about some things and
liberal about others. He may be in between the categories that we
arbitrarily set up. If I respect a man’s individuality I will
deal with him on his own merits, and I will not insist that he
identify himself with all the peculiarities of his party or church.
Our fellow men should be viewed as
persons,
not
as cogs in a political or ecclesiastic machine.
Each
person is to be regarded a microcosm, a world all his own, with his
own peculiar desires, needs, potentialities, and limitations. He is
to be explored for his own worth and for his own unique contribution
to society. If I make a man free I must recognize his
separate
integrity,
realizing
that his individual worth before God is not dependent upon his
connection with family, church, or party. I have learned from my
experience in the classroom that a student does not want to be judged
by the standard set by a brother or sister who preceded him. There is
that urgency to be one’s self. This is the pull of the free
spirit within man.
This
principle provides for both the slowness and awkwardness of growth.
We must give men time to grow as well as encourage the growth. In the
struggle to be free we must remember that people are at different
stages of growth and that we must not expect the same of all people.
A man is free when he is at liberty to grow and develop his
potentialities with reasonable ease. He will not be afraid to make a
mistake. He will have the feeling that people expect of him only that
which is consistent to his own uniqueness as a person.
3.
The
principle that an individual has the right to the fruits of his own
labor.
While
this principle is especially related to economic freedom, it is also
basic to all freedom. There are three possible views toward what a
man gains through labor. One is the law of the jungle: it is mine if
I can take it away from him. But this encourages consumption and
discourages production, and it can only take us back to savagery. No
free society can exist when men think in such terms. A second view is
the law of communism:
the
government takes it and distributes it according to the needs of
each.
This
demands that each man produce according to his ability and receive
according to his needs. The claim is that everybody owns everything
equally. The way to test this is for one to try to sell his share!
The sin of communism in this regard is that the individual is
swallowed up by the state. The state becomes master rather than
servant. The third view is the principle that
each
man has the right to that which he produces.
This
is the principle of capitalism.
This
view encourages charity, for a man has incentive to share when he has
control over his own gains. It stimulates industry since a man may
keep what he earns. There is something sacred about a man and his
property, and there is a sense in which I am to think of his property
as an extension of himself. His property is sacred in that it
represents his own power to grow, learn, build and give. Stealing is
wrong because it retards the growth that is dependent in part upon
property and money. A free society will question the Robin Hood type
of “welfare state” wherein the government takes it from
those who have and distributes it to those who have not.
This
principle would suggest that a man is not free if he
covets
what
another man has earned, whether it be the man’s wallet,
education or lawn mower. There are legal ways of stealing. The free
man does not even want
what
belongs to another. This is why a free society’s best
protection is the character of its people. The moral convictions of
our neighbors do far more to preserve decency and order than a police
force. People who value the dignity of labor do more for society than
laws, bolts and locks.
4.
The
principle of liberality.
Here
we have one of those fuzzy words that can be made to mean most
anything, and yet when properly used
liberality
expresses
an idea that is essential to freedom. The liberal mind recognizes
that there
is no possible way to allow a person to be right without also
allowing him to be wrong.
It
may be correct that “error does not have the same right as
truth,” but who is to determine what the truth is? The liberal
man seeks to set others free so they may seek truth on their own. He
believes in people and in their right to evaluate. Liberality
encourages experiments. It is willing to make mistakes and then try
again. It is not content with what has been. Aristotle was liberal in
his willingness to differ with the teaching of his great teacher.
“Dear is Plato, but dearer still is truth,” Aristotle
would say to his own students. The liberal mind makes room for others
to grow. It does not try to transform people by arbitrary means or
fit them into dogmatic patterns.
5.
The
principle of revolution.
When
one views the list of the world’s greats-Socrates, Galileo,
Jesus, Paul, Savonarola, Luther, Darwin, Kant, Jefferson to name only
a few —he sees that one common feature is that they were all
revolutionists. Freedom is anarchic. It rebels against the pressures
that confine men. Albert Schweitzer contends that “disdain for
thinking” has created a spirit in the world that never lets man
come to himself, for during his whole life man is subjected to
influences “which are bent on robbing him of all confidence in
his own thinking.” And so Schweitzer insists that men must be
found who will “revolt against the spirit of thoughtlessness.”
The free man is a rebel amidst
the
cult of conformity.
The
revolutionist rebels against tyranny because of his philosophy of
life affirmation. It is because of what he is
for
rather
than against. The most important thing about man is what he believes.
