What is Freedom Even About π
In class, we were asked to read Civil Disobedience and The Swimmer. The two essays presented two different ideas to me. The former tells us to “be a friction” to the government while the latter tells us that we should just go with the flow.
However, before I dig deeper, I’d like to address some problems I have with Civil Disobedience
currency or property rights—would lose meaning. Finally, Mr. Thoreau believed that people as a collective group acted based on their morals, the people would be better off. However, even the slave owners said that what they were doing was right and was “an order by god.” If their morals were so different than what is actually right, how can we trust that morals will be correct later?
Anyways, all that talk about friction got me thinking about physics. Friction slows things down, creates heat, and is the reason why pencils write and the reason why we can walk. Too much friction, however, and things start to wear out, burn out, and give out. Flow on the other hand, is smooth and continues, and it carries things forward. Just going with the flow, however, might cause a loss of direction.
When we were asked to respond to the prompt on how to achieve freedom, I thought that surely it was a case of both. When there are unjust laws, we need friction to change, but when things are going smoothly, we should just let some things go and move forward. However, the more I thought about it, the more I thought that maybe freedom doesn’t even exist. This might sound bonkers to some of you but really think about it. Sure, we have freedom of speech (at least I thought we did), freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, etc., but these are only freedom of _____. We do not have freedom in its entirety. Absolute freedom would mean I could(even if I shouldn’t) say anything, do anything, go anywhere, without restriction. But that type of freedom would backfire. My “freedom” to play my music at 3 a.m on full blast conflicts with my neighbor’s freedom to sleep. Laws exist because pure freedom is impossible in a shared world. What we really have is negotiated freedom: balanced “freedoms” that allow people to co-exist without clashing.
At the end of the day, humans are bound by physical, moral, and legal limits. There is no such thing as absolute freedom. Situations are constantly changing and it is up for the majority to decide on friction or go with the flow (take that Thoreau).

I really like how you connected Thoreau’s ideas to secular consequences and even to physics. It actually makes your argument pretty relatable and clear. Additionally, I like your point that freedom is really about balance and negotiation, not absolutes. Its extremely thoughtful and well put.
ReplyDeleteI like how you connected Civil Disobedience and The Swimmer with the friction vs. flow metaphor—it made your comparison unique and easy to follow. Your critique of Thoreau raised interesting points about the limits of morals and government. I especially liked your idea of “negotiated freedom,” which gave the essay a strong and thought-provoking conclusion.
ReplyDeleteWOW PAUL!! This is really good and funny!! I love this post, very insightful, especially the "negotiated freedom" part. So proud of you!
ReplyDeleteI appreciated your passionate and enthusiasm. I liked your choice word of balanced freedom and co-existing with other people, which rebutted Thoreau's idea of letting innate behaviors take full control. What if you moved to Mars? Might be more freedom there.
ReplyDelete