essays on the freedom

Essay Papers Writing Online

Why the “freedom writers essay” is an inspiring tale of hope, empathy, and overcoming adversity.

Education has always been a paramount aspect of society, shaping individuals’ intellect and character. Within the vast realms of academia, written expressions have played a pivotal role in documenting and disseminating knowledge. Among these, the essays by Freedom Writers stand out as a testament to the importance of personal narratives and the transformative power they hold.

By delving into the multifaceted dimensions of human experiences, the essays penned by Freedom Writers captivate readers with their raw authenticity and emotional depth. These narratives showcase the indomitable spirit of individuals who have triumphed over adversity, providing invaluable insights into the human condition. Through their stories, we gain a profound understanding of the challenges faced by marginalized communities, shedding light on the systemic issues deeply ingrained in our society.

What makes the essays by Freedom Writers particularly significant is their ability to ignite a spark of empathy within readers. The vivid descriptions and heartfelt accounts shared in these personal narratives serve as a bridge, connecting individuals from diverse backgrounds and fostering a sense of understanding. As readers immerse themselves in these stories, they develop a heightened awareness of the struggles faced by others, ultimately cultivating a more inclusive and compassionate society.

The Inspiring Story of the Freedom Writers Essay

The Freedom Writers Essay tells a powerful and inspiring story of a group of students who were able to overcome adversity and find their own voices through the power of writing. This essay not only impacted the education system, but also touched the hearts of many individuals around the world.

Set in the early 1990s, the Freedom Writers Essay highlights the journey of a young teacher named Erin Gruwell and her diverse group of students in Long Beach, California. Faced with a challenging and often hostile environment, Gruwell used literature and writing as a platform to engage her students and help them express their own experiences and emotions.

Through the use of journals, the students were able to share their personal stories, struggles, and dreams. This essay not only became a therapeutic outlet for the students, but it also allowed them to see the power of their own voices. It gave them a sense of empowerment and hope that they could break free from the cycle of violence and poverty that surrounded them.

As their stories were shared through the Freedom Writers Essay, the impact reached far beyond the walls of their classroom. Their words resonated with people from all walks of life, who were able to see the universal themes of resilience, empathy, and the importance of education. The essay sparked a movement of hope and change, inspiring individuals and communities to work together towards a more inclusive and equitable education system.

The Freedom Writers Essay is a testament to the transformative power of education and the incredible potential of young minds. It serves as a reminder that everyone has a story to tell and that through the written word, we can create understanding, bridge divides, and inspire change.

In conclusion, the Freedom Writers Essay is not just a piece of writing, but a catalyst for change. It showcases the remarkable journey of a group of students who found solace and strength in their own stories. It reminds us of the importance of empowering young minds and providing them with the tools necessary to overcome obstacles and make a difference in the world.

Understanding the background and significance of the Freedom Writers essay

The Freedom Writers essay holds a notable history and plays a significant role in the field of education. This piece of writing carries a background rich with hardships, triumphs, and the power of individual expression.

Originating from the diary entries of a group of high school students known as the Freedom Writers, the essay documents their personal experiences, struggles, and remarkable growth. These students were part of a racially diverse and economically disadvantaged community, facing social issues including gang violence, racism, and poverty.

Despite the challenging circumstances, the Freedom Writers found solace and empowerment through writing. Their teacher, Erin Gruwell, recognized the potential of their stories and encouraged them to share their experiences through written form. She implemented a curriculum that encouraged self-expression, empathy, and critical thinking.

The significance of the Freedom Writers essay lies in its ability to shed light on the experiences of marginalized communities and bring attention to the importance of education as a means of empowerment. The essay serves as a powerful tool to inspire change, challenge social norms, and foster understanding among diverse populations.

By sharing their narratives, the students of the Freedom Writers not only found catharsis and personal growth, but also contributed to a larger discourse on the impact of education and the role of teachers in transforming lives. The essay serves as a reminder of the profound impact that storytelling and education can have on individuals and communities.

Learning from the Unique Teaching Methods in the Freedom Writers Essay

The Freedom Writers Essay presents a remarkable story of a teacher who uses unconventional teaching methods to make a positive impact on her students. By examining the strategies employed by the teacher in the essay, educators can learn valuable lessons that can enhance their own teaching practices. This section explores the unique teaching methods showcased in the Freedom Writers Essay and the potential benefits they can bring to the field of education.

