Are you free?

Before you read any further, let me warn you that I am a fool and a bit of an ass, and this “article” is really just rambling nonsense that might only frustrate you.

Let that be the frame for everything you read here, since it's all meaningless.

Now for our question:

Are you free?

I don't mean marked down to zero, I mean are you experiencing freedom.

Well before you get to answer that--

I'm going to butt in like a total know-it-all asshole and answer it for you:

No you're not free. Like, at all.

In order to explain why, I really need to define the word: what even is freedom?

Of course, narrowing in on a universal definition, that's a big ask.

Too big, actually because it's not gonna happen.

Ever.

If we're being practical, the word has 10ish definions... https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom

At one moment you could satisfy definition 1:B (by not being enslaved or restrained) and fail to meet 1:E (by not having unrestricted access to my car, or any other thing that's privately owned by somebody who's not you) and thus, you could be simultaneously free and not.

But for the sake of this article, lets look at freedom in a modern ideological sense: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action (Source Merriam-Webster).

Are you free in your choices and actions?

Narrowing the scope on this single definition has really helped us clarify our answer, (which I'm still presuming to provide on your behalf) the answer is still a resounding: no, you're not free.

Now some of you, (especially those raised in the United States, where we are indoctrinated so hard we're proud of it) are probably thinking I'm a fool.

Well you're right! but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

I'm a fool and I own it but as far as I can reason, there's no such thing as pure, unhindered freedom, because you can never entirely remove necessity or constraint from your choices and actions.

At the most basic level necessity-- aka biological imperatives-- drive a whole shit load of your choices. You might choose a certain diet, but ultimately you must eat if you intend to not die. You might choose to breath through a kazoo, but choosing not to breath at all? Ever tried to simply hold your breath indefinitely?

Well you can't.

Unless physically impeded, your body will actually overrule your decision and start sucking air whether you like it or not. Even if you had the mastery of will to hold your breath until you pass out, that would be the point where your autonomic functions take over.

Because your body won't die unless its forced via malfunction or outside interference.

Now you might point out that a biological necessity isn't a complete restriction, because humans have at times made the tragic decision to eliminate biological need entirely even to the point of their own deaths... that's pretty morbid and disheartening, to think about, but yeah. That is an exercise of choice I suppose. However it's also the rejection and elimination of all other future choices, and while it might be freedom 1:C it's definitely not freedom 1:A since it's the permanent, sweeping elimination of future freedom, which is a clear restriction. I mean being an inanimate object puts quite a lot of constraint on your choices, does it not?

Now, beyond necessity:

The laws of physics and the limits of your own body place severe constraints on your freedom of action. In order to prove me wrong, levitate our of your chair and shoot lasers from your eyes.

Haha, so there.

But we don't need obnoxious straw men to dismantle the concept of unconstrained choice.

I'd go so far as to say that the limits of our own bodies places severe constraints on ALL of our choices. (Maybe these limits eliminate our choices entirely, and reduce them to mere illusion) After all, your consciousness is the sum of billions of neurons firing at any given moment, and while we perceive this process to be imbued with a sense of our own will and purpose, it's not dishonest to say that the pattern and fire rate of those networks in your brain really comes down to complex, biologically coded responses to a three dimensional tapestry of external and internal stimuli, ranging from the temperature in your room to the amount of serotonin synthesized in your gut over the last few minutes.

We could even talk about meta-stimuli, those internal stimuli where our brains are vaguely aware of their own behavior and motives, and where that introspection affects neural activity.... Such as the case with those nebulous human concepts like: desire, guilt, pride, shame, frustration, and any other motivating emotion.

And whether we're talking about external, internal, or meta stimuli, the degree of control you have over the impulses that ravage and command your mind is very minimal... And ultimately the small efficacy you do enjoy only grants an indirect manipulation of your mind which is mastered by laws beyond your governance.

