If we are willing to believe that freedom is expressed in the power of contrary choice, we naturally run into a rather perplexing problem. In order to express our independence from the circumstances, we are driven to choose the worst of the choices to demonstrate that we may choose freely. (Our wills are otherwise constrained by the choices we have to make.)
There is a curious inversion here; the worst choice is suddenly the best because it expresses the ultimate good of freedom. But rather than expressing freedom, making Wrong Choices reduces it instead. We are no longer free, for example, to enjoy the consequences of our choices, unless we enjoy returning to our folly.
Friday, April 28, 2006
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
On Freedom
I spent a bit of Sunday after church talking to some newly minted friends at lunch. An imminent move put us in the uncomfortable position of saying hasty goodbyes, but good ones. The sermon topic was on Election, a doctrine they (and, I suppose, many other Christians) find somewhat disquieting. A fair description of the doctrine is in Wikipedia.
With scientists identifying neurons related to choice, and quite a lot said about Freedom and Liberty in the news these days, it doesn't seem bad to discuss it some. I think, actually, that the two concepts intersect.
The Bush Doctrine, for lack of a better term, essentially states that democracy (rule by the people) is the ultimate good. It is better, for example, than the sovereignty of nations. It's an international version of Free Will—which today means "the power of contrary choice."
The same definition of Free Will, just in a local sense, is what troubled my two friends at lunch. Self-determination, the power of contrary choice, Democracy in the collective sense. The trouble is that the definition of "free" has somehow become much different than I think it used to be. We think of a "free will" as one that is unconstrained by outside influence, little understanding that the consequences themselves influence the decision.
Freedom is not the power of choice nearly as much as it is the ability to be who you are. (In this respect, the regenerate are not nearly as free as the unregenerate.) And, perhaps more importantly, the ability to do what's right.
What has happened is that we have replaced this notion with the wrong one: that Choice is Right. We have pre-empted the idea of Right or Wrong Choices by simply saying that being able to Choose is the ultimate good, and that anything impeding choice (like, say, Physics?) is evil.
What we find is what Bush found: the ability to choose means very little without a good chooser (the Palestinians did, after all, elect a Hamas-led government).
With scientists identifying neurons related to choice, and quite a lot said about Freedom and Liberty in the news these days, it doesn't seem bad to discuss it some. I think, actually, that the two concepts intersect.
The Bush Doctrine, for lack of a better term, essentially states that democracy (rule by the people) is the ultimate good. It is better, for example, than the sovereignty of nations. It's an international version of Free Will—which today means "the power of contrary choice."
The same definition of Free Will, just in a local sense, is what troubled my two friends at lunch. Self-determination, the power of contrary choice, Democracy in the collective sense. The trouble is that the definition of "free" has somehow become much different than I think it used to be. We think of a "free will" as one that is unconstrained by outside influence, little understanding that the consequences themselves influence the decision.
Freedom is not the power of choice nearly as much as it is the ability to be who you are. (In this respect, the regenerate are not nearly as free as the unregenerate.) And, perhaps more importantly, the ability to do what's right.
What has happened is that we have replaced this notion with the wrong one: that Choice is Right. We have pre-empted the idea of Right or Wrong Choices by simply saying that being able to Choose is the ultimate good, and that anything impeding choice (like, say, Physics?) is evil.
What we find is what Bush found: the ability to choose means very little without a good chooser (the Palestinians did, after all, elect a Hamas-led government).
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Hiatus
I apologize for the hiatus from writing. This has taken a backseat to some real-life moving troubles, and having a case of acute writer's block hasn't helped.
I had thought, perhaps, to write about a comment I heard on CNN this evening, but decided against it because I hadn't the full context of the comment, which ran something along the lines of, "[The Bush administration isn't] going to restore credibility by attacking the media."
This was in reference to White House spokesman Scott McClellan's remark that media coverage of a recently declassified document was "reckless."
On one hand, this comment could be taken—and in retrospect probably should be—to be a criticism of the administration's defense more than anything. We might understand it to mean that if this is the best defense the administration has, there are more problems they have to worry about than "reckless reporting."
On the other, though, the speaker could be implying that credibility comes through the media. This is a scary thought (since it implies that the viewing public is spoonfed their own opinions), but it seems somewhat unfair to write about such a topic without the context.
The good news is that other material arrived in the form of some reading from Chesterton—and it's tangentially related to this subject. With some fortune, I'll write more about it later.
I had thought, perhaps, to write about a comment I heard on CNN this evening, but decided against it because I hadn't the full context of the comment, which ran something along the lines of, "[The Bush administration isn't] going to restore credibility by attacking the media."
This was in reference to White House spokesman Scott McClellan's remark that media coverage of a recently declassified document was "reckless."
On one hand, this comment could be taken—and in retrospect probably should be—to be a criticism of the administration's defense more than anything. We might understand it to mean that if this is the best defense the administration has, there are more problems they have to worry about than "reckless reporting."
On the other, though, the speaker could be implying that credibility comes through the media. This is a scary thought (since it implies that the viewing public is spoonfed their own opinions), but it seems somewhat unfair to write about such a topic without the context.
The good news is that other material arrived in the form of some reading from Chesterton—and it's tangentially related to this subject. With some fortune, I'll write more about it later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)