This is a great play on the idea of freedom. I had never thought of freedom as a dangerous thing before my last philosophy class. As an American especially, freedom is such an ultimate ideal that couldn’t possibly be a 'bad' thing. The idea that freedom could be corruptible was a thought that had entered my mind. But the idea that freedom itself was by nature unstable and dangerous was a new thought. However, as laid out in many theories, freedom is thought to come about ONLY under the condition of irrationality. Which makes sense based on what freedom is, and the idea that people can be 'slaves to reason'. The minute that rationality comes into play, the thinker is limited by it. True freedom is the ability to do things with NO thought as to consequences. I question for the first time if I really want this 'redefined' freedom. The prompt here suggests that Kermit acts and thinks on his own. He has the ability to go to the doctor, to have a seat, etc. but most importantly, he has the ability to be shocked. He has, up to this point, been unconscious of his inability to act freely. He THOUGHT he was free, he thought he was his own person. And now he comes under the realization that he is controlled and limited in what he does, he is a literal puppet. But are we as humans also puppets in our own sort of way? Obviously we are a parallel to Kermit, everyday people are the ones who sit opposite the doctor to receive a diagnosis. And our diagnosis is limitation. I think that the most impeding thing is this idea of rationality that i spoke about. Humans are defined as rational beings and so even at our most 'free' moments we are still tied down, enable to escape the limitations of reason. I don’t think that any sane person can ever really be free. Or if they are, they will not remain free for any longer than... maybe 2 seconds.
You offer an interesting twist on limitation--the fact that we have Reason implies we are bound to use it! How fascinating! Are you equally implying that those of us who are more emotion-driven are more free?
I don't think that implication would go towards shown that we're free. Emotions have been given to us by evolution, and we did not choose them ourselves. Since we have them, we're (most probably) going to use them. Therefore, even in using emotion, people are not free.
I think that this prompt perfectly illustrates the tension between how we human beings perceive the nature of our freedom to be and what the true nature of our freedom truly is. Western philosophers have stated that our freedom is something that is essential to us and is something that we need to live life to the fullest. And I think because of this general mindset a lot of us will believe that we all have freedom within our lives. We perceive the freedom that we have to be almost unlimited as we feel that whatever decision we make with our lives is made due to our own conscious thinking. If I were to ask a random person on the street if he/she felt that he/she had freedom in their lives, there is a very high probability that the person will say yes. This is also what Kermit probably thought of the freedom that he had before the doctor showed him? the results of the x-ray.
There is however a fundamental problem with this approach to freedom, I dont think that this approach to freedom takes into account the power of the circumstance of a human being. These circumstances can include, social, political and even economical circumstance. Yes some might might acknowledge that these circumstances limit their choice in life but it is not often that they acknowledge that because of the circumstances their freedom is also being somewhat violated. The true nature of our freedom is limited and unless we are free to mould our circumstance, it will always be limited. This is what Kermit is about to find out in the prompt as he will find out that despite his perception of freedom, he does not actually have freedom as he is limited by his circumstance and in his case the hand that is inside him.
Is freedom that is limited by circumstance a bad thing? I think there is definitely an argument in saying that as long as we still perceive to be free, then all is well and when we do somehow realise that we are limited by circumstance(bad faith) we accept it like an existentialist would and continue with out lives.
I was especially interested in your last point Dave, that limited freedom may not be a bad thing. In fact it may be a good thing. Think of the Social Contract which is the fundamental premise of Democracy. People give up some freedoms to live together in civil society. It's not only a good thing, it's a necessary thing.
Dave I like how your comment mentions circumstance. I agree that some people may have less freedom than they realize- like Kermit! However I think this is what soft determinism tries to solve- the idea that we can still have free will within our circumstance and our constraints. For Kermit, the prompt shows him to be a puppet, completely under the control of someone else and presumably with no free will. The same is not true for humans. To make a vague reference to solipsism, we are completely alone in the way we think and perceive, so if we consider a decision to be our own, doesn’t that mean we have free will? Whether or not we could have acted differently is something for a traditional compatibilist to consider. But I think that on a day to day basis, in order to feel free humans only need to feel comfortable that the decision they are making is their own one. We at least definitely have more control over our lives than Kermit, because while we have limits due to circumstance, there is usually nothing to stop us from acting radically and suddenly. I think this links to Aaron’s point too? About how emotional outburst is in a way the most free we ever are, because it is spontaneous and not thought through, so perhaps it doesn’t have the chance to be a controlled decision.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great play on the idea of freedom. I had never thought of freedom as a dangerous thing before my last philosophy class. As an American especially, freedom is such an ultimate ideal that couldn’t possibly be a 'bad' thing. The idea that freedom could be corruptible was a thought that had entered my mind. But the idea that freedom itself was by nature unstable and dangerous was a new thought. However, as laid out in many theories, freedom is thought to come about ONLY under the condition of irrationality. Which makes sense based on what freedom is, and the idea that people can be 'slaves to reason'. The minute that rationality comes into play, the thinker is limited by it. True freedom is the ability to do things with NO thought as to consequences. I question for the first time if I really want this 'redefined' freedom.