All of these things bear tremendous impact on the behavior of our minds, to the point where our "conscious" thought could almost be reduced to an (admittedly complex) chemical equation, and our awareness thereof painfully incomplete.

In other words, it's possible that your choice to read further or close out of this window is but an illusion, the cumulative interplay of factors and impulses which you are only peripherally aware of and which are beyond your control-- that even in "choosing" to do one or the other, you are but following the directive of the chemicals and electricity moving in your body.

Biological determinism.

In this sense, freedom is a silly concept, and to talk about or exercise your freedoms is a foray into the very core of absurdity.

Some people would say, "that's where the soul comes in!" that "free will is an inalienable aspect of the human condition because we have souls"... Well I can't prove them wrong, but I will point out there's zero evidence for the existence of a soul. All we've really got to go on is what we can measure. And though our best guesses about the human mind aren't cleanly quantifiable its activity can be charted, whereas the "soul" is so elusive it might as well be a cryptid.

(Not to mention, belief in a soul often implies a belief in some divine higher power, and if your concept of divinity includes an omniscient God who knows everything that’s ever happened or will happen, then you’ve got to grapple with the conflict of free Will vs traditional/ theological determinism.)

Bait back to the soul:

maybe you yourself would rightfully say "That rejection of the concept of a soul or an immaterial self is an incomplete argument, built on premature exclusion. Also it’s irrelevant to the question of free Will, because human experience itself tells us choice and consciousness are real. Whether it's a physical process or the action of an immaterial soul is irrelevant, because we can and do experience deliberation."

And I'd say, I disagree, because human experience is subjective and flawed, and oblivious to the microscopic jury of billions of neurons-- that cluster of tissue that make us us....

If anything, our control over our own minds is exaggerated to us by our own minds. We claim ownership and territory over the components that make us us, but what does ownership really have to do with control?

But I'll concede, that none of this really matters because our human experience is compelling even if it is wrong. And I'd say, we're free to disagree if that's what we choose.

Point being, you're right. Because semantics. Human experience tells us choice is real, and it doesn't actually matter whether it's an illusion or an exaggeration. We still ought to enjoy it. Even if human experience isn't irrefutable proof, it is our only viable way to conceptualize and integrate with reality. So yeah, choice is real, even if it's not very real.

So no, you're not free but yes you are free because we might as well say you are.

This answer is disappointing, so I suggest we ignore it completely and move on to something concrete(r).

Ignoring neuroscience because that shit is too tiny and too huge to be relatable, and ignoring the laws of physics since that shit is a distraction from the actual point of the question: are you free?

Well I hate to break it to you, but the answer is still no. Even if we ignore the infinite choices we previously eliminated by exclusion of biological needs and limits we are left with an astoundingly narrow and empty field of "freedoms"...

Because: We LiVe In A sOcIeTy

Let's just pretend you have no family and no friends. No social obligations whatsoever.... How will you survive in this world full of people?

Do you intend to make it all on your own? You'll have no more constraints on your freedom than the wild animals have on theirs. Be prepared to forage like a grub. Be prepared to build your own shelter and be prepared to die if you ever require serious medical intervention.

If you aren't cut out for eating bugs and living in a burrow in the mud, then you must "choose" your only option, and that's to buy into society-- at least to the minimum degree. At it's heart this is a voluntary rejection of the broadest range of freedoms awarded to an individual body. To buy in you'll necessarily forgo a wealth of choices in order to not be ejected from polite company. There will be places you "cannot" go, things you "cannot" do, and words you "cannot" say.

Of course, you'll still have the physical freedom to make many of those choices, but you'll be constrained by legality and social norm and job expectations. There will be many things that you won't be "allowed" to do.

(To be clear, I'm not implying this is always a bad thing. I kind of like the safety and comfort that comes from broad social cooperation. I dig it. Sometimes.)

But buying in, as a choice, eliminates an ocean of freedoms.

