On an intuitive level, most of us probably realize that to be powerfully influenced by someone or something besides oneself is a road to freedom. We edge toward obligation, toward voluntary submission of one kind or another, and we hope that it will change us. Often it does. We commit ourselves to someone, and learn to defy apathy. We demolish boredom with patriotism. We find a cause and lose our insecurity.
All too often, though, such homage is merely a swap. We fall in love and find ourselves not so lonely. Then we begin drinking to escape the demands of relationship. Next, we obsess over our work, and learn we can dry up our drunkenness. Then we become weekend warriors in order to defy the tyranny of our jobs.
All told, many of us spend most of our lives looking for a better ruler to free us from the last one. This easily devolves into serial “life changes,” each dehabilitating in its own way, each making a case for jaded. Finally, we may conclude with the philosopher that “The lives of the best of us are spent in choosing between evils” (Junius).
But what if there was a trump card, a master Master to defeat and order all the rest?—a kind of bright star we could venerate whose gravity would overcome all other poles?
In pursuit of such a master, an object of loyalty that could really free us—consider the following line of reason:
- The world was made.*
- We are part of it.
- Therefore, we must relate to a Maker:
- Loyalty, commitment, devotion, or—
- Disinterest, rejection, defiance.
- “a” is a subjection leading to freedom.
- “b” is a freedom leading to slavery.
- Will your freedom be shallow or deep?
On God’s earth, the attribute, "God’s man" is the highest position of freedom. To be at odds with life’s designer is to be out of alignment with your home, your fellow creatures, and yourself.
But to accurately picture divine subjection, an additional element must be added:
The Maker is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good—as demonstrated by the fact that he does not coerce his creatures into loyalty. He extends an offer of love…and waits. His mastery is not that of a despot or a corporate exec, not even that of a coach. His authority is clothed in the concern of a father; a father who knows that subjection to his supremacy will set a child free.
We wave a white flag to Christ, and find that we are safe from all cheap bondage, safe for all the best joys; as God-servants, we get free run of the earth.
* Point 1, “The world was made,” is a premise that many will challenge. An alternate explanation is proposed:
- The world is accident.
- We are part of it.
3. Conclude what you wish; it’s mere guess. Do what you want; it won’t last. Be who you choose; you have no staying power. All subsequent conclusions are mere rhetoric, mere conjecture, mere noise. Meaning is a word, and just that. Freedom does not, and never can, emerge out of chaos.
10 comments:
True, but let us not mince words.* It is only a paradox if you grant that the Nietchzean or later French Existential Freedom is the freedom you are refering to, an unbounded freedom. They negate the standard of good and, consequently, negate choice. The danger in assenting to that view in order to refute it from its standards one must appeal to the Hegelian dialectic using the opposite view (i.e., the Christian view properly speaking) and its negation (i.e., the negation of choice) to negate the negation (as dear ole' Hegel would say). This would, of course, throw the Kerkegaardians in a tizzy, bringing us back to the original problem of paradox. All told, this brief philosophic sketch is only to manifest that the argument must, in essence, be rhetorical rather than true "in rem." This is not to deny the glorious conclusion.
*This comment seems a bit pendantic in retrospect, but I still see merit enough to post it. Besides I took time to think about this one. So here we go...
Not having had the advantage of a good Philosophy class, I had to read your comment a couple times before I had any idea what you were saying. However, I think I agree.
To read this post on the level of paradox, one needs to initially think of freedom as "the freedom to do whatever the heck I want" (a distinction that quickly disintegrates).
Feel free to clarify your point if I misread you.
Essentially, I took REAL long way around to say what you summed up. The second point, which was the purpose of the brief philosophy lesson (fascinating if you like old men grindig axes, a hobby I have been recently picking up), was to manifest the difference between a rhetorical argument and, say, rigourous proof. Your argument rests in the rhtorical, not the proof. It is important to make a distinction or else we may fall into the maddness of modern philosophy and there conception of truth. Here is my sharp axe: Man ought to view the two forms if argument differently, BUT truth and knowledge can be gleaned from both. Both are different forms of knowledge and both valid. The rhetorical manifests what some might call common sense and wisdom, the other scientfic proof. Man's knowledge is mostly rooted in common sense, not scietific proof, while we claim the opposite. In here lies the essence of the Faith and Reason/Science debate.
