Final Assignment Francis J. O'Brien, Jr. TP 3802 Prof. Greene April 29, 1977The Feason I have decided to respond to the question I have chosen to wfite about 1s twofold. The first and least important reason is due to an attempt to communicate ideas about my be- liefs pertaining to the chosen topic which were not well re~ ceived in a previous paper. ‘These ideas were not well received wes perhaps due, in part, to the vehicle of communication in which they were conveyed. Satire, I have learned, has the par- tial function of didacticism which 1s presented in a vein of communication that is diluted in its medicinal strength to facilitate its assimilation. A potion can be so diluted, ad- mittedly, that its medicinal value is lost entirely. Well, in this paper I will try to offer a less diluted substance with the hope that the structure is not enervated by a deficient mode of construction, ‘The second and by far the morecimportant reason for wrifting the paper is that I strongly feel that this topic is of the greatest importance in philosophy. Ina semse it is perhaps the only question which is of importance in a philosophy of oulture;simwe this writer feels it ts the fundamental question which must be answered. In that I am certainly not a professional philosopher, my arguments may strike the reader as being somewhat jaded. I am most positive that what I -say has een “said before." The reader may readily recognize the position put forth in this essay as one that philosophers have contributed to the history of ideas in the past. If this is so, then one may simply count me as “one of those,” and dismiss my anile construction of the argument as an inelegeant attempt to introduce a “theory” that has been proffered “long ago." The following argumentcould undoubtably be criticized on a number of levels. It might be said that it lacks specificity, for example, or that at “makes no sense," or any number of other criticisms. It is however a serious attempt to correct what I feel is the “wrong” manner of thinking about the subject. The topic is freedom. I want to take this old bull by the horns and try to show my opinions to be a plausible’ attempt to wrestle the bull to the ground. Failing this, I hope to show how one might at least trick the bull into not impaling the philosophical matador. I do not feel one should take the weak positions some philosophers have taken vis-A-vis freedom. Such philosophers as Kant and William James have "assumed™ the existence of freedom. I feel they have not faced the issue squarely. They have chosen not to even enter the arena. whether or not extreme positions of freedom or determinism can be logically shown to be antinomous or whether freedom is not discoverable "in nature,” and therefore cen not be defined or empirically verified (‘Truth is veri-fication') are not positions which seem acceptable. The empirical, whether it be “hard headed” or "soft headed;" must inform the abstract or theoretical. It is true as Kant has said that integration (universality) precedes airreneietion (the particular), but integration whether in the calculus or human experience and kmowledge is composed of individual components. Of course, Kant meant that categories of the mind pre-programmed with "A" type propositions of truth are the nec- essary conditions for having lmowledge of the world.The opinions that = here «sst ‘forth on ‘freedom are ‘strict ly derivable from C.S. Peirce's notion of "synechism"--thirdness, which he describes as the free flowing continuigy in experience (of the individual as well es nature in general). The argument can be stated succinctly as follows: Freedom 1s any state of human being that best follows from a best cause. I will try to explain what I thinks this means. I have (potentially) or I Have (actually). To Have is to Know in the classical sense of having; 1.e., to seize or comprehend (the classical Greek image of clasping the left knuckles with the palm of the right hand is one of strength). If I am to do something in a way that 1s completely perfect (correct, proper, flawless! °) an organization of tissues and chemicalSand experiences 1s required that permits me to accomplish the act. That is, to Do requires that I Have: To Do (actuality of accomplishment) demands Having (the or- ganization of potentialities proper to accomplishing the act). Now, I can do something in a variety of ways. A multiplicity of avenues of action ere open to me. why choose one? of course, I could do almost anyéPing that 1s irrelevant to ac- complishing the act. And I could do some things that are re- levant to accomplishing the act. which one do I choosé? How do I know which one to do in order to Do? « I believe I come (or could come) to Do directly through experience-- through chance encounters which become internalized and work their way out in similar experiences until I Know (or could come to Know) which 1s best. When I ow will be taken up later.When “I Know to Do, and xe assume Iovant “to Do, then it seems gratuitous to say I do (not Do) freely. All the relevant causes, conditions and occasions which conspire to reduce 2 Potentiality to an Actuality are the whole kit and caboodle of my doing. when I Know to Do, say A, I believe freedom oceurs when I Do A. That is, Iam talking about a single act. But freedom (with a small "f") has to be distinguished from Freedom (with a capital "f"). I will take this up later. Now, I cannot always Do A, and when I am not actively doing A, freedom (small "f") 1s not operating perhaps because I am tired or bored or depressed, etc., because I only kmow (not Know) at that time. There are gradations of A in the world. I can write in the sense that I am at least functionally literate, but I can not write like Dostoevsky or Flaubert. I canBo chess but I cannot Do chess like Bobby Fisher. But I can Do chess and I imow when I Do chess, but to Do chess like Pisher 1s beyond my grasp. My examplescould be expanded to include any activity (not excluding the Oriental sage who wrott fo see action in inaction and inaction in action is the wisest amo¥ng men). Does any of this make sense? Let me try my other example, the one which was not well received perhaps--the story of the Cave Man. This example is used because of its simplicity. The overwhelming question we have to ask ourselves is this: why did pre-hominid man come to use tools or language? We can prescind from the fact that how they came to be used is speculation; they originated per accidens 1s the story I'mfamilar with, much as the human ‘race developed per accidens. Pre-hominid man used tools whenever they were available to hunt and defend itself. One can think of many ways