Category: Concept of Freedom

In a baffling Today Show monologue prior to the 2016 Australian federal election, television personality Lisa Wilkinson went on an outright tirade against opposition leader Bill Shorten, slamming him for the apparent sexist comments he made about the role of women in childcare decisions. Twisting his words, Wilkinson accused Shorten of being sexist by implying that he “confirmed the outdated belief that women take care of all things regarding looking after the kids”. This perverse interpretation of his words to somehow read sexism, is the society we live in now. The politically correct society where anything can be interpreted as being sexist, racist, homophobic or Islamophobic.

What’s most worrying about this however, is the consequences of this ‘call-out culture’; the silencing of opinions and the restriction of freedom of speech. In this kind of society, it is of the utmost importance that contemporary media challenges political correctness, to allow for freedom of opinion in our nation. One such piece of media which successfully accomplishes this, is Bill Leak’s satiric art. Bill Leak is widely recognised as being a provocative artist, pushing the boundaries on various sensitive topics including; extremism, child negligence in Indigenous communities, and also political correctness in Australia. Leak’s pertinent use of a variety of satiric techniques, invites the reader to see the hypocrisy of the call-out culture preventing free speech, and in doing so promotes attention towards these more important albeit uncomfortable issues seen all over Australia.

Bill Leak’s art is renowned as being a key contributor in forging the fight for free speech in Australia. He accomplishes this by evoking a visceral reaction from us. He makes us feel uncomfortable. Now, at first I thought of this as being too provocative. But then I realised that satire is meant to make us feel this way; to force us to reflect upon what is actually happening in our society.

Irony and verbal wit, have been techniques that Bill Leak consistently utilises in order to effectively make his point. In the 2014 cartoon seen above, Leak clearly uses the technique of situational irony by naming the cartoon as ‘Free to Speak’ in a situation where the man on the left is unmistakably not free to speak. Additionally, Leak uses verbal wit evident through the sarcastic nature of the man on the right’s statement; he clearly is not black for one. By using these techniques, Leak successfully ridicules the politically correct community, by addressing the key issue of the call-out culture; one cannot say anything without being labelled as being homophobic, racist or Islamophobic.

As I reflected upon what I just saw, I was able to see the hypocrisy of these social justice warriors; in order to prevent oppression of disadvantaged groups, they silence the opinions of others and in doing so they themselves oppress those not in these groups.

Leak further expresses his disbelief of this whole politically correct society, through his more recent 2016 cartoon titled, ‘Man Hit by Cartoon’ seen below. Leak effectively uses the techniques of lampooning and caricatures, ridiculing those who believe in hate speech and are thus heavily against free speech, by purposefully exaggerating the fact that their feelings were hurt after seeing a mere cartoon. By satirizing these social justice warriors, Leak invites his audience to see the foolishness of the politically correct society, thus allowing us to see the true consequences of this call-out culture; the silencing of opinions.

Social psychologist, Jonathan Haidt, further explains the effects of this culture in our community: “in a call-out culture, almost anything can be called hate speech… making people hesitant to voice dissenting views”. It’s this kind of community which restricts discussion towards the more significant issues in our nation.

As we look deeper into the purpose of Bill Leak’s art, we can clearly see it represents much more than just advocating for free speech. He deals with issues that are too uncomfortable, issues that no other media outlet can handle. Let’s be clear, we don’t see any informative media willingly discuss extremism, over possible confrontations with these terrorist organisations; something that has become even more of an issue after the Charlie Hebdo attack.

Yet, Leak embraces this challenge, and tackles these issues with open arms. In order to create the most offence possible, Leak frequently uses the techniques of burlesque and reductio ad absurdum. For example, the 2014 cartoon seen above, was in direct response to the recent Israeli-Gaza conflict, where upwards of 2000 Palestinians were massacred.

Rather than televising the conflict in an objective manner, laying down all the horrific facts, Leak fearlessly satirised it. In doing so, he successfully undermined the impact of this extremist attack on the wider public. Leak uses burlesque when mocking the behaviour of the father, whose desire to win the war is so much so, that he would even radicalise his own child – regardless of what his paternal instincts may say. He further undermines extremism, through his pertinent use of reductio ad absurdum. Leak takes the age of the children being conscripted into these terror organisations to the extreme. By doing this, Leak invites the reader to see these extremists in a different light; one where they aren’t as intimidating or as dangerous as they may seem.

Leak’s ability to effectively ridicule extremism as a whole, allows society to be more comfortable in discussing such a prevalent and contentious issue. This is what makes Bill Leak’s work so influential; his ability to satirise issues that are scarcely discussed in media, provoking the attention it so desperately needs.