The reason I brought all this up (aside from the whole grinding business) is that I have made very similar arguments in the past and have been tempted to think scientific knowledge was found. This forces us to rely on our own intellects rather than the mind of Christ (also think Colossians, "Beware of the hollow and deceptive philosophies base on the principles of this world, etc.). That would, of course, undermind your entire argument, and it is our Christian duty to see that our brothers do not fall, particularly in the ways we have.
This is not to say that you have fallen into the trap but rather it reminded me so much of my short comings that I felt the need to post it.
I think you're making a very valuable point: namely that it's easy to craft arguments of rhetoric (appealing to common sense) and slide into the mistaken belief that we're "proving" God?
But God is his own mystery, mercifully self-revealed, and not a "scientific" reality to be "proven" in a cavalier manner.
Did I get that right?
If so, the distinction is crucial, I agree. But please elaborate if I'm off.
But what if the world just is meaningless? You argue only from the point of view that the world has a meaning and one must choose not to accept it, but do you ever consider the converse? What if the world is meaningless and you are choosing to give it a meaning it doesn't bear?
Your argument that slavery is freedom wasn't very strong, but the worst of it, that I can see, is that you do not allow that there is freedom to choose. That freedom you surrender as your beginning point.
Overlyconscious, you're talking shit. Existential "freedom" does not "negate good". The opposite is more nearly true! An existentialist believes you must create good in a world that doesn't have the distinction between good and evil (or any other distinction) written into it. You must truly choose. In Ariel's world, there is no choice in this sense.
"But what if the world just is meaningless?"
Actually, I admit that possibility. I didn't attempt to argue that the world is, uncontestably, meaningful - although that's what I believe. I merely highlighted the fact that belief in an accidental world necessitates a "meaningless" worldview...the point I think you're reiterating.
"...you do not allow that there is freedom to choose..."
I'm not quite following you here. I allow choice on several levels. First, we must choose the type of world we think we live in - accidental or designed. Second, if we believe the world was, in fact, made, we must choose the nature of our relationship to the Maker. On a readily observable level, I would also assert that we all must choose the persons or causes to which we will devote ourselves. I don't believe anyone can live entirely free from allegiances of any kind. We are, in large part, defined by whom or what we reverence. There seems a world of choice in all this.
On an existential level, you're right - I don't see the possibility of "choosing" good, if good and evil do not exist. To talk about "creating" morals in a world without distinctions is an exercise in semantics.
Ariel, you are understanding me loud and clear, consider yourself also obliged to read Chesterton's book "Orthodoxy;" he talks very specifically about allegiances. But on to business:
Dr. Zen, Ariel's and my position is, understood in a certain way, quite true.
Sartre defined, and no existentialist worth his salt disputes him, that existentialism definition is "existance precedes essence.*" Simply put, choice defines man. You said as much in your post. The highest good to the existentialist is choice, the problem is there is no distinction between choice. In other words, there is no criteria to say that eating ice cream over shit is better. Both are choices THEREFORE both are good. To be fair, Sartre would disagree in his more optimistic moments and argue we must be careful what to choose for we define all of mankind. The above problem still remains: What form of mankind is better? The one chosen. You do not have to like it, but it is the consequences in order for meaningful goodness to exist it must have a mooring.
If you still don't believe me read Camus "Myth of Sisyphus and other essays." He concludes two major things in the collection of essays:
"One must imagine Sisyphus happy," and that we should not commit suicide. His arguments are inadequite if you are truly honest.
If you really want to delve into the point I would have no problem reading one of these texts along side of you (both?) and discussing it via email. These topics can not be appropriately and aptly addressed here.
overlyconscious@hotmail.com
*I think it is in his work Existentialism and Human Freedom. I do not have the book here in St. Louis, it resides quietly in the Garden State. Also the quote, a translation, is verbatim.
Orthodoxy became an immediate favorite when I read it several months ago.
Thanks for clarifying the "choice" issue; I find the philosophy of it fascinating, although as of yet I haven't had the chance to dig into it.
I may send you a note re: an email-discussion.
Re: the email discussion: please do. I have spent a lot of my time studying and thinking about it. It was a point of contention for me during late high school and early college. It more or less came to a head when I started reading Nietchze. I had to draw lines, so to speak.
Re: Orthodoxy: I thought some of your writing had the same tone as Chesterton. I wish he would infect my writing more, instead I get Salinger. "C'est la Vie".
Post a Comment