So few of our people have strong convictions because they have not
shared in the great conversation. One principle of freedom is that
men be willing to rebel against mediocrity and superficiality and to
engage in the war of conflicting ideas. “Waging peace” is
in this direction.
Obstacles
to Freedom
The
zoologists tell us that if a frog is placed in a pan of water which
is slowly heated that the frog will stay there until it is killed by
the boiling water, even though it could have jumped out in an early
stage of the heating process. The frog is so easily adapted to its
environment that it is unaware of the slight changes that eventually
lead to its fate. People may act much like frogs. They are so
controlled by the forces around them that every semblance of
self-determinism is gone and freedom is lost. What are these forces
that slowly but surely make us unfree?
1.
The
Herd Mind.
Man
is largely a creature of impulse and of habit. He tends to take the
course of least resistance. He follows the crowd. Even though
Longfellow bids that he “Be not like dumb, driven cattle! Be a
hero in the strife!” it is difficult for him to be a solitary
figure amidst the crowd. Ordinarily man is an automaton. His words
and deeds, moods and emotions, thoughts and ideas are determined by
external forces. Man must find a different basis from which to act.
This comes from within. He must pursue the inward way and thus grow
from within. Radhakrishnan, the Hindu philosopher, says: “All
growth is from within outwards. Spirit is freedom. True wealth is in
being, not in having.
A
free mind is not a herd mind.”
This
is what Francis Bacon calls “Idols of the Tribe.” These
idols arise when men worship regularity and conformity. He thinks
man’s greatest hindrance to freedom is “the dullness,
incompetency, and deceptions of the senses.”
2.
The
Capsule Mind.
The
“capsule thinker” is one who constantly tends to over
simplify difficult questions by the use of stereotyped formulas. He
is the man who has “the simple, unvarnished truth” or who
can say, “the issue is plain and clear.” He is the
brother who has all the answers. This is sometimes called “Potted
Thinking” or even “Tabloid Thinking.” In any event
it is stuffy and fuzzy, and it is a sure obstacle to the free mind.
3.
The
Biased Mind.
It
is a mental bias which leads an individual to ignore some evidence
and to over-emphasize other evidence. In the biased mind judgments
are formed by emotional considerations. Prejudice is related to
“wishful thinking” since a prejudiced person rationalizes
in order to continue believing as he does.
What
causes prejudice? Part of the answer is the love of ease and comfort
and the consequent dislike of anything that threatens to disturb.
Prejudice protects the quiet life. When people believe or do
something a certain way for so long it becomes distasteful to deviate
from the established routine. There is discomfort to non-conformity.
We dislike being forced to think. Close ties breed loyalties that we
are slow to disown.
The
free mind on the other hand slays every temptation to stop short of
complete knowledge. It is ready to destroy its own intellectual
children if they are found to be false. It realizes that in any
attempt to overlook inconvenient and disagreeable facts it will only
deceive itself. But prejudice closes the open mind. It cannot face
facts fearlessly and frankly. The biased mind is an obstacle to
freedom in that it promotes intellectual dishonesty. Shallowness and
superficiality are its children.
4.
The
Diverted Mind.
The
diverted mind is sidetracked from the things in life that matter
most. In Plato’s
Protagoras
the
point is made that one owes much more to his soul’s health than
to bodily health, and that there is greater peril in buying knowledge
than in buying meat and drink. Plato shows how Socrates complains
when young Hippocrates thoughtlessly subjects his mind to the
influence of Protagoras the Sophist. Socrates feared that the Sophist
would divert Hippocrates’ youthful mind in unwholesome
directions. The apostle Paul had the same fear in warning young
Timothy to “Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of
what is falsely called knowledge, for by professing it some have
missed the mark as regards the faith.”
The
diverted mind has “missed the mark” as to what in life is
most worthwhile. It spends itself upon the passing values. It is
opposed to freedom in that it lacks purpose, meaning and direction.
It is a mind confused over mixed values. It is a propagandized mind
in that it listens to the heresy that a man’s life consists in
the abundance of the things that he possesses. It is the brainwashed
mind in that it has tolerance only for orthodoxy. It is a
standardized mind in that it refuses to go beyond the narrow confines
of group thought.
5.
The
Uninformed Mind.
John
Locke believed that man’s freedom can be measured by his
reason. While Plato argued that the ignorant man is immoral, Locke
contends that a man’s ignorance enslaves him. Locke sought to
sweep away the cobwebs from man’s mind so that he might
think.
