The Idea Of Freedom
I have been posting vigourously in a thread in orkut concerning dress codes for girls. Two ladies argued that it tantamounts to curbing their freedom. I wouldn't go into the details of the argument. Sufficient to say that my thoughts took off in a new direction. And the result of that is this post about freedom.
Freedom is not doing or saying whatever one wants to do, in whatever manner one wants to. It is not an outrage against existing norms. It is not non-conformity. Freedom is not going against the rules.
First of all, rules are not made for no reason. At least, most rules are not. There are a few which have been made so that a segment of the society can benefit at the cost of the others. But that's not what I am discussing here. Rules in general are formed to facilitate harmonious living. If you are the only one to be driving a car on the streets, no rules are required. But when there are more cars, we need rules to regulate the traffic. Else, there will be utter chaos on the streets. As if there isn't any chaos on our roads despite the rules existing. But the point is, no rules are needed when there is only one person. Rules are only needed when there are more than one individual.
These rules are no doubt binding. But it does not mean there is no freedom. The driver has all the right to drive as long as he sticks to traffic rules. A train is bound to run on a track. Can we call it a lack of freedom? The train is free to move as it wants so long as it keeps to the rails. Everyone knows what happens when it fails to do so. Disaster. So, we see that freedom means the freedom to do only the right thing, within the broad framework of rules.
My Master proposes another idea. Its a lot more profound. Real freedom is when the idea of freeom itself ceases to exist. As long as we think about freedom, the thought of the lack of freedom, i.e. bondage simultaneously exists, and this thought itself is a cause for bondage.
What I see is that we need to seriously reconsider the way we understand freedom. Certainly, freedom is not what we think it is.
Freedom is not doing or saying whatever one wants to do, in whatever manner one wants to. It is not an outrage against existing norms. It is not non-conformity. Freedom is not going against the rules.
First of all, rules are not made for no reason. At least, most rules are not. There are a few which have been made so that a segment of the society can benefit at the cost of the others. But that's not what I am discussing here. Rules in general are formed to facilitate harmonious living. If you are the only one to be driving a car on the streets, no rules are required. But when there are more cars, we need rules to regulate the traffic. Else, there will be utter chaos on the streets. As if there isn't any chaos on our roads despite the rules existing. But the point is, no rules are needed when there is only one person. Rules are only needed when there are more than one individual.
These rules are no doubt binding. But it does not mean there is no freedom. The driver has all the right to drive as long as he sticks to traffic rules. A train is bound to run on a track. Can we call it a lack of freedom? The train is free to move as it wants so long as it keeps to the rails. Everyone knows what happens when it fails to do so. Disaster. So, we see that freedom means the freedom to do only the right thing, within the broad framework of rules.
My Master proposes another idea. Its a lot more profound. Real freedom is when the idea of freeom itself ceases to exist. As long as we think about freedom, the thought of the lack of freedom, i.e. bondage simultaneously exists, and this thought itself is a cause for bondage.
What I see is that we need to seriously reconsider the way we understand freedom. Certainly, freedom is not what we think it is.
1 Comments:
keeping aside the duality in the idea of freedom, 'freedom with responsibilty' would be a sensible approach to life. people need to understand that there is no 'my life' without 'your life'.
Post a Comment
<< Home