Professor Vaught made the argument this morning that freedom
can’t exist. He says the reason for this is evidenced by cause and effect
relationships. Considering it is extremely difficult to determine the
beginnings of the universe (we’re almost there!), it would be premature to
assume there was some sort of premeditated thought or driving force behind the
Big Bang. However, if we don’t look at the Big Bang and look at other examples
(such as the condensation of space clouds to create heavier elements and even
the decision to swerve left to avoid an accident), it seems pretty obvious that
there are always driving forces behind all actions. Even if we take the example
of the water which spreads out across a field, we know that the water does not
act on its own accord. It moves as a result of hydrogen bonding, adhesive and
cohesive forces, and gravity, among other forces. If we address the point that
making a choice is completely free, we can show that it really isn’t. Remember,
the reason why we are placed in a situation where we can make a choice is
ultimately not in our control. Why do I have to choose between apple pie and an
ice cream cone? My choice is sort of up to me, but I have the choice primarily
because two people decided to set up shops which sell apple pies and ice cream
cones right next to each other. The decision would not exist without external
forces.
So…Any thoughts? I was thinking that we really can’t have
freedom in these situations, because, as my chemistry teacher in high school
used to say: “Everything is connected!” There can’t really be anything which
comes out of nowhere; everything comes from something else.
Of course the big question here is: “Where did the universe
come from?!” I’ll let you guys battle that out, if you wish to.
Akshay, I think your point about your choice between apple pies and ice cream cones is due to the the fact that others made the decision to open up those shops. And the reasons they decided to open up those shops again depend on perhaps other external factors or decisions that were made. I think this perfectly proves Professor Vaught's point in that, no matter what decision we are making, there was a decision made before it to give us the opportunity to make our decision. Our choices even if they are OURS, are always based off something.
ReplyDeleteAnother thought I had during class was that even if our choices are made "freely" we are basing them off something. Most of the time, this is how society will view the action, how it affects others, or how it can affect oneself. These things immediately make the action not free because the consequence involving external factors will occur or is considered and exceeds the parameters of our own freedom because it includes other factors and people.
It would seem as if freedom as we defined it in class doesn't exist. This seems like a hard idea to come to terms with but its pretty hard to deny that all things have a cause-effect relationship. Perhaps we need to clarify our definition of freedom because I still feel as if there is something missing from the discussion. We talk about civil liberties as found in our Constitution and while they have a cause it still provides freedom from constraint which is what we seem to like to associate the most with freedom. The Bill of Rights was clearly not spontaneous and without cause but it does seem to provide us with something that I would like to call freedom. The freedom of religion seems to be more than just a choice, option, or opportunity. If we can't call things with a cause freedom, then how should we refer to them?
ReplyDeleteAkshay, I really like the ice cream pie example. I may use that in the future. It reminds me of the experience I had this weekend of being confronted by many choices and the indecision that inspired. What was interesting was that, if, as I think someone in class put it, our freedom is reflected by the number of choices we have, then to have many choices seems like being the most free.
ReplyDeleteIn the scenario in question, I found myself actually experiencing a certain vertigo of too many choices, such that any choice seemed dubious. I think this is the point behind negative freedom. To be clear, and so I expect you'll be able to identify, the scenario involved browsing through Netflix for something to watch.
I suppose that I feel the same way in the library, where there are so many books that interest me that it is difficult to make a decision about the one that I want to actually read. Yet somehow I do not feel beaten down by that experience, as I do while browsing Netflix.
A third example, buying a car, which my wife and I did recently. In some respects the decision was easier because there were a set of parameters which determined our choices for us. In point of fact, we eventually came to a point where there was one choice that was so eminent, it seemed foolish for us to select anything else. Now that is not negative freedom and the vertigo of Netflix, it seems to me.
Last thing, and this is partially directed at Nick and Payal's comments: the more I thought about our Friday discussion, the more I felt our discussion was sophistic. That is, that the argument that I made, which I think generally was persuasive, effective, was meaningless outside that particular frame of reference. In other words, I started to wonder if the question about freedom is a mere pedantic exercise, but not one that really mattered, because although we may use the word "freedom" in senses that do not actually obtain, the other senses, like the fact that something is "our" action, or civil freedoms, not only obtain but are meaningful to our everyday lives, our identities, and the possibility of justice ...
Freedom doesn't necessarily have to be the ability to make an original choice that was not affected by anything else. Freedom is the ability to make those small choice, like apple pie or ice cream. It doesn't matter if outside forces are the reason for you having those choices, simply having those choices is what makes you free. I guess the best way to phrase it would be to say that freedom is not an absolute. you can have partial or limited freedom.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Nick on this one. Everything has a cause and effect relationship and there is always a reason to choose one thing, even if that reason is trivial like which you prefer ice cream or pie (I would get both). So I find it silly to try and define freedom as a choice without reason or cause. I look at the situation as you have the freedom to choose between the ice cream or the pie, regardless of reason for the decision.
ReplyDeleteI also find the ice cream/apple pie example to be an extremely useful one. While I completely understand the sentiment behind others choosing for us, I still think that freedom may exist even in this situation because a particularly creative mind might realize that we are in fact not limited to these two choices at all. Perhaps we could walk down the street to the grocery and choose from a variety of standardized desserts, we could eat the pie with the ice cream on top, or perhaps we could go as far as opening up our own shop which sells the desserts we truly fancy if we have the means to do so. I suppose my point is that there is beauty in choice and we must realize that we are not as limited as it sometimes appears. Freedom is a commodity we must choose to embrace.
ReplyDeleteNo matter what you believe, whether it be the Big Bang, creationism, or whatever, you will eventually come to terms with the fact that at some point something came from nothing. Perhaps it was God or maybe even that impossibly small space with a near infinite amount of energy that would result in the Big Bang. Either way, even those forces had to arise eventually, nothing was just always there. Plus, speaking of freedom on such a grand scale isn't really measurable with something as puny as deciding between ice cream or pie. I think most people would agree that you have the freedom to choose either, or both, or neither. Where we come from, however, well that is an entirely different story.
ReplyDelete