Freedom is one necessary condition for any of us to become human. Without freedom, it’s pretty hard for one to attain some sense of self-realization or to actualize one’s potentialities.
Becoming human, here, has a different
meaning. It has two connotations. First, it connotes a down-to-earth reality of
human beings. This human reality is no
longer the ideal self of Plato, which belongs to the World of Ideas, nor the
moral self of St Thomas, which belongs to the heavenly Paradise, but the self
with human experiences. It is the kind
of self which is very in touch with the world and all of its worldly
concerns. The tendency of Plato’s
view of the ideal self is to give up human experiences and be obsessed with the
ideal things in life. For Plato, what is
important in man is his soul. So, the
body is somehow left “unattended,” specifically the desires and emotions. It’s not only that desires and emotions not
given much importance but they’re also considered as hindrances for one to
achieve the ideals in life. This is also
of the moral self of St Thomas. St
Thomas believed that a human being has to follow his/her natural tendency to do
good as it is implanted in his/her soul by the supreme good Creator/ God. If possible, at all times, he/she has to
follow the dictates of his/her conscience.
Otherwise, salvation will not come to his/her way. These two tendencies are other-worldly and considered
no humanly.
Becoming human
is understood, in this context, as necessarily human without any color of otherworldly dimensions. The ideal of this
self-project is ultimately self-realization as understood by Erick
Erickson. Erickson’s hierarchy of needs shows
different levels of needs of human beings, which ultimately ends up with
self-realization. Self-realization is
only attained once the lower levels are fulfilled like the physiological needs,
safety needs, and the need to belong. This
way up on the hierarchy is very rooted in one’s experiences, which implies that
all other aspects such as desires and emotions are recognized as part of human
growth and development.
Becoming human,
therefore, is inconceivable if one has no freedom. In physiological level, for example, Erickson
believes that if basic needs like food, clothing, shelter are met, one is free
to move upward or say, he’s free to attend to other of his/her needs. If he/she fails to meet these basic needs,
then it’s hard for him/her to fulfil some of the higher needs. In real life situations, if one has nothing
to eat, or keeps on looking for food every meal, it’s hard for him/her to meet
some of his/her higher needs like safety needs or need to belong. Freedom in this sense is understood as free
from restrictions coming from external factors.
It’s undeniably true that one’s exercise of freedom must have been done
in an environment –physical or social, where there are less infractions of
liberty. Physical environment may
include the immediate place we live like dwelling in Alaska means we’re not at
liberty to wear light clothes, or may include the available resources in the
place where we live. Social environment
refers to practices, customs, laws, etc. of the group where we live and
belong. These social conventions have a
“force of a habit” influencing us to conform with the group.
HUMAN FREEDOM
Is man
free? What is the source of
freedom? Philosophers in the past
claimed that human being has two faculties: will and understanding. Will intends for what is good whereas
understanding for what is true. Whereas
will serves practical purposes, understanding for theoretical purposes. Human will is the source of freedom. Although there are several definitions of
human will like Medieval philosophers identified will as the will to do good,
Kant uses the term “good will,” Nietzsche uses “will to power,” but we can
highlight two important implications from these definitions: (1) will is a free
act/ volition, and (2) will is the will to do what is good. Based on the first point, with this faculty
of willing, man is a free agent. By
exercising one’s volition/ will, he/she makes a choice from multiple
alternatives. By having a choice, one
exercises his/her freedom.
BF Skinner, however,
argues that one’s exercise of making a choice (or his/her willing) is actually
influenced by his/her environment. “Man
can be conditioned,” Skinner claims. Willing
(in a sense, freedom) is an illusion since in every possible way, man’s
environment curtails his/her making of choice.
Willing does not go beyond the possible alternatives already available
in his/her immediate environment. In a
certain sense, environment –physical or social, influences one’s decision. But if
we look at it from the perspective of the one who makes that decision, we can
still conclude that the decision he makes is still his and his alone. No one has done it for him; some external
influences are present though. I think,
the problem of Skinner is a simple neglect of the difference between the “act
of willing,” and the “circumstance of willing.”
Skinner makes emphasis of the circumstances in the process of
willing. But if the emphasis is given in
the “act of willing” itself, we surely arrive at the conclusion that man
is freely making a choice.
Conditions –whether external or internal, are always present in making
decisions but it doesn’t defy the fact that “the act of making choices” is volitional, not conditional.
Maurice
Merleau-Ponty supports that idea that “decision making is done in a certain
situation” but it doesn’t necessarily mean that “decision” is not conditional
–depending on the conditions. Though
decision is situational –depends on a given situation but it is always
volitional. For example, there are many
conditions why a teenager will engage in premarital sex. First, we can cite some external factors like
peer-pressure and it’s a common story she heard from teenagers like her. Perhaps, it will come to her senses that
“everybody is doing it.” So, she decides
to do it herself. Second, we can also
cite some internal factors like it’s a good feeling to be in love and a nice
feeling too to engage in sex. Taking all
these factors, we conclude that her decision to engage in it is primarily
conditioned –thus, she has no freedom, no choice but to do it. In a certain sense, it’s true! But, if she opts not to engage in it, then her
option is still conditioned. Thus, in
either way –whether to engage in premarital sex or not, her decision is
conditioned –thus, not free.
Let’s try to
look the same situation in this way.
Take all the conditions (external and internal) as the given situation
of a teenager who’s in a dilemma of indulging in sex or not. In fact, this is the situation of teenagers in
modern times because of the influence of Western culture through mass and
social media. This teenager is already
in this situation. This given situation
offers her some options to choose from; and her decision is always within the
bounds of the given situation. She
cannot make any decision regarding the matter outside the given situation. In other words, her decision cannot be done
in a vacuum. So, decision-making is
always situational. As mentioned above,
though decision-making is always situational but never conditional. It is at all times volitional.