Empowering student voice and promoting inclusivity: One of the key themes in the essay is the importance of giving students a platform to express their thoughts and experiences. The teacher in the Freedom Writers Essay encourages her students to share their stories through writing, empowering them to find their own voices and fostering a sense of inclusivity in the classroom. This approach teaches educators the significance of valuing and incorporating student perspectives, ultimately creating a more engaging and diverse learning environment.

Building relationships and trust: The teacher in the essay invests time and effort in building meaningful relationships with her students. Through personal connections, she is able to gain their trust and create a safe space for learning. This emphasis on building trust highlights the impact of positive teacher-student relationships on academic success. Educators can learn from this approach by understanding the importance of establishing a supportive and nurturing rapport with their students, which can enhance student engagement and motivation.

Using literature as a tool for empathy and understanding: The teacher in the Freedom Writers Essay introduces her students to literature that explores diverse perspectives and themes of resilience and social justice. By incorporating literature into her curriculum, she encourages her students to develop empathy and gain a deeper understanding of the experiences of others. This approach underscores the value of incorporating diverse and relevant texts into the classroom, enabling students to broaden their perspectives and foster critical thinking skills.

Fostering a sense of community and belonging: In the essay, the teacher creates a sense of community within her classroom by organizing activities that promote teamwork and collaboration. By fostering a supportive and inclusive learning environment, the teacher helps her students feel a sense of belonging and encourages them to support one another. This aspect of the teaching methods showcased in the Freedom Writers Essay reinforces the significance of collaborative learning and the sense of community in fostering academic growth and personal development.

Overall, the unique teaching methods presented in the Freedom Writers Essay serve as an inspiration for educators to think outside the box and explore innovative approaches to engage and empower their students. By incorporating elements such as student voice, building relationships, using literature for empathy, and fostering a sense of community, educators can create a transformative learning experience for their students, ultimately shaping them into critical thinkers and compassionate individuals.

Exploring the innovative approaches used by the Freedom Writers teacher

The Freedom Writers teacher employed a range of creative and groundbreaking methods to engage and educate their students, fostering a love for learning and empowering them to break the cycle of violence and poverty surrounding their lives. Through a combination of empathy, experiential learning, and personal storytelling, the teacher was able to connect with the students on a deep level and inspire them to overcome the obstacles they faced.

One of the innovative approaches utilized by the Freedom Writers teacher was the use of literature and writing as a means of communication and healing. By introducing the students to powerful works of literature that tackled relevant social issues, the teacher encouraged them to explore their own identities and experiences through writing. This not only facilitated self-expression but also fostered critical thinking and empathy, as the students were able to relate to the characters and themes in the literature.

The teacher also implemented a unique system of journal writing, where the students were given a safe and non-judgmental space to express their thoughts, emotions, and personal experiences. This practice not only helped the students develop their writing skills but also served as a therapeutic outlet, allowing them to process and reflect upon their own lives and the challenges they faced. By sharing and discussing their journal entries within the classroom, the students built a strong sense of community and support among themselves.

Another innovative strategy utilized by the Freedom Writers teacher was the integration of field trips and guest speakers into the curriculum. By exposing the students to different perspectives and experiences, the teacher broadened their horizons and challenged their preconceived notions. This experiential learning approach not only made the subjects more engaging and relatable but also encouraged the students to think critically and develop a greater understanding of the world around them.

In conclusion, the Freedom Writers teacher implemented a range of innovative and effective approaches to foster learning and personal growth among their students. Through the use of literature, writing, journaling, and experiential learning, the teacher created a supportive and empowering environment that allowed the students to overcome their adversities and become agents of change. These methods continue to inspire educators and highlight the importance of innovative teaching practices in creating a positive impact on students’ lives.

The Impact of the Freedom Writers Essay on Students’ Lives

The Freedom Writers Essay has had a profound impact on the lives of students who have been exposed to its powerful message. Through the personal stories and experiences shared in the essay, students are able to gain a deeper understanding of the challenges and resilience that individuals can possess. The essay serves as a catalyst for personal growth, empathy, and a desire to make a positive difference in the world.

One of the key ways in which the Freedom Writers Essay impacts students’ lives is by breaking down barriers and promoting understanding. Through reading the essay, students are able to connect with the struggles and triumphs of individuals from diverse backgrounds. This fosters a sense of empathy and compassion, allowing students to see beyond their own experiences and appreciate the unique journeys of others.