The concept of freedom is an abstract one that is only realized when a person sets it into motion. In What is Freedom, Hannah Arendt challenges the widespread belief that liberty extends from the freedom of thought and will. Arendt emphasizes that actions performed unhinged from consequences are true bouts of freedom. What is Freedom dispels the accustomed definition found in government, textbooks, and marketplace and replaces it with freedom as a gateway of creativity and boundlessness.

The common sense notion of freedom has been etched into the framework of our society. The “Land of the Free” otherwise known as the United States of America, etches the entitlement to our life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the focal point of its’ Constitution. Similarly, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines freedom as “the state of being free” and “a political right” (Merriam-Webster.com). In economics, the term laissez-faire, the abstention by governments from interfering in the workings of the free market” is the quintessential cornerstone of one of our most defining national traits, capitalism (OxfordDictionaries.com). All three of these definitions stress, in one form or another, that freedom is possessive. We possess rights that protect us from an oppressive government, slavery, or even the businessincentive crushing Communism. The most general of these meanings “the state of being free” only serves to add intangibility and uncertainty to an already scantly defined concept. This common sense notion of freedom umbrellas the different ways a person can make decisions. These can be the rationality of a person to select a choice, to want/need to have ownership of property, or incentive work towards a cause of interest. Despite this general understanding, Arendt argues against these concepts. While “we hold human freedom to be a self-evident truth” Arendt defines the common sense notion just as the inward space into which men may escape from external coercion and feel free” .

Freedom in its pure form is an abstract concept. Since we cannot empirically measure freedom by the number of people emancipated from slavery, nor can we quantify its’ workings through calculating marginal utility, the crux comes from establishing an encompassing operational definition. Arendt developed a solution stating that for an “Action to be free, it must be free from motive on one side, from its intended goal as a predictable effect on the other” (Arendt 653). Thus for the infinite number of possibilities that can result from making a choice or an action, as long as the person makes a choice unbeknownst of any external influence, they are free. For example choosing between multiple choice options on an AP exam does not entail freedom if the test taker reads the question and selects the answer that best fits, even if there exist a potential margin of error. Contrariwise, if the student spontaneously selects a choice based on intrinsic preferences for an answer letter, ignoring the terms of the question and the answers, he has attained freedom. In this way the answer “as it is free is neither under the guidance of the intellect nor under the dictate of the will”. If will and intellect are engaged, however, the person is guided towards a solution logically and thus freedom is not present. The student is using goal setting, or aim. Since “Aim is not a matter of freedom, but of right or wrong judgment” if the student answers option C because the question leads them to the logical conclusion that the text in C is correct they practiced aim not freedom.

Arendt’s conception of freedom is based on the concept of principles. These principles “such as honor or glory, or love of equality . . . inspire. . . [and become] fully manifest only in the performing act itself”. This inspiration is the reason for freedom’s volatility. When a person exerts an action in a free state the person is guided by this burst of inspiration from the principle to select one out of an unlimited number of outcomes. Inspiration differs from that of an aim because is not fully realized until the action is completed. Additionally principles lose “nothing in strength or validity through execution” unlike goals which vanish once they are completed. Since principles are everlasting sources of inspiration, they outline the creative freedom that exists within man.

Arendt arrived at the conclusion that the ability to act freely, guided only by principles, is the reason that art exists. Humans exercise unrestricted talents with unlimited outcomes guided by undefined inspiration when creating art. This is why “the element of freedom, certainly present in the creative arts, remains hidden”. Although the end result of art is often guided by a motive such as recognition or money, the artist that created it was guided freely without any bounds. The effect of inspiration on a person becomes the axiom that “freedom is a worldly reality, tangible in words that can be heard, in deeds which can be seen, and in events which are . . . incorporated into the great storybook of human history”.

Arendt imposes a new meaning on the liberty of humans. Unlike the common sense notion where freedom exists in the forms of; ownership of property, the right to unalienable rights, and options to choose, a person practicing Arendt’s notion of freedom is not restricted by the choices in front of them. By letting go of your ephemeral motives, by replacing it with inexhaustible principles you unlock a freedom that has no bounds. Instead of having a choice from options, you can pick an undefined number of other options that are not listed. Conclusively Arendt believes that, freedom is not the right to choose your own adventure. Freedom is the ability to create it.

The concept of freedom is not a skill to be learned, practiced or improved upon. Nor could it be utilized or withheld upon volition. It is only optional either in its existence or in its exercise. It can either be increased or diminished by wish or labor. The idea of being free begins when we are (what we believe to be) conscious of how we limit ourselves and our destinies to any of the confines of the presumed fate that we have already accepted. It is taking place not only when we are aware that it is existent, but when we are convinced that we can redirect ourselves from what we believe was the inevitable outcome and steer ourselves to one that is more desirable. And it is free will that has ultimately occurred when we have mindfully acted upon a decision that we believed was possible of achieving.