And following exclusionary laws and norms wont be enough. There will also be a good many things you'll be compelled to do, beyond simply foregoing those things you're required to not do.

And that's what I can't get behind... because I have no choice but to back it up.

Let me explain:

You'll need money, or skills to trade for the amenities of life. You'll have to work, or engage with others in some manner of exchange. Because you can't materialize your needs and wants and you've given up on foraging, you'll have to play some form of the paycheck game. Statistics declares, for most of us this is the life of a hamster on a wheel.

I know that analogy didn't make a shred of sense, but I liked the image so just roll with it.

What I'm really trying to say is: you'll be in competition for limited resources and there aren't as many jobs as there are people who need them... and there definitely aren't as many good jobs as there are people who want them. It's a rare thing to land the dream, and unless we die early, we'll most likely spend the majority of our lives and the prime of our mental and physical health doing work that we don't enjoy...

And for most of us, that work can be measured in contrast to those at the "top" of any given industry. We'll be contributing a disproportionally high share of the labor, for a low share of the profits. But if concepts of wealth inequality and economic injustice offend our sensibilities aren't we free to "go somewhere else"?

Hahahahaha, no.

Because almost everywhere "else" follows the same model.

And the rare businesses, industries, and fields of work that don't require you to put up personal blinders are either too cost prohibitive to enter, too far away to access, or simply closed to the full need of the public by their very scarcity.

My experience isn't universal, but it's certainly common enough to speak to: I work retail. And this may shock you, but it's not because I love it.

It's because I must work something, and the jobs I think I'd enjoy are scarce, so that recruiters get their pick from a broad pool of applicants who are often better qualified than I am.

So I work a job which does damage to my body and to my (possibly nonexistent?) soul.... But my job benefits me, since without it I'd starve. That's why I buy in. That said: is the benefit we pitiful laborers actually earn proportionally just?

Is our share in the work complimented by our share in the profits?

If a company enjoys record profits and the CEO/Owner/etc/ is a billionaire, but the low level employees like me make less than a minimum wage, the answer is NO.

And in cases like these, the people who are actually free are those way at the top. They're free to manipulate the system because they're not burdened by it. They have the freedom to impact the system and make it more equitable. But the people at the top always seem to exercise the meatiest of their choices selfishly, to their own benefit, not the benefit of all.

That's in character of course, because rising to the corporate elite is pretty much an open declaration that status and profits come first and ethics aren't even secondary because they're not actually a consideration.

My choice is to work or starve. I might have some choices about where I work or what street corner I starve on, but in either case my choices are extremely limited by street corner (or job) scarcity and proximity.

My freedom is fenced in by the barbed wires of financial need.

I am not free.

I'm compelled to work, in almost every scenario, for a company that will use me.

Still, I'm not a literal slave... Can't I cut loose from society and run flailing into the woods to live of berries and leaves?

That's...

Well that's always there in my back pocket. That notion of an underlying, radical freedom. The freedom to die in the bushes instead of the gutter if I should ever break down and flee from a system that compels the greater crowds to live on a hamster wheel.

If you're reading this, you're in the same boat.

It's all kind of depressing, and it's easy to feel defeated. I think it's a common ideal to value freedom of choice and celebrate personal efficacy....

But, an immense social system guides my choices and your choices and the choices of the entire herd with broad crooks and harsh whips.

If you try to look at the big picture, the freedoms we are permitted are extremely limited in scope and depth. While we tend to feel our choices make us unique and special, the truth is most of the people in your demographic are dealing with the same economic needs and social constraints. And they'll make the same kinds of choices under the same kinds of restrictions. The small differences from one individual will to another can't do much to set the average person apart from a crowd of billions.

Because no matter what you choose, you're a human (one of the few species that's achieved supposed personhood on Earth) and we're all connected by the sweeping limitations of this human condition.

But it's worth it to buy into this system of repressed freedom, because without it, how would we watch Netflix? Right?