The prompt here suggests that Kermit acts and thinks on his own. He has the ability to go to the doctor, to have a seat, etc. but most importantly, he has the ability to be shocked. He has, up to this point, been unconscious of his inability to act freely. He THOUGHT he was free, he thought he was his own person. And now he comes under the realization that he is controlled and limited in what he does, he is a literal puppet. But are we as humans also puppets in our own sort of way? Obviously we are a parallel to Kermit, everyday people are the ones who sit opposite the doctor to receive a diagnosis. And our diagnosis is limitation. I think that the most impeding thing is this idea of rationality that i spoke about. Humans are defined as rational beings and so even at our most 'free' moments we are still tied down, enable to escape the limitations of reason. I don’t think that any sane person can ever really be free. Or if they are, they will not remain free for any longer than... maybe 2 seconds.
You offer an interesting twist on limitation--the fact that we have Reason implies we are bound to use it! How fascinating! Are you equally implying that those of us who are more emotion-driven are more free?
DeleteI don't think that implication would go towards shown that we're free. Emotions have been given to us by evolution, and we did not choose them ourselves. Since we have them, we're (most probably) going to use them. Therefore, even in using emotion, people are not free.
DeleteI think that this prompt perfectly illustrates the tension between how we human beings perceive the nature of our freedom to be and what the true nature of our freedom truly is. Western philosophers have stated that our freedom is something that is essential to us and is something that we need to live life to the fullest. And I think because of this general mindset a lot of us will believe that we all have freedom within our lives. We perceive the freedom that we have to be almost unlimited as we feel that whatever decision we make with our lives is made due to our own conscious thinking. If I were to ask a random person on the street if he/she felt that he/she had freedom in their lives, there is a very high probability that the person will say yes. This is also what Kermit probably thought of the freedom that he had before the doctor showed him? the results of the x-ray.
ReplyDeleteThere is however a fundamental problem with this approach to freedom, I dont think that this approach to freedom takes into account the power of the circumstance of a human being. These circumstances can include, social, political and even economical circumstance. Yes some might might acknowledge that these circumstances limit their choice in life but it is not often that they acknowledge that because of the circumstances their freedom is also being somewhat violated. The true nature of our freedom is limited and unless we are free to mould our circumstance, it will always be limited. This is what Kermit is about to find out in the prompt as he will find out that despite his perception of freedom, he does not actually have freedom as he is limited by his circumstance and in his case the hand that is inside him.
Is freedom that is limited by circumstance a bad thing? I think there is definitely an argument in saying that as long as we still perceive to be free, then all is well and when we do somehow realise that we are limited by circumstance(bad faith) we accept it like an existentialist would and continue with out lives.
I was especially interested in your last point Dave, that limited freedom may not be a bad thing. In fact it may be a good thing. Think of the Social Contract which is the fundamental premise of Democracy. People give up some freedoms to live together in civil society. It's not only a good thing, it's a necessary thing.
DeleteDave I like how your comment mentions circumstance. I agree that some people may have less freedom than they realize- like Kermit! However I think this is what soft determinism tries to solve- the idea that we can still have free will within our circumstance and our constraints. For Kermit, the prompt shows him to be a puppet, completely under the control of someone else and presumably with no free will. The same is not true for humans. To make a vague reference to solipsism, we are completely alone in the way we think and perceive, so if we consider a decision to be our own, doesn’t that mean we have free will? Whether or not we could have acted differently is something for a traditional compatibilist to consider. But I think that on a day to day basis, in order to feel free humans only need to feel comfortable that the decision they are making is their own one. We at least definitely have more control over our lives than Kermit, because while we have limits due to circumstance, there is usually nothing to stop us from acting radically and suddenly. I think this links to Aaron’s point too? About how emotional outburst is in a way the most free we ever are, because it is spontaneous and not thought through, so perhaps it doesn’t have the chance to be a controlled decision.
Delete