One important point that we must mention is that a person is not free to act if he is without an opportunity to do so. This might make us ask how does one truly know if t! here is an opportunity awaiting? First off, it would soon become apparent in any situation if there was one that did or did not exist. Second, if there was not one, or if we needed another solution, then we must decide whether to seek out another one. I feel that there always exists the possibilities of other opportunities in our endeavors mainly because if there is a cause; ones desire, it will lead to the effect; the motivation needed to make it a reality, then we would ultimately manage a way of presenting ourselves with an opportunity for an alternative route around the what we believed was our fate. Otherwise, I uphold that if I cannot conceive of any alternative opportunities, nor have desire to seek one out then I have neglected to exercise what I believe is free will. For instance, If I had the desire to play a piano and was told that I could not play one because there was not one around me or in sight, this would mean that I am not able play the piano.

I should not necessarily imply that I have no desire to, and to the lesser extent, imply I am not capable of finding an opportunity to play on one. I am aware that not even for a split second would I have to accept not physically being able to play a piano because it would be overshadowed by my minds capacity for using the rational and contemplative problem solving skills that I have learned to develop. Because of this, these tools would allow the arrangement of thoughts that would devise the methods for the needed efforts. Then the efforts given would ultimately enable the manifestation of my desired event(s). Already, from the moment I was presented with the situation, I with a libertarian mind frame, knew that I could choose a fate by just sitting down and accepting that Im not going to play a piano because there is not one in front of me. But why would I do that when I could seek out an opportunity and think of who I would ask, where would I go to find one, how would!

I get there, and when should I act. And by exercising these components of what I believe is my free will, the solution would appear to be simple; I would go outside, get into my car, drive to the music store, and select that electronic piano with the funky sound that Im dying to hear. I choose this to be an example of my free will because this simple cause/reaction scenario has proved that I not only had the power of letting a momentary desire becoming denied, but it could ensure me of the power I had to appease myself at the moment I felt that desire.

On the other hand, If we were determinists and we questioned as to what caused my desire to come true, we might be able to say that the choice I made to get into the car and drive to the music store itself made it so. This is, in it’s own sense, is true, and it leads there being a co-existence of two legitimate reasons; which is between what I thought was my free will acting against my presented circumstance or me simp! ly making my unconsciously ritualistic choices that determined the outcome. For such a reason, I cannot say whether I know what the truth was in the matter nor do I think that anyone else can, but I do know it is hard to prove either false. Therefore, it is often too hard to decide in situations which view was solely at work.

One thing we have to remember is that my desired event would have never overtly offered me any opportunities if I could not have chosen from them regardless of which theory we adhere to. And sometimes, we do not have to think crtically about the opportunity we have that is given, that we chose from; for that it is naturally the way we desire it to be. I believe that choice, the forerunner of free will, is simply a matter intellect; it varies more or less when we apply our minds abilities into our problems so that we can create alternatives that would give us other opportunities. Let me add that I, being primarily a libertarian, think that it is imperative that we must be at the highest levels mental awareness when we create opportunities if none other are presented, because otherwise, it is more of just a determined choice that was less consciously executed, and thereby to my definition, does not imply that free will was excercised. The more we consciously, meaningfully, and intellectually choose amongst any of the options that we – ourselves have created (or at least something or someone else has presented to us), the greater the degree of it being the choice of free will that will allow us to succeed in acquiring our desires.

It has been believed that there lies in conjunction from all ideas and actions in our universe, an antithesis. Just as these two views are intended as the antithesis between each other, at times, they are more interrelated than we give them credit. It is hard for me to conceive how either can exist independently from each other in regards to human will, when I think how incomprehensible it is not to believe that there needs to be some degree of “will-power” when choosing upon an opportunity that will stage its desired outcome. So, somewhere between the libertarianism and determinism spectrum rests a balanced state of compatabilism where both theories can exist (as what I have eluded to address as what has occurred in our example). Personally, as a dualist, I generally believe that the mind is separate from the physical. Restating from my general view on freedom- the mind knows only of the limits it accepts – I will fortify to the concept of free will that it is only to be associated with the mental state(s). Thus, I will leave free will exclusive to the mental states involved in our human endeavors.