In a sense forgoing a bunch of wilder freedoms actually grants us a bunch of modern freedoms.

Freedom to have some cool things and spend your time on the internet?

Isn't that worth it?

And that brings me to my sole statement of worth in this long, silly, and unnecessary piece of reflection on freedom:

It doesn't matter at all if the will is a mere illusory glimpse of deeper neurologic action... And it doesn't matter at all if we social creatures can never achieve unrestricted freedom. We're here and we're granted our individual, subjective experiences of what it means to be here. Those unique experiences matter (even if they kinda don't) because they can make our time here more (or less) enjoyable. We might as well make the most of it by embracing the narrow freedoms we do have and pursuing that which we'd consider good and worthy.

And nothing against binge-watching your favorite series or scrolling social media, but you've got this life for a little while. You're here and you might as well make the most of it, and how you define the "most" is really up to you. (Freedom!)

Not that we can (or should) ascribe any grand meaning to the small choices of the day, but we have the option to take a sense of empowerment from what we perceive as our own careful deliberation and willful action, and we might as well do so!

In other words, YOLO, or carpe diem, or: we're all gonna die soon soet’s make what we can of our time here. we are the little things that don't really matter in the scope of the universe, but we’re uniquely aware of ourselves and eachother and that certainly narrows the scope. Let the universe and its magnitude be a “little” thing if that helps you to seize what time you have and spend it the best you can.

Though scant choices are available to us, those little options can bear impact on the health and happiness of ourselves and those we interact with. So shouldn't we try our best to maximize our freedoms and the freedoms of others by pursuing good?

For me on a personal level, that means looking for choices that grant me an opportunity to nurture my own mental health. Writing, getting outdoors, spending time with my kids, and goofing around like an idiot for shits and giggles. In other words: less material distraction from the things I really care about (Exercising my freedom to spend less time watching Netflix and more time pursuing things that are fulfilling and worthwhile).

For me on a social level, that means looking for choices that allow me to use my meagre abilities and microscopic social impact to empower, encourage, and affirm others. To benefit the people I care about, and people in general, is a motivation I have deemed worth my time and effort. So I embrace that influence on my "choices".

So are you free?

In a sense, no not at all, because you're a biological robot.

But in another sense, no not at all, because you're one among billions and you're severely limited by society.

But in another sense, yes, you're free (or we might as well say you are) because you have a sense of the experience of freedom. And though your freedom has it's physical, legal, and social limits, you ought to embrace and pursue those moments where you can choose.... And hopefully put your willful actions to use for the good of yourself and others.

But none of what I've written should matter to you.

The question is really up to you to answer. And I'd even go so far as to add a few more for thought:

Are you free?

If so, how free are you?

If so, is there value in the freedom you have?

If so, are there ways to broaden or expand your freedoms?

If not, is freedom attainable?

Are there ways that you as an individual can expand freedom for yourself and others?

Given the limits on the time that you do have to be alive, what are some things you'd like to do less and some things you'd like to do more?

***

You are NOT free to answer these questions here, since Vocal has not yet enabled comments on stories.

Oh well

***

***

***

Authors note:

All these words, and I've still said nothing specific about the modern, aggressive anti-freedoms of: slavery, systemic bias, generational poverty, and war.

All these anti-freedoms exist in a much more concrete sense than any of my whiny criticisms about the scarcity of ethical jobs and the widening wealth gaps between poor and ultra-rich.

Incidentally, most of complaints are motivated by an anti-capitalist ethic, and here I'd just like to mention that capitalism isn't only an enemy of everyday freedoms simply because it compels people to work for unethical corporations.

Capitalism has often been and still remains-- a direct source for those eviler anti-freedoms of: slavery, systemic bias, generational poverty, and war.

Profit shouldn't motivate abuse of freedom in anyway shape or form.

But it always does, and sometimes it does so with violence.