Everyone has a desire to express their own feelings, to behave as they feel moved to, to make their own decisions. This, I suppose, could be called freedom.
However, when a person cares about the feelings of others or even wishes to get along among others, freedom must constantly be compromised. This is no novel statement - it is the basis of the social contract and indeed of society in general. We must make sacrifices for the good of the group. Those who do not are punished for their selfishness.
I think there is a deep and fundamental irony in a nation that is so thoroughly influenced by its code of laws, persecutes criminals so aggressively, yet values freedom above all else. People aren't free to cross the street wherever they want to or to smoke indoors or to walk around naked in public, (to give three out of a million possible examples) yet we champion ourselves as being the freest nation in the world. Where I take exception to laws is where they restrict us beyond any reasonable demonstration of the potential harm of the targeted behavior. Laws are necessary but at a point they become cumbersome and service powerful minorities rather than the society at large.
But this is all too grand for what I intend to discuss. Relationships between one person and another or one and a small group are much more interesting to me than the relationship between a person and society at large.
Immediately in discussing interpersonal relationships I come across a tension.
I can say, and feel pretty convinced of my accuracy, that the more we care about someone, the further we go out of our way (in terms of restricting our will) to help them to be comfortable and happy.
However, at the same time, I find that often we compromise our freedom most around those people who we have just met and barely know, so as to avoid them making harsh judgments of us or forming a poor first impression.
So who are we more concerned with pleasing?
I think it is clear that while we will hold back significantly in respect of people we do not know very well and are interested in forming a potential relationship with, truly large sacrifices in freedom occur only with those we hold closest.
For example, in a social situation with friends and a new person, I will find myself holding my tongue about issues I would normally speak passionately about among just friends. I will be self-conscious and attempt to portray myself as a fairly middle of the road, temperate individual.
However, with someone I truly care about, I may be willing to make a compromise as deep as where I choose to live or may even give up something that I am truly attached to in order to please them. These are two entirely different levels of self-denial. New friends may cause me to "act" differently in a very superficial sort of way but people I love have the ability to influence decisions that will truly affect my life in the long run.
I have given much thought to this issue before. A conclusion I came to once is that the only way to be truly free is to free oneself from all social ties and live as a gypsy, a hobo, a person who answers to no one and to no group.
Quickly, I determined that shutting oneself off from all other people eliminates many potential feelings and options of things to do, opportunities, and negates freedom rather than promoting it.
So, how do we live amongst others and still take advantage of freedom - to be our true selves without being neglectful of others' feelings, needs, and rights?
Every decision to act or not to act deserves a consideration of the facts accompanying the situation. This is pragmatism. Say I'm with a group of people, conversing, listening to music, when I suddenly have the urge to sing along loudly to the music. I am moved by the beauty and the passion of the music and I want to express that, I want to join along with the artist, to share in that moment the pleasure they are experiencing by expressing themselves in that way. But I consider that this would be rude and would decrease everyone else's enjoyment both of the conversation that is occurring and, possibly, of the music that is being played.
Am I less myself if I choose to restrain my desire to sing and merely continue to sit quietly or to converse on whatever subject the other people are discussing? Or, does my decision not to burst out singing speak more of my true self than my desire to sing in that situation does?
I choose the latter. I think that a desire not to act out of the consideration of others represents an exercise in freedom. It is an expression of the strength we have to control our impulses and make compromises that will maximize the happiness among a group of people, whatever the size. Not acting is as much an expression of oneself as acting. We all have desires that feel real, visceral, fundamental to us. But controlling them successfully is even more meaningful to the definition of who we are. When we choose the well being and happiness of others over our own we are making ourselves into loving and caring individuals. Every time we restrain an impulse considering how exercising that impulse might negatively affect others we grow - we overcome our animal instincts, we reach to a higher goal of harmony.
When we live in harmony with others we experience true freedom.
I apologize for the delay since my last post.
