Notes from the Wired

Neither Is There Freedom, Nor Do You Want It!

Published: November 21, 2024

1. Introduction nand Premise

How often have you heard phrases like, “I wish I were free”? Freedom is one of those concepts almost universally regarded in a positive light. It holds such significance that American culture, for instance, is arguably built upon this principle.

In this article, I assume a person who seeks freedom also does not want to act immorally. This seems reasonable, as morality is generally equated with goodness. Note that this is a weaker assumption than the idea that humans are fundamentally good—a long-standing philosophical debate between thinkers like Mencius and Xunzi (more on their debate here). I only assume that people want to be good.

2. A Naive Approach to Freedom

But what is freedom? A naive answer might be, “Freedom is the ability to do whatever one wants.” However, since ancient times—dating back to the Code of Hammurabi and the establishment of the first social contracts—this has not been entirely true. If we consider modern society, there are clearly things one is prohibited from doing under the threat of punishment. Thus, certain restrictions are placed on individuals. Or are they?

Technically, one could still act in ways that violate the social contract if they believed they could get away with it. However, in such cases, society would view them as either immoral (which we assume humans try to avoid) or as foolish if the disadvantages outweigh the benefits.

One might counter that laws and morality are not the same. This is true; for example, slavery was legal for much of human history, yet today we regard it as deeply immoral. This argument, however, only narrows the restrictions on freedom to those laws said individual considers moral. What if someone deemed all laws immoral, or if they lived in a lawless society (an anarchist’s wet dream)? Even then, by participating—actively or passively—in society, we inevitably become part of a social contract. This unwritten agreement dictates rules and behaviors necessary for a functioning society. Such a contract exists on a metaphysical level in every interaction between people. Its most basic form is embodied in the Golden Rule.

3. A more realistic Approach to freedom?

We can adjust our definition of freedom to include this idea: “Freedom is doing whatever I want, excluding actions that violate the social contract.” However, even this definition falls short. Rather than viewing freedom on a societal (macro) level, let us examine it on a personal (micro) level, focusing on individuals and their connections to the world around them.

No one is born into this world without connections, and throughout life, these connections only multiply: family, friends, pets, property, and so on. At first, as young children, these connections may seem one-dimensional. Parents provide food, friends play games, pets offer companionship. But as we grow, these relationships become far more complex.

We may be expected to contribute to the household by doing chores, help a friend move, or take the dog for a walk. These are things we must do—there is no real option to avoid them if we want to maintain these connections and act in a morally righteous way. In this sense, connections impose restrictions on our freedom.

Where, then, is the freedom in all of this?

4. What about Free Will?

Let us redefine freedom again: “Freedom is doing whatever I want, excluding actions that violate the social contract and the obligations arising from my connections to others.” However, this definition is no more valid than the previous one. To illustrate why, let us examine the concept of freedom on an even smaller scale—consider a single action you can take right now: lifting your arm. Do you truly have freedom in performing this action?

Most people would instinctively say yes and might even lift their arm to prove it. But this response actually supports my argument, not theirs. For any action to occur, one of two things must be true:

  1. The action happened randomly, without any cause.
  2. The action happened because of a cause.

If the action was truly random, where is the freedom in that? Freedom implies intentionality—you must decide the action. But in this case, the action was decided by chance or randomness, not by you.

Now consider the second case: you lifted your arm not randomly, but for a reason. Perhaps you wanted to prove your freedom to me or simply scratch an itch. Whatever the reason, your action had a cause. But is there freedom in an action dictated by a cause?

Here, we encounter two philosophical perspectives:

4.1. Total Materialism (Determinism)

If we believe in total materialism, then every action in the universe can be reduced to material processes governed by physical laws. In this view, there are always conditions (inputs) that determine what will happen. For instance, we wouldn’t say that the apple that fell on Newton’s head was “free” not to fall. The law of gravity dictated that it would fall, not levitate. Similarly, all human actions would be bound by the deterministic laws of physics, leaving no room for freedom.

4.2. Non-Materialist Views

Suppose we reject determinism and believe in something beyond materialism—call it the soul, the realm of forms (as Plato might), or a spiritual realm. Even if such a realm exists, does it rescue free will?

