Does freewill exist in the land of the free? One must first define “freewill” before attempting a proper answer, otherwise, confusion and assumptions could strangle any attempt at clarity and understanding. Superficially, it could be assumed that freewill is not only our birthright, but also our nature, for we are obviously constantly making decisions, and choosing our future. However, it is this type of assumptive conclusion that necessitates a proper definition, otherwise we are lost before we even begin.
I think we can define freewill as having self-determination, and that one can act upon one’s own volition, rather than through fate or out of necessity. Freewill is the ability to choose, not just react. With this thought in mind, it is easy to see how quickly things get tricky, as it is no simple task to determine what is truly one’s own volition. There is a real challenge in defining just what the self is, what is this entity that has a will? Are we not conditioned by our experiences to react to the world in various ways, rather than responding independent from influence. When are our actions not just a reaction to stimulus? Are they ever truly an act of freewill, of our own volition, free of the influence of our environment? What is this self that makes a choice? Is the self created by nurture or nature, or is it something different altogether, perhaps our soul? Where does the ego fit into all of this? We can all probably think of instances where we think that someone’s ego determined a particular behavior, could this be freewill in action, or not, as one might argue that the ego isn’t one’s true self. This subject quickly becomes mucky and difficult to navigate, and simple, straight-forward answers are not likely to be found. Yet, I am compelled to look further both within and without, to find my true self.
My inner critic, which is some part of myself, is fairly consistent, pointing out my many faults, sometimes suggesting, with spite, what would’ve been a better choice of action. And, there is my ego, quick to complement some minor victory, giving praise when none should be expected nor given. Furthermore, my ego can be easily bruised, reacting with malice and with little to no thought. In these situations, I feel as though it is not my “higher self” or “true self” that I am hearing, but perhaps that’s just my perspective. If this is the case, then what defines my true self? How can I distinguish it from the other layers within me?
I’ve had glimpses of the “observer” that is within me, a part of me that is watching, and seemingly non-critical. Perhaps this is my true self, and the point from which freewill may be able to spring. If this is the case, then how do I nurture this aspect of myself? I think that the psychologist Abraham Maslow was onto something with his “hierarchy of needs.” In his five tiered model of human needs, at the top is perched “Self Actualization.” This is the level at which one reaches their full potential. Perhaps our true self is only actualized once we have fulfilled most of the various levels in his hierarchy, which would imply that few of us have reached this state. Many in our society are stuck at the basic levels of security needs, and love and social belonging needs. I would argue that there are very few in our culture that have true freewill, and that we tend to be reactionary, for we don’t even know who we are nor have awareness of the factors that influence us.
This discussion of freewill becomes more relevant as we hear more and more people proclaim their freedom, with what appears to be little thought regarding just what freedom means. To truly have freedom, one must have a certain degree of freewill. Otherwise, one is not practicing freedom, but just reacting to stimulus. To achieve this, both introspection and self awareness are required. This is in contrast to the reactive cries of freedom spouted by those that are typically in the process of treading upon others.
Does anybody think, that even here in “The Land of the Free” that freedom means one can do whatever one wants at anytime? It is obviously the case that our actions are constricted by a wide variety of laws, and that these laws have been put into place to protect people – though certainly not always on an equitable basis, as many laws protect only those in power.
Murder is illegal, which, it could be argued, is an attempt to restrict one’s freedom. Most people, however, would agree that in a civilized society, this law is both just and necessary, and perhaps only a very small minority might consider this to impinge upon the freedom of others. We also have traffic laws, designed to aid in the safe flow of traffic and minimize accidents. Again, I think that people would generally agree that these are necessary, and are not that likely to think of them as infringing upon one’s freedom. In fact, these laws are designed to allow us the freedom to go about our lives in relative safety.
The word “freedom” has power behind it, for it is a major aspect of our cultural identity. Those that use “freedom” as their battle cry are implying that anyone opposed to them is denying them some fundamental right as a human. It is a form of misdirection, as freedom is often not the issue behind the rhetoric.
To live in a society, we must give up certain freedoms, but not necessarily our freewill. One must first have the ability to obtain freewill before they are able to give it up. Shouts of freedom are typically an indicator of one’s lack of freewill, an unconscious misdirection when confused by the source of one’s discomfort and angst. Again, freewill requires a degree self-awareness and the ability to acknowledge one’s own motivating factors. Unfortunately, it is far easier to cry foul instead.