Since we say that all events were derived from prior decisions that we at some point made is what basically defines determinism, we could possibly include anything that experiences a physical destiny, is subject to pre-determinism. If we look back at the microscopic incident of when we theorized that it was me driving to the music store, the reason for what determined my desire to be fulfilled, this is an analogous comparison to the macroscopic phenomena of how the theorized “bigbang” set a whole onslaught of cataclysmic activities which was believed to be the cause that started the formation and functioning of our universe. From this colossal event, it pre-determined all of the substances and physical properties into existence. It was why we have magnetic attractions, physical forces, the elements, galaxies, stars, solar systems, planets, and of all, life! All of them (cautiously excluding human life) have been pre-determined to act, behave, or just exist in some manner because it was how the way the universe came to settle after the big bang. This is why a rock will stay in one place at rest and will only move if another force has been applied to it. Why also that rock will fall off a cliff because of gravity.

It is why water will always flows downhill and settles at its lowest point. And again, why electricity will flow to the path of least resistance and how energy constantly seeks a state of increased entropy. These are just a few physical properties and that will always exist under a subset of pre-determined events in our universe – not because they want to, because they have no choice unlike the human mind. But with our bodies, they are physical entities existing like everything else; will get old and we will eventually die. It has no choice because it is predetermined in our genetics that we will only live so long, before our time runs out. No matter how powerful our free will may be, we will eventually secom to the inevitable functions of life’s predetermined events. We can exercise a great degree of free will and choose to control the way we live life instead of letting the way of life control us, however, we still cant stop ourselves from dying. And ultimately, it is free will that will stand no choice to a pre-determined, universal event such as dying or having a moon-sized asteroid about to collide with earth, but we wont go without saying that at least mankind was capable of desiring to live and could brainstorm for opportunities how to live longer but the event itself will still happen.

Let me reiterate that the main point of my views and explanations explain that human endeavor operates on a compatabilist frame of thought. I, myself, believe that the amount of free will we exert governs how likely we are to consciously and intellectually decide on an opportunity that will successfully lead us to the desired event. Between free will’s possibilities versus determinism’s certainties, it might be true to say that our environment is ultimately responsible for the way we perceive our destinies and ourselves while it is up to the individual themselves to view how the human will operates. I also think why free will is practically exclusive to man is because of our intellectual and conscious advantages in the freedoms of choice that we possess over any other animal. And all inanimate objects in nature, including our bodies themselves, which are without thought and conscious, are completely at the mercy of the universe and its pre-determined fates. I ultimately feel that being limited to a hard deterministic mind frame causes us to underestimate the power of the mind and its abilities, thus, we are then naturally and unconsciously limiting ourselves without freedom of will to something less with whatever it is that we are accepting as our fate. We can change this if we become ambitious enough to believe and use our greatest gift our minds at a much deeper level and accept the possibilities behind free will; we will then immediately be able to lift away many of the barriers of naivet that we have laid in us and begin to see what being free is all.

The year is 1963. Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators congregate at the steps of the Washington Monument to advocate for Black rights, both civil and economic. The year is 2014. Hundreds of activists participate in a protest in Ferguson, Missouri to call attention to the shooting of Michael Brown by a police officer. Both of these marches were peaceful and nonviolent, but the former is venerated while the latter is condemned. The narrative of diversity has in the past shaped and continues to shape our views of demonstration and its participants. When most people think of Black protestors, they think of Martin Luther King Jr. , Malcolm X, and Rosa Parks in the era of the civil rights movement. The methods of these individuals and their followers shaped the views of Americans on what demonstration should look like. On one hand, Martin Luther King Jr. preached peace above retribution: “Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon, which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals. ”

Contrarily, Malcolm X once said, “If violence is wrong in America, violence is wrong abroad. If it’s wrong to be violent defending black women and black children and black babies and black men, then it’s wrong for America to draft us and make us violent abroad in defense of her. ” He was pointing out the hypocritical nature of the white man’s actions; he used violence against everyone else, but could not stand when the violence was turned against him. Martin Luther King Jr. was praised for his pacifistic principles while Malcolm X was condemned for his passion to protect his Black brothers and sisters. Ultimately, even the most understanding of the dominating whites was only in support of Black revolution on his own terms. Plenty of people have heard of the Stonewall Riots. A rebellion against the arrest of gay and transgender people in a queer bar in 1969, it incited several days of protest on the streets of Manhattan and the first pride parade in its honor the following year. However, one of the leaders of the riots was Marsha P Johnson, a young impoverished Black trans drag queen largely unacknowledged in academia surrounding both the gay liberation and civil rights movements. According to Stolze, during the first night of the riots, Johnson is credited with throwing a shot glass at a mirror, shattering it in an “act of defiance [that] became known as the ‘shot glass heard around the world’”.