Not really. Imagine that a “soul” controls our actions like a puppet master pulling strings. Where is the freedom in being controlled by your soul? One might counter that the soul is oneself, but this only restates the problem. If the soul drives actions, it still faces the same dilemma as the materialistic view:

Even if we introduce yet another higher mechanism influencing the soul, we merely shift the problem to the next level, leading to an infinite regress where free will is never truly found.

4.3 A Case Study

Consider a famous case of uncontrollable behavior caused by a brain tumor. A previously ordinary 40-year-old man suddenly developed pedophilic urges. An MRI scan revealed a tumor pressing on parts of his brain. When the tumor was removed, the urges disappeared—only to reappear when the tumor regrew, and vanish again after another surgery.

This case illustrates that even deeply personal thoughts and desires can be dictated by physical processes beyond one’s control. How, then, can we speak of freedom when actions and intentions are so easily manipulated?

This section draws inspiration from Sam Harris’s aweasome book, Free Will.

5. There is no “Freedom”

Let us redefine freedom one final time: “Freedom is doing whatever I want, excluding actions that violate the social contract, excluding obligations to others, and excluding all actions of mine.”

By this definition, freedom seems to vanish entirely. There is no freedom on the macro societal scale, no freedom at the micro scale of a single action, and no freedom when we examine an individual and their relationships. What freedom, then, is truly left?

Some may argue that including the micro scale in our definition trivializes freedom or unfairly complicates the discussion. They might claim that if we leave out the micro scale, the definition remains adequate. Others may adopt a position similar to compatibilism, which suggests that free will is not “real” in the strictest sense, but the concept remains useful.

Both of these positions, however, fail to address the core issue. They shift the debate toward a theory of language—how we should use terms like “freedom”—and could be considered linguistic prescriptivism. Even if we discard the micro scale, the restrictions imposed by societal contracts and obligations are enough to strip the concept of freedom from its idealized sense of “I can do whatever I want.”

6. Do We Even Want True Freedom?

Let us imagine a world where we remove all restrictions. No societal contracts, no familial obligations, and free will restored in its purest form. Would such a state of absolute freedom be desirable? I would argue that it would not.

7. The Evolutionary Case Against Absolute Freedom

To better understand the problem, let us examine it from an evolutionary perspective. For most of human history, people lived in small tribes of no more than 100 individuals. Only in relatively recent times have larger societies emerged. Nevertheless, humans have always been inherently social creatures, as evidenced by evolutionary adaptations.

Humans possess the largest brain-to-body ratio among animals. These large brains are highly energy-intensive, consuming roughly one-third of all energy intake. Their size also poses significant challenges during childbirth. To mitigate the risks of high mortality during delivery, natural selection favored earlier births. Consequently, human infants are born far more dependent on their caregivers compared to other species—for instance, giraffes can walk almost immediately after birth, while human babies require years to achieve similar independence.

This dependency meant that lone mothers could not gather enough food or resources to support themselves and their children. Survival required the support of an entire tribe to feed, protect, and educate the young. Over time, evolution strongly favored the formation of social groups.

The importance of social groups in human evolution is further underscored by the development of language. One theory, the gossip theory, suggests that language evolved primarily for the purpose of social bonding. Gossip allowed individuals to share information about who could be trusted within their group and who could not, strengthening the fabric of tribal life.

What this illustrates is that social connections—and the responsibilities and obligations that come with them—are deeply intertwined with our origins as a species. Shedding these connections in favor of unbounded freedom is not only questionable but likely impossible. Given the deep social heritage we have inherited, it is unlikely that absolute freedom would bring happiness or fulfillment.

Many other aspects of human life today are shaped by these same social foundations. Although they are most likely downstream effects of our evolutionary past, they remain integral to our well-being and deserve further exploration.

8. The Role of Stories: Archetype of Responsibility

Throughout history, humans across cultures have created and shared stories. Despite the vast diversity of these tales, recurring themes can be observed, one of which is the central theme of this article: freedom. While interpretations of freedom differ among cultures, one of the most common motifs involves the unbounded and reluctant hero. This hero initially resists a call to responsibility but, through trials and growth, learns to embrace their duties and ultimately saves the world.