He
gives three answers to the question as to why men reason so poorly:
(1) Most people do not reason at all; (2) Man
feels
before
he thinks (emotionalism); (3) Man’s intellect is limited by
partiality —“We see but in part and we know but in part.”
The way out in intellectual
education.
The free mind is the informed mind. It is flexible in that it can go
beyond formal rules in its search for basic principles. It is
cosmopolitan in that it avoids prejudice, narrow-mindedness and
provincialism.
Ignorance
is perhaps the greatest of all barriers to freedom. People are
ignorant of their rights. Sometime back a research agency polled the
public on the Bill of Rights and found that one out of four had never
heard of it and two out of four could not identify it. A similar
survey revealed a woeful ignorance of the Declaration of
Independence. Our provincialism can be seen in our ignorance of the
United Nations. Many people cannot name their representatives to
Congress and have never sent a letter to Washington. Even more
serious is our ignorance of the world at large. We do not understand
the oriental mind. The great world of books is ignored by a large
majority of our people, including those who pass through our school
systems. Consequently we do not know what we are
for.
We
are a nation without well-defined moral, political and social
purposes.
The
sober warning of George F. Kennan is in order here:
With
no highly developed sense of national purpose, with the overwhelming
accent of life on personal comfort and amusement, with a dearth of
public services and a surfeit of privately sold gadgetry, with an
educational system where quality has been extensively sacrificed to
quantity, and with insufficient social discipline even to keep its
major industries functioning without grievous interruptions —if
you ask me whether such a country has, over the long run, good
chances of competing with a purposeful, serious, and disciplined
society such as that of the Soviet Union, I must say that the answer
is “no.”
Characteristics
of the Free Man
Now
that we have considered those factors that contribute to man’s
becoming unfree, we shall here list those qualities that characterize
the free man.
1.
The
free man follows the dictum of Socrates that “the unexamined
life is not worth living.”
In
the face of death at the hands of the state Socrates could say “No
evil can befall a good man.” He would agree with Philo, who
wrote a book on
Every
Good Man Is Free,
that
only the virtuous man is truly free. Socrates taught that virtue
comes through knowledge through self-examination. One must realize
how little he knows. “I know nothing,” Socrates would
say, and he insisted that the foolish man is one who thinks he is
wise. The ideal of culture and education is to ‘know thyself,”
which means that through self-realization one comes to know why he
behaves as he does.
Socrates
taught that virtue is an innate propensity in mankind, a natural
endowment to every man, and that men will behave virtuously once they
see themselves as they really are. But it takes courage to do this.
Men are confused about what they consider truly worth while. They do
not understand their desires, for the things they work for the
hardest often prove to be unsatisfactory. So man must reject the
false standards of society, overrule the ignorance and superstition
of his shallow way of life, and open his soul to the revelation
provided by the moral order of the universe. By means of vigorous
examination of the inner man a person brings his soul into harmony
with the moral order of the universe. This is what Plato calls
justice. It is what we call freedom.
2.
The
free man behaves with integrity of action.
By
this we mean that he makes his acts his own. He does what he does in
an utterly authentic manner. He is not a “party man” in
that he is drawn to think and act in conformity to the crowd to the
neglect of his own inner sense of justice. He is not an “organization
man” in that he loses his own uniqueness and spontaneity in the
labyrinth of bigness. On the other hand he is not “an ugly
American” in that he forgets that he is a member of an
important team or becomes indifferent to the rules of the game. While
he knows the fine art of standing alone, he also ranks friendship and
cooperation high in his system of values.
How
many of us are carbon copies of our environment? Is there the real
“me” in my life? When I think and act is it my unique
self at work? When I am in a gathering of friends do I respond with a
kind of “social pre-determinism,” always acting and
talking according to the demands of my group, or does my uniqueness
sometimes break forth in the likeness of a reactionary or a
revolutionist? Many of us are reformers at heart. It is in man to
improve his lot and to find better ways of thinking and acting. Why
do we not dare to be different?
Authenticity
of conduct is not a matter of laws or constitutions. It is not
attained by means of arbitrary rules from without, but by a
realization of the divine order within oneself. This is the true
standard by which one can direct his unique self. When this rule is
followed the frustrated mother who punishes her child because
others
think
he should be punished will be free to act according to her own
judgment. When the true self breaks through even the straight-laced
religionist may find himself really enjoying a good joke or a
thrilling movie. Uniqueness of self and holy humor go well together.
