Human Freedom is constipated by Assumptions

Human Freedom is constipated by Assumptions

Society is not a collection of individuals but is a system of containers.

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble; it’s what you know for sure [i.e. assume] that just ain’t so”—Mark Twain

Non-philosophical forms of inquiry are intellectual endeavors constituted by certain basic assumptions. A scientific form of inquiry assumes that the world is an ordered whole and that we can, through reason, acquire knowledge of this whole. The world of science is governed by laws that define causal effects that are measurable and perceivable by humans.

Reality may be a rainbow but it is the case that humans reason from within container like boundaries; thus we are always within a container. However, the trick is to enlarge our containers and thereby gain a more universal perspective. We must find a means to examine our assumptions. Each container is constructed with its own assumptions. That is why philosophy is so useful. It is a container within the largest container, or at least Philosophy likes to think so.

How do we escape from the grasp of today’s ideologies, fads, rationalizations, and general enculturation? We must learn to read backwards to remove our self from today’s cultural container. As Archimedes observed we must find a platform outside of that reality which we wish to understand and to move.

Reading backwards is using our library card to borrow books that were written many years or many hundreds of years ago. Reading has another great advantage in that we can easily focus on books that have withstood the test of time. We can easily identify the ‘real thing’ insofar was worthy thinking is concerned. I have a “Friends of the Library” card from a nearby college, which allows me access to a great library for a small yearly fee of $25.

We can read Churchill about the past one hundred years; we can read Marx, Darwin or Freud if we want to cover the 19th century, perhaps Paine, Jefferson and Hamilton on the 18th century, maybe Bacon, Chaucer, Aquinas and Plato going further back in history.

By reading backward we get a sense of the universal and the relative, the essential and the arbitrary. We can form the basis of reading critically with questions to act as our guide to understanding. We can learn to stop our general practice of sleep reading. We learned in our schooling to sleep read, sleep listen, and to become apathetic regarding all things intellectual. By reading backwards we can begin to comprehend the irrational impulses of our superficial consumer culture.

[b]Freedom is an ever larger container.

You might think of freedom as being unrestricted to some degree. When we are bound by chains our movement is restricted thus our freedom is restricted. When we are bound by the chains of small comprehension then we are restricted in understanding. In one case our physical movement is restricted and in the other our intellectual movement is restricted.[/b]

The question that pops up for me is to what end is intellectual freedom necessary? What’s the “prize” of intellectual competence? The “prize” of physical freedom and competence is a combination of natural drugs that are released as a result, or the display of one’s quality as a mating partner. It seems that intellectual freedom leads, more often than not, to being somewhat separate from society. Being social creatures, this must be a negative effect. Intellectual incompetence on the other hand, I can’t think of any negative effects from an individualist perspective.

So, what is the advantage of striving to learn more of the 18th, the 19th century from the viewpoint of the individual (excluding job related necessities)?

If we comprehend how we got here we can better determine how to get to where we want to go. It might even help us determine where we need to go. Imagine being in a strange place without any idea of how you got there and you will get an idea of the importance of learning history.

The question for me is that the only place we want to go is animalistic satisfaction. As in: we’d like a sure supply of sexual satisfaction, hence the idea of marriage and relationships as opposed to a communal sharing of sex, or the excess taking of anything that’s provided for free with noone to ensure their fair distribution, or the exploitation of of the benefits system in the UK, with the aim of securing a place to sleep. Intellectual competence just seems redundant. We can never be blind, our instincts light the way. I suppose I must be tangled up in “purpose”.

The assumption that human freedom is constipated by assumptions seems to me to be slightly shortsighted based on the clear difference between the intellectual abilities of humans and the not so intellectually driven instinctual processes and systems in place in humans and other lower lifeforms. I’ve always thought that instinctual systems that drive a species are blinders that initiate habit and never account for that seeming human urge to know/understand truth. For instance, if you introduce a species of whatever animal into an eco-system it’s never encountered before, it will immediately attempt instinctual habits.

Perhaps Human Freedom, striving for knowledge and understanding is instinctual habit weaving it’s way between the idea of assumption and intertwining this assumption of necessity.