Examples of this archetype abound in mythology, religion, and modern storytelling. In Greek mythology, Bellerophon is haunted by the tragic death of his father and initially distances himself from his family. However, through his destined adventures—including taming Pegasus and defeating the Chimera—he rises to meet his challenges and fulfills his role. Similarly, Jonah from the Bible is chosen by God to prophesy to the people of Nineveh. Jonah refuses this responsibility and flees, only to face numerous obstacles that ultimately lead him to accept his mission.

A more contemporary example can be found in Star Wars with Han Solo. Initially, Han values his freedom above all else, refusing to join Luke Skywalker in the fight against the Empire. Yet, over the course of the series, he shoulders increasing responsibilities, evolving from a self-serving smuggler to a leader and a hero.

These stories illustrate a broader societal ideal of what humans believe others should strive for. They celebrate individuals who rise to responsibility and become respectable through their willingness to serve others—not the caricatured “alpha male” who “doesn’t care about anyone” and values only boundless personal freedom. Instead, they highlight the virtues of responsibility and selflessness, teaching us to see these qualities as admirable and worthy of emulation.

8.1 Stories as Mirrors of Human Nature

Critics might argue that these common themes are simply storytelling devices, disconnected from human nature or moral ideals. However, I would counter that these archetypal stories reveal profound truths about what humans value and aspire to. They are not just entertaining narratives but reflections of our collective psychology, developed and refined over millennia.

The reluctant hero’s journey can be viewed through the lens of archetypes, representing universal patterns of human experience. These stories have evolved in an almost Darwinian sense, distilling human wisdom into enduring narratives. By teaching such stories to successive generations, cultures pass on core ideas about responsibility and morality, ensuring survival and societal cohesion. This process resembles the Baldwin effect, which suggests that learned behaviors—such as telling archetypal stories—can indirectly shape evolutionary outcomes if they improve survival. For instance, the stories emphasize responsibility because it ensures the survival of the tribe, unlike the chaos that would ensue if everyone acted solely for themselves.

In this way, these stories serve as a metaphysical “battle space,” where abstract ideas of fears and desire are tested and debated. Through this cultural evolution, humans are guided toward a better path.

8.2 On the Evolution of Archetypes

It is worth noting that while the evolution of ideas and behaviors—such as memes, as described in Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene—is well-documented, the specific mechanisms by which archetypes evolve are less well-understood. The connection between archetypes and the Baldwin effect remains speculative.

9. Loneliness

One final aspect I want to address is loneliness. While some media outlets have called our current age a “loneliness epidemic,” the reality is more nuanced. Regardless, social connections are undeniably crucial for our health and well-being. Studies have shown that spending time with others significantly boosts our happiness and physical health. As the director of one such study concluded, “Those who maintained warm relationships lived longer and happier lives, while those who isolated themselves often experienced shorter, less fulfilling lives.”

In light of this, it seems unwise—both from a personal and societal perspective—to prioritize freedom at the expense of meaningful connections. Even if we disregard the survival of the tribe or society as a whole, cutting people out of one’s life for the sake of personal freedom can come at a steep cost to one’s own happiness and longevity.

10. Conclusion

Freedom, in its purest, unbound sense, is an illusion—one that, even if it were attainable, few would truly want. Our very essence is rooted in connection and responsibility to those around us, as these ties are built deep into our DNA. In a way, this is beautiful. It’s not to say that the desire for freedom is invalid—on the contrary. However, what people truly seek is not freedom from all constraints, but the appropriate challenges and responsibilities that align with their current stage in life.

To end, I’d like to share a few quotes from the hit tv-show Serial Experiments Lain:

“No matter where you go, everybody’s connected.”

And isn’t that great? Because:

“Okay… Let’s see. I guess that I’m confused again. Am I here, or am I there? I don’t know… Over there, I’m everywhere, I know that… But here is connected to over there, is that right? But then, where is the real me after all is said and done? Oh, there is no real me, I guess that’s it. I only exist inside those people aware of my existence. But what about this me that I can hear talking right here and now? It’s me, isn’t it? This me that I hear talking… Who is it? Who’s me?”

And because:

“People’s memories aren’t just personal or one part or unrelated fragment of the history of humanity. But they’re shared in the collective unconscious.”

In the end, being less connected, seeking more freedom in the isolated sense, might also mean becoming less real. It is in our connections with others that we truly exist.

▲
Made with Hugo, website licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.