Dissenters of the traditional view that we ought to sacrifice ourselves for other people might consider this post simply a dogmatic reiteration of the “traditional” view. But if we fear whether our thoughts are fashionable or old-fashioned we most certainly reduce our freedom. I’d rather ignore current fads and simply say things as they are.
Individualists like Ayn Rand, Sartre, Nietzsche speak a lot about “freedom”. So what is so free about “freedom”. A prince in a Hollywood film says “True I can have anything I want, but like all men I can’t chose what I want”. Thus we often end up wanting things that really it is best for us if we didn’t want. This is the whole naivety of the Individualist view. It is also said traditionally that it takes a great man to command an army but only the greatest man can command himself. This is the essence of the Religions: the learning to be master of our self. Shakespere’s Othello is a model of how lack of self mastery makes us to weakest of men. We need only see an addict swearing they are in control and demanding “freedom” to do what they want to see the weakness of this type of thinking. A asked a Buddhist once what was wrong with the ego he said that the ego works in its own interests even at the expense of the whole self. This has turned out to be a very deep understanding of the problem; far deeper than the allegory of the Devil used by religions. The drug addict, or anyone with a compulsive habit, finds that what they want to do, indeed need to do, is actually bad for them.
“Simply look at how many people have died in the name of Freedom—it is far more than all other causes added together.”
However because the wish to do it is so strong they are prepared to ignore the side effects. I once saw a film of a smoking addict in a wheel chair who had lost both legs due to blood clots. The interviewer said that clearly the smoking was killing him, he said he didn’t care and was prepared to die bit by bit. That is a strong desire. Everything was sacrificed for the need to smoke. We would argue that at least a more balanced life with a mixture of other activities would be more worthwhile. But the addict won’t see this and their addiction and need to do what they want will be more valuable to them than even their own life. This is the nihilism and meaninglessness at the root of self-interest, exactly what the SRH says. In any case it is clear to see here the extreme individualist sacrificing everything here for a desire, when originally he wanted to be free from sacrifice altogether.So “freedom” where does it go wrong?
In a world where we really do determine our own future and every road is open what do we do? Are we like the Dice Man and freely pick 6 random possibilities like: {Eat, Sleep, TV, Sex, Defecate, Kill ourselves}. With complete unconditional indifference to the future and complete “freedom” from the Past we roll the dice and do whatever is says. Except we are deciding to then having our future dictated by a dice. What if we decide to obey a new die: {obey the dice, don’t obey the die}. Decide to roll that a few times and we’re back to square one!
Alternatively Individualists put emphasis on our “will” (Nietzsche/ Sartre) or “desires” (Rand). The idea is that we are what we do/will/desire. For Sartre it is our choices that make/build/design the future. For Nietzsche it is our inexorable innate will to supremacy that drives our very action. For Ayn Rand it seems (and I have only caught whiff of her philosophy) it is our desires/wishes which determine our future. Hers is by far the most juvenile and trivial philosophy: we are slaves to our own desire then exactly as in the above paragraph. She preaches the worst kind of imprisonment and her followers walk in the opposite direction to freedom. As religions endlessly try to persuade people, the Devil is most cunning and will promise you everything so that you submit your soul to him—he is the most expert door to door salesman. As far as I can see it Ayn Rand basically says give into his demands and do whatever you want even if it is bad for you.
Sartre and Nietzsche are however better versions of Individualism but they still seem to suffer from a lack of freedom. To say that we are free to exercise our will to power is to say that we are a slave to power. My personal life at the moment is exactly the will to gain power over the will to power so that I no longer need to be viewed as successful or worth something. Isn’t this the contradictory zenith of Nietzsche’s philosophy—freedom even from this universal principle? With Sartre my problem is that any choice we make to be successful must take into account our environment. If I wish to buy some food I have no choice but to go to a food shop. If you analyse why I wish to have food it is because my stupid body needs energy. I have no choice over this. I may chose to sit down and die from starvation, but really this is my stupid mind rebelling against having to do things which becomes just another thing I feel compelled to do. Whichever way I turn I find myself embedded “in a world”—immersed as a friend once called it. When we are underwater we cannot move without displacing water around us. So it is with the world we cannot move without the world moving with us—there is no escape, indeed even thoughts of escape are movements in the water!
No freedom is a complete misnomer. Even the search for freedom binds us to an activity that becomes a bore and an oppressive tyrant. Simply look at how many people have died in the name of Freedom—it is far more than all other causes added together and squared. Freedom begins when we accept where we are rather than confronting it and trying to change it. If we are trying to change it then we are just slave to another force from within. What proponents of freedom are really responding to is the notion of a sovereign self: it makes a difference whether the tyrant is from within or from without. That is the next discussion. Historically Freedom is an obvious major issue in the West because we are in opposition to our history of Slavery. Like a guilty man we are particularly sensitive to slavery and rather over do the freedom angle. What we ought to see immediately though is that without the possibility of slavery how can there be freedom? When we speak of freedom we are really admitting that slavery still exists.
Most of this is blogged already in this blogroll. The puzzle from ancient Greece of whether the Argo returning from its 10 year quest was really the same boat that left since every plank of wood had been replaced at least once on the journey. So it is with us. Which thought, which desire, which body part, which possession is really us? Are they all us? If so do we lose a bit of ourselves when we lose one? If we do then where is that bit of myself in my car, or in my hair on the barbershop floor? Rubbish it is just a car, it is just hair. There is nothing about me in them either on the shop floor on in my possession. It is the same as a piece being in check in a game of chess. It isn’t really in check unless you understand the rules of the game: we simply make it up. That is all the self is: something we make up. The search for freedom is just something we make up; and we can just as easily unmake it! If we were truly free we would be able to unmake it… but we can’t! Especially when we believe in a philosophy that is based upon that very belief in self. Free yourself; stop believing.
Like all things, Individualists are right about something however. It is correct that we take responsibility for what we do and we do find our self so that we can become master it. It is not good enough to just follow the crowd like sheep, any more than it is to simply switching off saying it doesn’t matter it’s all just make believe. This just sends us from one make-believe world into another where everything is make-believe—we start believing that everything is make-believe! It is not that easy. What does “make believe” mean anyway? Ayn Rand started off in the right direction, she saw the irony is forming a “group of believers in Individualism” but the Devil is strong and she fell foul very quickly of her own philosophy believing that this meant that she should follow her desires. She ironically became to a slave to herself as she ran from what she perceived was others becoming slaves of the mass. True Freedom ain’t so simple which is why mankind has been pursuing it for 10 thousand years and why so very few have ever achieved it.
No comments:
Post a Comment