In 1992, Johnson’s body was found in the Hudson River. The police dismissed the insistence of people who were close to her that she was not suicidal, quickly ruling her death a suicide (Stolze). This reaction is far from uncommon. As of 2015, “just 17 states and the District of Columbia have laws that include gender identity protection,” meaning discrimination is still legal against trans people in most of the United States (Blaise). This discrimination is especially prevalent against Black trans people, who made up approximately 75% of the recorded transgender murders between 2013 and 2015 (Blaise). Merriam Webster defines prejudice as “an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge” (“Prejudice”). The feeling hinges on a fundamental misunderstanding. If people knew more about one another, they would understand each other better, leading to greater racial harmony. The problem predominantly lies not in the offering of education—though there are always ways to teach more—but in the desire of humans to seek out and retain the knowledge. It’s easy to get students to learn: include the information in a curriculum, require that course to be taken, and hang their future on their grade in that course. Adults are much more difficult to convince to learn. They don’t generally take classes from which they might receive grades. However, they do ordinarily have jobs. If the knowledge was to be made essential to their performance in their position, more adults would learn and keep the information. Employers must be held responsible for the ability of their employees. People would become more educated, but it would also cause trades such as marketing and social work to become more successful due to the workers’ increased understanding of their target audience, thus boosting their effectivity with patrons not previously accessed. In the age of globalization, enhanced understanding of other cultures ought to be mandatory for any job, but especially those revolving around human interaction.

Today, the public opinion of Black protestors is deeply rooted in the discriminatory dichotomy of the civil rights era and distaste for queer activists. Communities dehumanize these advocates and treat them with scorn. Even as they protest peacefully for rights, lingering animosity causes blame to be shifted to those attempting to incite change. Still, education and understanding have been and remain the most effective ways of counteracting prejudice. If the communities understood one another’s perspectives, real advancement could occur.

There is no one answer to how modern freedom is defined within political philosophy. In a free country with a modern democracy, political freedom could be defined as justice and fairness. Rawls and Nozick both present a version of negative liberty but offer different views of what freedom is. Both of these two philosophers envision a different role for government on how to enforce and protect their version of freedom. There are two types of liberty; positive and negative. Positive liberty is freedom to act upon one’s will and evolve around entitlement. This freedom is the ability to achieve your goals. Negative liberty is freedom from outside interference and evolves around natural right. This freedom is a zone of non-interference.

Modern freedom deals with things like money, food or access to services like healthcare and sanitation and who gets to decide who gets what and on what basis. Nozick and Rawls have two separate ideas of freedom. When equality is valued over freedom wealth imbalances in society must have a small gap even at the cost of individual liberty. When freedom is valued over equality individual rights will be respected even when that means accepting large wealth differences.

John Rawls, a 20th century American philosopher, born in Baltimore Maryland, USA in 1921, argued social and economic inequalities are ethically justified if and only if they are of the greatest benefit to the least advantaged members of society. This would create a more level playing field for members of society. People are allowed to engage in a world of economic exchanges that are mutually beneficial and that may result in some people accumulating more wealth than others. Still no one may get ahead at the expense of the needest. Wealth redistribution plays a huge role in his version of freedom, which means a larger role for government. This is a form of needbased justice that focuses specifically on making sure that everyone is actually in a position to achieve their basic needs. So Rawls serves the utilitarian ideal and that no one may be left behind and makes wealth imbalance be strictly controlled into society. In theory this idea works. There’s a problem in this practice though. This means everyone is getting what they need which in theory sounds fair, but in reality favors people in need and puts those less in need at a disadvantage. This form of freedom is actually unfair to those who have gotten the most wealth through hard work. For example a heroin addict may consume tremendous resources. There are methadone clinics to establish and hospital stays to cover. Homeless shelters need to be constructed. All that is expensive and the money must come from somewhere. There will always be those that abuse the system. This brings society to a stand-still and holds everyone back. People cannot move ahead unless the poorest of the poor do. The bottom 1% can hold the rest to infinite ransom. Rawls liberty is mostly taken to be negative liberty.

20th century American philosopher Robert Nozick disagreed with John Rawls’ idea of freedom. To demonstrate why he disagreed, Nozick created an experiment about professional basketball. Wilt Chamberlain, probably the most famous athlete of his day decided that he’d only play under certain conditions. He states he will only play if tickets for games he plays in costs 25 cents more than tickets for games he doesn’t play in. As well Chamberlain will be paid $100,000 more than the other players. He is popular, so more people will show up for games he is playing in even with the extra price. Since he is the draw he is entitled to ask for more money than his teammates. Nozick argues we cannot and should not try to even out the naturally uneven playing field. We may start out with unequal amounts of wealth but were each entitled to the stuff we have, provided we didn’t steal it or obtain it unjustly. So if you are Chamberlain, you are more than entitled to have and want more stuff even if the other players don’t have it. He’s freedom to have more does not cause the others to have less or restrict their freedom to achieve wealth. If his talent at basketball leads to a mass amount of wealth while others go hungry, that’s not his fault. Nozick’s liberty can also be taken as negative liberty.

