“What is Freedom?”
We have overheard different people invoking for freedom which circumstances may vary according to their social classes: the academics would advocate for academic freedom against repressive authority, the press would also set forth for press freedom against all forms of censorship, and the universal citizens would also, regardless of its status and origins, would invoke for freedom of expression or freedom of speech against all forms of prejudices. The idea of freedom has been around, as its central core, throughout the entire human civilization, and has been actualized under the concepts as such. Let us take pause for a moment, and ponder how we define freedom… If you ask your friend or neighbor, you may begin to realize by the time they provide you their opinion that the individual’s understanding of freedom is nonetheless different from one another — different from your understanding and my understanding. However, to suffice an objective and definitive course about freedom, it must be focused on its identification of the common dimension that freedom is overcoming any sorts of coercion under any circumstances. Yet it leaves ambiguity to some, misidentifying freedom as to be the opposition of rules which leads to the opposition of what is right. I remember when I was 12 years old the movie “Letters from Iwo Jima (2006)” when Gen. Kuribayashi, a commanding officer of the defense in the island of Iwo Jima during WWII who strongly discourage his men with banzai charges, said to the remaining Japanese soldiers when they were almost overwhelmed, “men do what is right because it is right.” Anyway, what is right and wrong? How can we differentiate right from wrong and wrong from right? I would say anything deprived from its nature is considered wrong.
When speaking of nature, for brevity, it is generally meant about the fully developed, cultivated, and idealized human beings, i.e. whosoever developed their body, emotion, reason, and spirit — one who has united with its own deep conscience. Unlike Thomas Hobbes who rendered a description about nature; that nature is in a state of constant war. Indeed, however, we must not neglect it is necessity from contingent bodies of the anti-thesis to elevate and reconcile its contradictions, otherwise no development will occur; any stagnation is certainly due to the unreckoned ignorance of the circumstances, which freedom is devoid. However, if there is no freedom, then humans have no sense of purpose other than caput mortuum surplus of flesh and bones here on earth. When freedom is invoked, it signifies that there must be a constant war fought by different struggles. The idea of freedom is the reason that drives the human spirit to be in real form. Some might say freedom must be understood by doing whatever a single person desires, but unspecified whether this desire is right or wrong; thus, neither conscious of its own volition nor reckon the consequences and moral obligations of their means. Whatever be the case, the deep connection between freedom and right should be acknowledged here. In a more daily encounter, anyone may have the freedom whether to take prohibited drugs or not; however, if one consistently takes and abuses prohibited drugs, sooner or later side-effects will negatively affect the body and the brain; possibly may caught by the authorities and will end up with criminal charges or worst may be convicted and sentenced either a couple of years, a life imprisonment or a capital punishment; which would therefore be removed from its own freedom. In this respect, if a person consistently opposes what is right by mistaking it as freedom, one has led its way on revoking its own freedom by itself; therefore, freedom must be self-autonomous and self-legislation on what is right. If you are unfree, thence you cannot govern and give laws to yourself.