these creatures could have hunted food, for example. The one general way they did hunt was the best of all possible modes avail- able to them. Hence, they reduced that potentiality to actuality. It 1s entirely consistent with what has been sald to speak of the aet itself of clobbering an animal to death for the purpose of eating as freedom (small rf"). I. will quote an unusual source to supply the strength the argument may leck. I am referring to Pirsig's Zen and the Art Pirsig's “third metaphysical entity" whéth he calls "Quality," is similer to what I have called "Freedom." Pirsig maintains that the infinitely complex boils dom to pellucid simplicity. Of the infinite number of hypotheses that might be generated to explain a given phenomenon, the "best" hy- pothesis 1s the one which is at once simple and capable of generalizing to a diverse set of phenomena--that is to perceive and understand the particular as related to other particulars. Facts are preselected in the sense that "reality" is there to "be discovered." The preselection of facts 1s not arbitrary or subjective but based on grounds of Quality-- a "subliminal" force that chooses on considerations of harmomy in the world. Nature operates on harmony, a beauty that was the original source of Knowing nature's secrets. This was the idea of the ancient Stolcs: To Do 1s to Have. To Have is to Do and to Be.<< ~6- My belief in the interpretation of freedom is close ‘to Pirsig's idea of Quality. Once an individual has accomplished something (eating, sleeping, loving and being loved, being a "good" parent, playing chess, reading, gardening, etc.) in such a way that this individual is "Doing his thing," 1t 1s my Aronic way of speaking to call this act a "free" act. The common way of speaking of freedom says, "Not You mean to say the individual is free to do this thing or not to do this thing. Preedom is a method for acting, and is consciously directed toward an end." I reply that fredom is not e method given over to us from nature or otherwise by virtue of the fact that we are human, Rather, I believe freedom is an end state, a manner of reacting and living in the world in particular moments (Hegelian flavored). Freedom 1s an organ- izing principle (a "regulative" principle) which serves the function of organizing thought and action. I realize that many questions have not yet been answered which require some attention. It might be said, "But how does one come to Know in order to Do*? I reply with Aristotle by my side. He maintained that Happiness (eudaimonia) occurs when the flute player, for example, is playing the flute. ‘That 1s, the flute player can potentially play the flute well and derives a great deal of satisfaction from producing eu- phonious sounds, and when he does play the flute well #ehe experiences pleasure. Pleasure is not the necessary con- dition for Happiness. One can experience eudaimonia without i sccowpanying pleasure. Happiness te the trensleted term used for eudaimonia, but I want to extend the bounds of Aristotle's Golden Mean (aurea mediocratis) to include affective as well as rational elements. I vehemently set this conception in opposition to psychological egoism or hedonism. Generalize this idea of the flute player to any individual capable of doing or experiencing something perfectly; when an individual does in fact perform the act flawlessly he exhibits whatieall freedom. The flute player has had to practice for many years to become an accomplished mugoian. He (she) no doubt began fingering the flute haphazardly producing pure cacaphony, but through sustained effort, sacrifice and moti- vation approximated high levels of competence. Perhaps the flute player can only play the flute well but why begrudge him or her for such limitations? It seems to be a rule of human behavior (not true in every ease) that people intuit what one does best and for the most part followsthat inclination whether it be playing sports, selecting a hobby, choosing a college major, choosing an occupation, etc. Quoth the second question asker: "You seem to be blindly intoxicated with the Leibnitzian idea that this 1s the best of all possible worlds. How do you account for such iniquity, alienation, and Pawnbroker-like numbness in this world. Would you consider Antoine Bloyé, for example, to be free"?~8~ Finally, "Your convoluted conception of "freedom" seems to say nothing of these matters." I reply that there are such things as you mention which exist im the world. I have spoken of the relation of individuals and freedom and have not considered culture or society as they relate to the individual and vice versa. How does such @ broad "theory" of freedom relate to groups of individuals? To begin, it should be noted that freedom as it 1s spoken of in thts essay is not confined to one-act plays. One Decomes more and more free as the elements of ones variegated worlds or "realities" are brought into harmony. Thus it 1s possible never to experience or to be free. What of A. Bloyé? Surely, I am unable to say whether he was free or not, especially in a novel that might well have been written by Saxo Grammaticus--a kind of Handbook of Sins personified by one dimensional characters that one encounters An XXXXXXXX rated porno movies on Broadway. It is always difficult to judge an individual through another's eyes even if these eyes are permitted the most intimate of observations. Nonetheless, A. Bloyd as he 1s dissected for us by Nizan, probab- ly was not free as he was unable to experience the myriad conditions under which it 1s possible for freedom to develop and nurture. In @ sense the Marxists are quite correct in saying that priority influences present experiences. Externality does have @ ponderous influence upon internality (or interiority). Actions influence ideas. A given social order wrth a seem-ae ingly lawful (if nonetheless at root, irrational) manner of conducting the affairs of State can not but influence individuals who share in varying degrees in the production of goods and services within a given historical context. My only response at this time is: learn to be free. Freedom has been defined as an end state. The view that free- dom is the "cause" of action has been challenged. Freedom should not be viewed as the internuncial link between destre end action (T.S. Eliot: "Between the impulse and the spasm lies the shadow’). Rather, Freedom is @ goal, one that individuals in varying degrees and capacities actively strive for. The mo- tivation for achégving the goal is the tendency toward eu- daimonia, a harmony of parts with the whole. Freedom is hard to come by. Unfreely, I submit this essay for your reflection.