Although both Rawls and Nozick’s freedom are considered negative liberty they can be easily differentiated. Rawls believes in a large role for government, especially with the job of redistribution of wealth whereas Nozick’s only role for government would be police protection of private property and legal enforcement of laws and contracts. The other major difference is Rawls believes in his difference principle which is founded on two principles. First, no one is left behind and the less fortunate will receive more whereas the better off will receive less and second everyone has equal opportunity. Nozick however, disagrees completely believes this is unfair to those who are better off. Imagine working your way up from the bottom and finally reaching a point where you’ve amounted a mass of wealth just for someone to take it from you because another member of society was lazy, uneducated and needed a home paid for by the government. Now, you have to pay much more just to carry this member of society and your life’s work becomes much less. For this reason I believe much more in the freedom and ideology Robert Nozick has presented. I do not believe the better off should be punished just for being better off. I believe the less well-off should not hold the better off back. You do not decide how much you have when you start in life but you can definitely decide and work for how much you end with.

Dystopian Literature question the potential power that language has in both Atwood ‘HMT’ and Orwell’s ‘1984’, where it presents the need to use language as a form of identity, gaining knowledge and its various uses in expressions.

‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ presents the loss of individualism by the handmaids’ patronymic names. Atwood deliberately uses preposition before the name of the commander in charge “Offred” to create a new identity so that they can fulfil the new function in the forceful regime. Similarly in 1984 the importance of name signifies the importance as Orwell only mentions Julia’s first name and not her last, which could contribute the notion of a woman’s last name being insignificant because of its changeability. This was usually at the time when the women would take the last names of their husband thus linking to 1984 and Handmaid’s Tale since this perception of a woman’s name therefore limits the freedom that women could experience. During Atwood’s time, second wave feminism was brought in to fights for their rights to vote and the many injustices that they were faced with in order to fight against these social conventions the novels are presenting.

Language is presented in a deceptive manner in both ‘1984’ and ‘The handmaid’s tale’ as it also contributes to limiting freedom. In ‘1984’ there’s a clear indication of deceptiveness when the names of the buildings “Ministry of Love”, “Ministry of Truth”, “Ministry of Peace” are actually antonyms, thus creates a false appearance which employs the concept established in the novel called “doublethink” and also emphasises the actual role they have in Ingsoc. The Ministry of Truth specifically changes the truth of news, entertainment and more into fitting the party’s ideologies. This is similar to how Adolf Hitler, former leader of Nazi Germany, used education to imprint the Party’s ideology into children’s textbooks. These ideologies were to love Hitler, Anti-Semitism, militarism and to be obedient to one’s state. By also using familial terms such as “Big Brother” defies its loving nature of the words as its sole purpose is to become an icon that forces its citizens to idolise him or else face the consequences by being vaporised. In ‘Handmaid’s Tale’ Atwood also uses a familiar term, “Aunts” to mask the threat they can cause. It is clear that the aunts have an important role in the society as Offred does link in throughout the novel of the different rules and expectations that “Aunt Lydia said,” a handmaid’s must hold. It links in with a darker motive of the government to use these figures in order indoctrinate the Handmaid’s into fulfilling their functions. Therefore language is used to deceive the citizens into believing the inaccurate truths and figures of the party, thus limiting their freedom.

By also controlling the language, it restricts the society’s individual right to express themselves by removing the individual thoughts that cannot be expressed. In ‘1984’ the government’s creation of “Newspeak” withdraws the citizen’s rights of freedom of speech as Symes exclaims that the “whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought,” so by narrowing the ways a human can express themselves, it would in a sense expel any rebellious behaviour as there would be no words to express these emotions. When Winston does get hold of a book and starts to write “DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER” he’s able to express himself properly. In ‘Handmaid’s Tale’ when Luke says to Offred about the meaning of Mayday, “It’s French he said. From Maidez/Help me” it encourages the readers to also reflect on the forgotten Origins of the English Language.

In conclusion, Dystopian Literature limits language in order to limit freedom by removing individualism that resides in names. So totalitarian governments like Ingsoc and Gilead’s society would rather deceive their citizens into believing in false reality that their world is fine by indoctrination but also unable to express that they’re oppressed.

