“Freedom” is a good thing. People fight and die for the sake of freedom. Or the other way around: people fight and die (or let others die) to take away the freedoms of others. So freedom is not free—it has a high cost. But what is freedom exactly, on a personal level? Is it a “natural” state where I am free to choose what I do without any external impingement? Or without thought of the effects on others? Is it doing now without consideration of paying later? For the definition thus far to bear weight, I have to be:

  1. Devoid of relationships
  2. Have no care for the future
  3. Have unlimited resources to do what I want

That this is completely undetached from reality (ie. fiction) should be obvious. But my point is this: even if it were possible, I could still completely sabotage my freedom by a lack of self-control. “Freedom”, without self-control, will carry me away and eat me alive.

For freedom is often associated with pleasure (which is not per se a bad thing) but the pursuit of pleasure in excess will have negative consequences. It comes down to the question, assuming I can do what I want without restriction: do I know what’s really good for me? If I don’t, then I am bound to excess. Depending on the feedback mechanism, excess begets more excess (until I blow up) or triggers regret through guilt or shame. Probably both things happen because guilt and shame are very poor at actually stopping anything.

Thus freedom, uncontrolled, actually becomes a bondage, literally its opposite, and reality can get pretty distorted, leading to a massive build up of friction. If I do know what’s good for me, then (through the wisdom of experience) I temper my freedom through discipline and self-control. It may be necessary to go through a phase of not knowing, learning, and hopefully reaching the phase of knowing. This is called becoming mature: the focus on one’s ego gives way to a more complex picture of oneself related to the world and other people…

I’m not advocating not doing anything, for this has its own consequences, but to define freedom without relating it to anything else is an unnecessary theoretical exercise. Ironically, it may be the three things mentioned above which give freedom meaning and anchor it in reality:

  1. Freedom without relationship is loneliness
  2. Freedom without future is stasis
  3. Freedom without resources is poverty

Two examples of freedom gone wrong from my life:

  • Addictive behaviours. Compulsion precludes freedom in my opinion. The idea “I can do anything I want to do” leads to excess and very short-term thinking. Unfortunately the opposite, “I don’t have to do anything, when I don’t want to” doesn’t work half as well to curb excess.
  • Wanting stuff, or stuff other people have. My choices about what I “need” and what is best for me are based on comparison with others, social acceptance, status etc. I am influenced, however imperceptibly, by the Zeitgeist, trends, fashion, marketing…and the ‘free’ choice is inevitably more costly than necessary.

That is just scratching the surface. I haven’t even mentioned politics or religion. To summarize, I find freedom to act in the good relationships in my family, community and at work, by having a plan and by having enough. Everything else I try to detach myself from, via negativa.