By behaving authentically one finally comes to the place where he can
laugh at himself and even utter that ineffable sentence “I was
wrong.” He just might be able to admit to himself how important
money and sex are in his life!
3.
The
free man can see the shades of gray between the black and the white.
He
does not seek security in absolutes. He avoids the fallacy of
oversimplification. He realizes that the human family has after all
learned very little and that the certainties of life are but few. The
liberal mind sees that almost nothing is wholly black or wholly white
and that most of life’s values are varying shades of gray. Man
is a mixture of good and bad. To err is
very
human.
The free man does not expect too much of his fellows and he provides
ample room for the human dimension. Nor does he expect too little,
for like the psalmist of Israel he believes that man has been created
but little lower than God.
The
unfree man is impatient of the in-between relationships. Things must
be right or wrong, good or bad, open or shut. He must be certain!
Russia must be all wrong while the United States must be all right.
Our side is white, the other side is black! He is not equipped to
move out into the world of in-betweens. His security is in being
right. Many of these enslaved minds find mental satisfaction in their
conviction that everyone is in error but themselves. This is an
esoteric feature of some religious groups. The sectarian mind
presumes to have some priority on truth, while the liberal mind
somehow feels that the whole truth is always somewhat beyond his
fingertips. Religious and political partyism thus becomes a refuge of
little and unfree minds.
The
free man accepts life as difficult. He does not deceive himself into
believing that most things are only two-valued. While it is true that
lights are either off or on and that the car either starts or it does
not, it nonetheless follows that most of life is multivalued. The
kids watching TV sometime divide the cowboys into
good
and
bad
according
to the color of the hat or the thickness of the beard. We
oversimplify when we measure life’s values in such fashion. We
must not be like the woman who argued that she was “only a
little bit pregnant.”
Our
English language and American culture are partly responsible for our
inability to see the gray. We have been taught to think in opposites
—love and hate, tall and short, good and bad, hero and villain,
clean and dirty. All the Indo-European languages tend toward this
rigid dichotomy. In the oriental languages a multi-valued approach is
easier. The Chinese think of
tall
as
a modification of short,
top
and
bottom
as
mutually complimentary, and
little
and
big
as
complements of each other. This may make it difficult for the
Russians to place communism and capitalism before the Chinese as a
two-valued choice. The Russians, like ourselves, are prone to this
kind of thinking, but the oriental mind has learned from its rich and
ancient culture to see the gray between black and white. The Chinese
is less hurried. He does not feel that he must decide
now.
This
is a trait of the free mind. But we Americans feel that it is easier
to act than to think, and so we superficially evaluate the things
that matter most. This breathless way of life makes us unfree. As
free people we learn to labor and to wait.
4.
The
free man integrates himself with the social order.
It
is the unfree man who moves only in the small world of the self. The
liberated man thinks of himself as a part of all he meets. He is not
afraid to drive down stakes in his environment and count himself a
permanent fixture in society. He has joined the human race. While he
may believe in the Christian doctrine that the Children of God are
but “sojourners and pilgrims” in this world, he also
believes that Christians are citizens on earth as well as in heaven
and that they are to leave the world better than they found it.
Christians are to be the light of the world, but the light is
effective only when it is held high amidst the darkness. They are to
be like salt, but salt loses its preserving power if it is not in
close contact with that which is to be preserved. Christians often
overlook two important words in the Golden Text: “God so loved
the
world
that
he gave his only son …” It is through integration of the
self with the world that one comes to love it. Insight comes through
involvement. The great fact of Christianity is that God involved
himself in the human drama. The theologians call this
the
immanence of God.
In
this involvement God gave himself.
In
learning this lesson man finds his freedom. Liberation comes through
voluntary enslavement. It is the man who loses his life that finds
it. The apostle Paul gives us the pattern for freedom when he says “I
am ready to spend and be spent for your souls.” Herein is the
sense of urgency so vitally needed in place of our hands-in-pocket
attitude. The free man is a man of conviction. He is excited over
such ideas as democracy, justice, happiness, immortality, liberty,
and God. He is alive to the world around him and counts himself a
part of its problems and possibilities.
There
is a sense in which the free man is a troubled man. He is concerned
with the plight of his fellows, whether it be the millions of
alcoholics or the millions of illiterates. In terms of the
Aristotelian ethic he looks upon the man in trouble as his other
self. He believes with Elton Trueblood that “the cultivation of
an uneasy conscience” is essential to the preservation of
decent society.
5.
The
free man has the will to grow.