America is the freest nation in the world. A lot of people dream of getting into this country and have the same opportunities that Americans have. In other words, opportunities mean freedom, freedom of choice. The concept of freedom, as the right of choice, originated in ancient Greece, it has played a fundamental role in the development of people over the past few thousand years. It was gradually transforming each person from a passive object of biological evolution into an active participant in society. Freedom is very important to American society. In many countries, a person’s freedom is very limited because of the behavior and policies of the state. There are certain threats to freedom which are currently affecting other countries and can affect America in a future. Concentration of power, government and ignorance from the people can be considered as serious threats to freedom. However, people have a natural power to stand up for their rights and protect their freedom and the freedom of society. There are lots of ways to preserve freedom.

Plato (a student of Socrates and a teacher of Aristotle) in his book “The Republic” wrote that the quality of a person’s choice (the degree of his freedom) depends on the knowledge and wisdom that he acquires on his life path. Freedom is the opportunity to choose and make a decision logically, based on the internal values, needs and current situation. If a person is born originally free, then, without an understanding of this world, he would immediately act from infancy in the way, which is necessary for him or her. That means, the acts will be inefficient, based on a lack of information. Therefore, a person is born completely helpless and completely dependent on parents. Gradually developing, he gains different levels of freedom. At first, an infant is fed only milk, then a child gains the freedom to choose food. When a kid learns to walk, he or she gains freedom of movement. Each year the child is given more decisions, gradually teaching him more freedom.

“Observation fully confirms what reflection teaches us on this subject: Savage man and civilized man differ so much in their inmost heart and inclinations that what constitutes the supreme happiness of the one would reduce the other to despair” Rousseau, J. J. (1754). Selections. A dissertation on the origin and foundation of the inequality of mankind..

Each person has a different understanding of freedom. Different people will talk about freedom in different ways, depending on education, social environment, mentality and internal values. Humans will also think differently about love, will, faith, creativity, which are disclosing in a new way with every stage of life. Just as a person, who is rising uphill, he or she sees more, develops, gains new knowledge and comes to the new values and goals with each new stage of the ascent. It indicates that with each level of development the understanding of the world becomes wider and deeper. If you ask children at school what freedom is, the answer is likely to be ‘holidays’. While education, not the “rest” from it, is a true freedom. An educated person has a wider choice of future for himself and his family.

Ancient Greek Philosopher Socrates two and a half thousand years ago changed the history by starting to think about human race, while other philosophers of his time were debating about nature. Socrates believed that the fate of each person is not predetermined and that a person determines his future independently and does not follow what was already destined. The recognition and acceptance by a person of a full responsibility for his life made the idea of Socrates’s freedom important and famous. Also, the courage of the movement against traditional views, religion and society made a contribution to Socrates’s fame. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socrates/

The art of predictions was developed in the ancient world. People went to the oracle for almost every decision. The Greeks saw the key to the interpretation of the mysterious will of fate both in dreams and in the flight of birds. It was impossible to change fate, but luck could be obtained through the favor of the Gods. Just like ancient Greeks people nowadays are trying to shift the responsibility for our future to someone else, who has better opinion. People tend to not believe in their efforts, in their thoughts it will not be enough to solve the existing difficulties. It is done usually because it is hard to overcome own mistakes. People do not like the hard way in life, but each of us has the right to choose. The concept of freedom always has its second half – responsibility. The more freedom, the more responsibility. This is both its price and its reward. And the more a person deserves freedom, the more responsibility he gains. Freedom is the power and the right to act according free will, understanding and accepting all the responsibility of actions and all the consequences of choices.

The measure of freedom of a smart and developed person is responsibility. The responsibility for people’s actions is described in detail both in the constitution and in the criminal code of any country. A free man consciously chooses a debt, and what he or she should do. That is the essence of freedom. The level of freedom and the degree of responsibility is expressed by a duty that a person voluntarily and consciously takes. Duty determines a person’s freedom. Perhaps the concept of duty was also introduced into ancient philosophy by Socrates, who showed his civic duty by submitting to a court decision (with which he did not agree) and accepted death.

A person’s freedom is an opportunity to independently control his behavior and choose his debt regardless of external influence. When a person doesn’t want to take the responsibility or the debt and willing to transfer it to other people, the soft despotism comes in play. As Sharansky said “Freedom’s skeptics must understand that the democracy that hates you is less dangerous than the dictator who loves you” Sharansky, N. (2006). Preface. The case for democracy: The power of freedom to overcome tyranny and terror. New York: Public Affairs.. When the government takes the responsibility and decides what is best is no longer freedom, no matter how “nice” the government is.

