HON 172: The Human Event
Out with the old and in with the new has been a phrase coined to represent the transition we all make. This can be said about the ideology of freedom. Before we are in a state of oblivion, then according to the authors we have read, it is not until we reach a point of enlightenment that we see the reality of the situation and work towards freedom. Achieving this level of free will has been argued time and time again. Whether we are going along this new journey alone or sharing our ideas, we are striving to reach the utopic idea of what freedom actually means. The technical definition of freedom is, “the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint”. Even though there is a definition to the term, does not necessarily mean that it’s a one-size-fits-all. I believe that we can simplify the definition even more by condensing it down to three categories: starting off with “freedom from,” freedom of the chains from society. “Freedom to,” being able to do whatever you want whenever you want. Then “freedom to be,” the chance to become whoever you want to be. The idea of freedom in each of the pieces served as a utopic endpoint to the journey we all must go through. The authors argue about which means is the ‘correct’ way to reach freedom, they share similar ideas of releasing yourself and evolving into a better you. Whether the author’s intentions are to encourage personal transformation or influence a change in society as a whole, they believe that reaching this state of independence will inevitably lead to a better society.
When reading a chapter from Walden, “Where I Lived and What I Lived For”, we are introduced to Henry David Thoreau. He recounts a time in his life when he had made the decision to leave everything behind and live in the woods for a couple of years. In making the bold choice to leave his family’s wealth and material possessions he was able to separate himself from society. Granted he made this decision in 1845, which is a far different time than 2022, Thoreau sought out to reach his own level of personal freedom. Using his ideas from the reading, Thoreau had to power to change what he could control. He combined two of the categories to define freedom: Freedom from societal constraints and freedom to follow his desire for solitude while practicing transcendentalism. “As long as possible live free and uncommitted. It makes but little difference whether you are committed to a farm or the county jail” (Thoreau, 1971, p. 84), shows that Thoreau encourages others to reach a sense of enlightenment such as he. I will admit, out of all of the reading from the class Thoreau’s piece was a real eye-opener. Personally, I have dreamt of the idea of someday, somehow, I would live near the woods and release myself from my mindless possession. I have knocked this down to unrealistic rambles due to the fact that my generation, and each generation to come, has been heavily influenced by modern technology and material possessions. I admire Thoreau’s willingness to abandon everything all to experience a sense of freedom. “We are wont to imagine rare and delectable place in some remote and more celestial corner of the system, behind the constellation of Cassiopeia’s Chair, far from noise and disturbance. I discovered that my house actually had its site in such a withdrawn, but forever new and unprofaned, part of the universe” (Thoreau, 1971, p. 88), signals to the reader that everything we seek is right in front of us. The quote itself talks about his house but holds a deeper meaning about society. We are programmed to think that our goals are farther than they actually seem to causes most to lose that idea. Thoreau enlightens his audience that our dreams are more attainable than we think, but to take a leap of faith and its closer than we think. For instance, I dropped my aspiration of someday leaving my possessions behind to live near the woods because I grew up to be reliant on my material goods. My takeaway from the reading is that reaching a state of freedom, such as Thoreau, is not as far as we think. Maybe dropping everything at once is a tad dramatic, but losing material goods over time will loosen the chains of societal norms. “Be it life or death, we crave only reality” (Thoreau, 1971, p. 98).
Contrasting the ideas from Thoreau, Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s excerpt from The Brothers Karamazov “The Grand Inquisitor” takes a different approach to the idea of freedom from Walden. The story continues with Christ coming back during the Inquisitor and is arrested. As the Inquisitor is interrogating Christ, he claims that although he has good intentions, he believed Christ misinterpreted human nature. Dostoyevsky tells the story of two brothers Ivan and his younger brother Alyosha as they have a conversation about the problem of evil. As the brothers discuss Christian theology, they question why evil exists if God is all-knowing and powerful. They further add to the conundrum by asking if there is a possibility that God could not have prevented evil, then is he all-powerful? “And you have no right to add anything to what was said by you in former times. Why have you come to get in our way? For you have come to get in our way, and you yourself know it” (Dostoyevsky, 1993, p. 3), the tone that the Inquisitor is hostile towards Christ. He blames Christ for giving humans free will as he believes that it’s the cause of all of our evil. Dostoyevsky creates a compelling piece in which he uses imagery to tell the story for itself. From when Christ first appears, he is given no description, yet the reactions of the people in the city provide enough context to allow the audience to follow along. The Inquisitor shows his control by arresting Christ himself and not allowing him to speak. Since the Inquisitor does not believe in free will, he does not even allow Christ the freedom to walk around the city, let alone speak. Already we are shown just how much control he has that he is controlling the narrative. “There are three powers, only three powers on the earth that are capable of eternally vanquishing and ensnaring the consciences of those feeble mutineers, for their happiness—those powers are miracle, mystery, and authority. You rejected the first, the second, and the third, and yourself gave the lead in doing so” (Dostoevsky, 1993, p. 7), the Inquisitor’s power over the people’s freedom stems from the church. The church provides evidence of a miracle performed, they explain the mystery, and the people trust the authority of the church to lead them on the right path. If we are given the answer to the problem, wouldn’t it undermine our ability to solve it to begin with? By having the church, under the rule of the Inquisitor, answer all of life’s questions, they strip you of your free will and belief. I understand the Inquisotrs justification for his control over the people’s free will, but I completely disagree. We have to be able to make decisions for ourselves and enact free will, in order to learn and grow from them. The Inquisitor wants to make sure that people do not drive themselves down a rabbit hole with their unfortunate choices, he wants to guide them on the right path yet his guidance is forcing everyone down one set path.
Comparing both the ideas presented in Thoreau and Dostoyevsky, they share the similar ideology of the importance of free will. The Freedom to do what we want, freedom to be who we want, and the freedom from the chains of society. Dostoyevsky challenged the idea of free will in terms of theology. “In that you were right. For the secret of human existence does not consist in living, merely, but in what one lives for. Without a firm idea of what he is to live for, man will not consent to live and will sooner destroy himself than remain on the earth, even though all around him there be loaves” (Dostoyevsky, 1993, p. 6), As the Inquisitor aimed to control others path and decision, yet he failed to understand the significance of freedom. We are in charge of our own free will, if we go down the wrong path, then so be it. If we make the unfortunate decision, then it is our decision to learn from. If there is no freedom to choose, how will we learn to make the right choice? I see Thoreau as a great example of enacting free will. He wanted to leave everything and move to the woods, and so he did. It was his choice to make, no one else. In doing so he was able to reach a level of freedom that he soon later hopes to encourage others to do so. Unlike the efforts of the Inquisitor, Thoreau is not forcing his idea of freedom on others, yet encourages others to seek the answer in unlikely places.
WORK CITED
Thoreau, H. D. (1971). Walden. (J. L. Shanley, Ed.). Princeton University Press.
Dostoyevsky, F. (1993). The Brothers Karamazov. (D. McDuff, Trans.). New York: Penguin Books.
Maya Young 