He
believes in
soul
growth.
He
will let no man or institution retard his growth. He refuses to sell
out to professionalism or institutionalism. For the most part he is
an independent, choosing to stand alone rather than to sell his
birthright for a mess of pottage. He is first of all a citizen of the
world. His brothers and sisters are those who do the will of God. He
is afraid of isms.
He
may belong to a political party, but he avoids partyism. He may be an
American, but he shuns Americanism. He does not believe in
provincialism. The isms
dwarf
and shrivel the spirit. The free man is a “delegate-at-large”
in the human struggle for a respectable world. He shares in the
fellowship of all
those
who suffer irrespective of race, color or creed. He is dedicated to
the alleviation of human misery and the liquidation of ignorance. His
soul grows by exercising itself in a philosophy of life affirmation.
In
his
Essay
on Liberty
John
Stuart Mill points out that God did not create the soul to be cramped
and dwarfed, but that he gave “all human faculties that they
might be cultivated and unfolded.” He further states that God
takes delight when man grows close to the ideal that he ordained for
him. Mill’s conception of freedom is that it provides man
opportunity to develop according to his capacity. To hinder this
growth is to enslave man. To encourage this growth is to free him.
Mill speaks of the mutuality of this process:
the
more one develops himself the more capable he is in encouraging the
growth of others, and the more he does this the more he is worth to
himself.
6.
The
free man is a disciplined person who is inwardly directed toward a
definite goal.
I
am not free to sit before an organ and play the compositions of Bach
for the simple reason that I have not disciplined myself in that
direction. The Stoics argued that through self-discipline one gains
the self-knowledge that makes it possible for him to fulfill his
function in the grand design of the universe. One famous Stoic,
Epictetus, was a slave and yet he contended that discipline made him
a free man. One anecdote relates that when his angry master was
twisting his leg Epictetus calmly said, “You will break my
leg,” whereupon the master twisted until the leg broke. To this
Epictetus rejoined with equal calm, “Did I not tell you so?”
Diogenes, another Stoic, lived in a tub so as to express his apathy
for things of the flesh, and he carried a lantern around in his
search for a real man, illustrating that a truly self-contained man
is almost impossible to find.
The
Stoics teach us a needed lesson in stressing that man must limit his
desires to matters within his control. Virtue is a condition of the
will and should be pursued for its own sake. It is
character,
not
circumstances of position and wealth, that makes one happy. One must
be indifferent to those desires that cannot be satisfied. And is one
ever satisfied with his measure of earthly goods? To the Stoics those
things beyond one’s control are irrelevant to the good life,
for the virtuous man finds within himself all that is necessary to
achieve happiness. We cannot control
events
but
we can control attitudes.
It
is not what happens to us that counts, but rather what we think about
what happens.
The
man who can direct his life from within, chart his course by the
control of his passions and desires, is the free man. He who is
driven to behave according to the dictates of the forces
outside
him
(pleasure, money, fame, social approval) is unfree. This means that
the free man will place restrictions upon himself, a kind of
voluntary enslavement; while the unfree man has restrictions placed
upon him by others. The free man controls the circumstances in his
life; the unfree man is controlled
by
circumstances.
The free man is master
over
things;
the
unfree man is enslaved
to
things.
Both
the free and the unfree are
intoxicated.
The
unfree man is drunk on the things of the flesh. He has such passion
for things outside himself that his senses are dulled to things of
the spirit. The free man is like Spinoza, “the God-intoxicated
man,” who chose to grind lenses in his attic workshop rather
than compromise his convictions and occupy the chair of philosophy in
a great university. He was inebriated with what he called “the
intellectual love of God.” So the senses of the free man become
somewhat deadened to the appeals of the flesh.
The
Christians were told by Paul that as free men in Christ they were not
to be drunk with wine, but to be “filled with the Spirit.”
This is
spiritual
inebriation.
So the free man is stimulated from
within;
the
unfree man from without.
How
to Be Free
Inasmuch
as all that we have said is in essence a lesson on how to be free, we
shall conclude with only a few further suggestions on how to make
freedom work.
1.
Freedom
lies in being bold, not cautious.
Robert
Frost makes this statement in a film presentation issued by
Encyclopedia Britannica. Realizing that boldness sometimes leads to
trouble, Frost went on to say, “Liberty is brightest in a
dungeon.” It is the eager life that puts boldness before
caution. This led William James to say, “Whenever a process of
life communicates an eagerness to him who lives it, there the life
becomes truly significant.” James insists that in the good life
“there is the zest, the tingle, the excitement of reality.”