For a chance of development and for general freedom (people become freer as choices become wider) a free market economy is needed. Nevertheless, the market itself only provides an opportunity to find the most profitable way so that we can be useful to each other, it doesn’t do anything by itself.

The free market is not excellent, it does not offer solution on its own. It is excellent because at its core it brings freedom, the freedom that individuals use to search for new ways of life in harmony with the interests of their neighbors. Of course, there are problems and abuses associated with the market, but entrepreneurs, if they are not disturbed by the state, are looking for solutions to these problems in their pursuit of profit. Through these entrepreneurs, the market constantly meets the most urgent needs and the needs of consumers.

Due to the fact that the entrepreneurs are economically free, different individuals can better understand each other’s needs and voluntarily exchange goods and services. Only in this way people can provide incentives for exchange and trade with each other to improve the situation for each of them, while not requiring intervention from the government. Many competent people do not need a state to solve their problems, they just need freedom. For instance, not enough supply can be easily decided by the people who want to make profit out of this problem. In this way both will benefit, consumers and provider.

Free market is the best decision for giving more freedom to the people. Lesson 14.1 Much better than socialism, which is on one hand more peaceful, but, on the other hand, has no motivation for growth, in this way no improvement or development, what means less freedoms.

Plato also condemned full freedom, believing that gaining freedom as the goal of life to some extent interferes with the formation of the concept of society. In his book “The Republic” (360 BCE), he claims that the main purpose of human life is not to achieve freedom, but to serve society. Civil society is what people are, all natural and voluntary associations, which don’t require government. “Inverse relationship between civil society and political society – more of one means less of the other”. Less of civil activities and associations result in more government, fewer connections, psychological manipulation, less protection of our freedom and more power for politicians and government. According to Plato, even poets need to be driven out of the country, because they weaken people’s loyalty with their ‘mournful cries’. Plato is the first philosopher to talk about the dangers of permissiveness for fragile minds, because a person is weak and is a “captive of the sensual world”, who “tends to abuse freedom”.

In the third part of Plato’s writings there is the phrase “exorbitant freedom … for the state … turns into excessive servitude”. In “The Laws” Plato wrote: “I see the near death of that state where the law has no force and is under someone’s authority. Where the law is the sovereign over the rulers, and they are its slaves, I see the salvation of the state and all the blessings that the gods can bestow on the states.”. Therefore, it is the inviolability of the law that Plato claims is “the only true expression of freedom..

Also, The Declaration of Independence is clearly stating that the laws are made for protecting human’s rights and freedoms: “ 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.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness”. Following the law will help people to maximize their freedom.

Ancient Greeks gave people freedom and inspiration to intellectually develop and improve, which served as an impetus for the development of modern science. For many years, philosophers were thinking about responsibility and will, duty, and the danger of complete freedom, education and wisdom, helping to form a stable modern society.

For the health of freedom everyone needs to educate themselves and be competent enough to deal with all the problems which arise. Only then the nation will be free with no need for government intrusion.

What is your idea of human freedom? Do you understand it as independent of ecological context? My idea of freedom does not relate to the ecological context, at least not in this moment. This is because of what shaped me as a person, and the experiences that I have had. I believe that freedom is inherently personal, as an idea.

It is not something that can be shared – no two people would have the exact same notion of what freedom is. This is because each person relates to it in a different manner, because of the interactions that he has with the environment when he grows up. For one, it may simply mean the ability to a simple action, like walking – for others, it may mean having all the money in the world.

My notion of freedom is simple – it is the ability to do what I want to do when I want to do it, without having to obtain the permission of anyone it does not affect. This is easier said than done, though. Our interactions mostly lead to obligations, which then become constraints – and breaking free of those constraints is what I hope to gain, from freedom. There are multiple facets to freedom, in this case. The most obvious one is financial freedom – the world has become so transactional that everything revolves around the financial capability, and one cannot do what he wants without having the money. I learnt that having to rely on my parents for funding placed me under an obligation to obey what their opinions were, and this was undermining my freedom – I no longer had control over my life. This made try and be free at least financially, and I took my first step towards attaining what I think freedom means.

So why is my notion of freedom not related to ecology? It is mainly because I had few profound interactions with nature and the earth when I grew up. I was always taught that money is all-powerful, having been part of a financially weak family. That idea eventually seeped into my mind, and capitalism was imbibed deeply in my psyche. I never thought about the implications of what making money is, and how unsustainable the methods of making money currently are. I recently learnt that 100 MNCs are collectively responsible for more than 70% of the carbon emissions in the world and are collectively responsible for taking the world to the cleaners. So, I think that the idea that I have about freedom is becoming more inclusive about the ecological perspective, and shifting away from the typically capitalist one.