It is only the eager life that is worthy of being called
important,
James
says. Be free by being bold! Be important by being free!
2.
Freedom
comes through the formulation of ideals.
In
his
Polarity
Louis
W. Norris points out that “freedom that grows should embrace
ideals which release the resources of the self.” He further
observes that “the self determines for itself its richest
nature when it explores all the meanings it may bring into its
experience.” Man is to fix his eyes upon ideals. Whether it be
in education, agriculture, science or business there is the ideal to
which he looks. He can see his
ideal
self,
that which he is capable of becoming. The resources of the self are
released through self examination. They are frustrated through self
deceit. One gains freedom by holding to the ideals envisaged during
his finest hours. Paul’s ideal was the Christ. Plato’s
ideal was universality. These men gained freedom by building their
lives around their best experiences.
3.
Freedom
is gained by living in the presence of free men.
History
tells us of many free men with whom we can live in the wonderful
world of books. In no realm has liberty of thought or action been
attained without the toil and suffering of the pioneer. Sherwood Eddy
once published a book entitled
Makers
of Freedom
in
which he observes that the best way to appreciate the price of
freedom is the study of the lives of those who fought for it. In this
book Eddy tells the story of William Lloyd Garrison, who as a
newspaper editor fought slavery for 35 years at a time when slavery
was regarded as a divine institution. He was responsible more than
any other man for creating a national sensitivity against the system
that eventually led to its downfall.
Eddy
also recounts the lives of Martin Luther, Francis of Assisi, Booker
T. Washington, Susan B. Anthony, John Wesley and others as makers of
freedom. Each student of history can make up his own list of the
world’s liberators. The important thing is to
live
with
such men. Harry Overstreet once told me that he was not the same
person after his own encounter with Socrates. “Socrates did
something to me,” he said. Later when he was to leave on a
world tour Dr. Overstreet wrote to me, “When I walk the streets
of Athens I’ll say hello to Socrates for you!”
The
one thing better than the study of history is to help make history.
There are causes that need our help and there are many free people in
our day who are dedicating their lives to these causes. We can live
in the presence of the best by casting our lot with them.
4.
Freedom
comes through building a new set of habits.
We
shall here enumerate the four essential habits given by William James
for keeping the mind free and alive:
(1)
Always look for the alternatives. If one is tied to a dogma he can
see no alternative. There is no further thinking for him to do. His
mind checks
out.
He
is unfree to explore. So the first new habit is to look for an
alternative on every important question that arises, whether
political, economic, medical, educational or religious.
(2)
Do not take the usual for granted. Be suspicious that there may be
better ways of doing things, whether it be running a school system or
studying for a final examination. Familiarity breeds conformity.
Alexander Pope describes our predicament with the usual when he says,
“Yet seen too oft, familiar with its face, we first endure,
then pity, then embrace.” If we do something long enough, we
not only decide it is right, but that anything else is wrong.
(3)
Make conventionalities fluid again. We love the conventional. It
makes it possible for us to write some things off without further
ado. Conventionalities are all right so long as they are servants and
not the master. While they are helpful in reducing the frictions of
life, they must not become ends in themselves, They were once fluid.
Let’s keep them that way.
(4)
Imagine foreign states of mind. This is perhaps the best
freedom-making habit of all, and it is probably the most difficult.
It is not easy to put ourselves in the place of the other person or
to see ourselves as others see us. Can the busy parent see himself in
the place of his adolescent daughter? Can the American view communism
as it is seen by a Russian? Can the segregationist feel the
frustration of a negro child who walks by the newly built white
school to attend “the school for negroes” down below the
tracks? And can the negro sense the fear the white man has of the
changes he feels are being forced upon him?
To
imagine foreign states of mind not only calls for sympathy and
sensitivity, but even empathetic imagination, which is the deepest of
all human needs. It calls for flexibility of mind. It demands of us
that we move
out
into
the lives of others. Our environment becomes sacred because it is a
shared experience. Life becomes good when we make it less difficult
for someone else. Harry Overstreet tells of the old sea captain who
gave his recipe for the free mind —“limber, loving, and a
little loony.”
And so it is. The good life is free. It is limber. It is loving. And measured by the usual it may even be a little loony.
_________________
Leroy
Garrett is Assistant Professor of Philosophy and Director of Lilly
Endowment Project for Superior Students, MacMurray College,
Jacksonville, III.