In addition to promoting empathy, the Freedom Writers Essay also inspires students to take action. By showcasing the power of education and personal expression, the essay encourages students to use their voices to effect change in their communities. Students are empowered to stand up against injustice, advocate for those who are marginalized, and work towards creating a more inclusive and equitable society.

Furthermore, the essay serves as a reminder of the importance of perseverance in the face of adversity. Through the stories shared in the essay, students witness the determination and resilience of individuals who have overcome significant challenges. This inspires students to believe in their own ability to overcome obstacles and pursue their dreams, no matter the circumstances.

Overall, the impact of the Freedom Writers Essay on students’ lives is profound and far-reaching. It not only educates and enlightens, but also motivates and empowers. By exposing students to the power of storytelling and the potential for personal growth and social change, the essay equips them with the tools they need to become compassionate and engaged citizens of the world.

Examining the transformation experienced by the Freedom Writers students

The journey of the Freedom Writers students is a testament to the power of education and its transformative impact on young minds. Through their shared experiences, these students were able to overcome adversity, prejudice, and personal struggles to find their voices and take ownership of their education. This process of transformation not only shaped their individual lives but also had a ripple effect on their communities and the educational system as a whole.

The transformation experienced by the Freedom Writers students serves as a powerful reminder of the potential within every student, regardless of their background or circumstances. It highlights the importance of creating an inclusive and supportive educational environment that encourages self-expression, empathy, and a belief in one’s own abilities. By fostering a love for learning and empowering students to embrace their unique voices, education can become a catalyst for positive change, both within individuals and society as a whole.

Addressing Social Issues and Promoting Empathy through the Freedom Writers Essay

In today’s society, it is important to address social issues and promote empathy to create a more inclusive and harmonious world. One way to achieve this is through the powerful medium of the written word. The Freedom Writers Essay, a notable piece of literature, serves as a catalyst for addressing social issues and promoting empathy among students.

The Freedom Writers Essay showcases the experiences and struggles of students who have faced adversity, discrimination, and inequality. Through their personal narratives, these students shed light on the social issues that exist within our society, such as racism, poverty, and violence. By sharing their stories, they invite readers to step into their shoes and gain a deeper understanding of the challenges they face. This promotes empathy and encourages readers to take action to create a more equitable world.

Furthermore, the Freedom Writers Essay fosters a sense of community and unity among students. As they read and discuss the essay, students have the opportunity to engage in meaningful conversations about social issues, sharing their own perspectives and experiences. This dialogue allows them to challenge their beliefs, develop critical thinking skills, and broaden their horizons. By creating a safe space for open and honest discussions, the Freedom Writers Essay creates an environment where students can learn from one another and grow together.

In addition, the essay prompts students to reflect on their own privileges and biases. Through self-reflection, students can gain a better understanding of their own place in society and the role they can play in creating positive change. This reflection process helps students develop empathy for others and encourages them to become active agents of social justice.

In conclusion, the Freedom Writers Essay serves as a powerful tool for addressing social issues and promoting empathy among students. By sharing personal narratives, fostering dialogue, and prompting self-reflection, this essay encourages students to confront societal challenges head-on and take meaningful action. Through the power of the written word, the essay helps create a more inclusive and empathetic society.

Analyzing how the essay tackles significant societal issues and promotes empathy

In this section, we will examine how the essay addresses crucial problems in society and encourages a sense of understanding. The essay serves as a platform to shed light on important social issues and foster empathy among its readers.

The essay delves into the depths of societal problems, exploring topics such as racial discrimination, stereotyping, and the achievement gap in education. It presents these issues in a thought-provoking manner, prompting readers to reflect on the harsh realities faced by marginalized communities. Through personal anecdotes and experiences, the essay unveils the profound impact of these problems on individuals and society as a whole.

Furthermore, the essay emphasizes the significance of cultural understanding and empathy. It highlights the power of perspective and the importance of recognizing and challenging one’s own biases. The author’s account of their own transformation and ability to connect with their students serves as an inspiring example, urging readers to step outside their comfort zones and embrace diversity.

By confronting and discussing these social issues head-on, the essay not only raises awareness but also calls for collective action. It encourages readers to become advocates for change and actively work towards creating a more inclusive and equitable society. The essay emphasizes the role of education in addressing these societal problems and the potential for growth and transformation it can bring.

In essence, the essay provides a platform to examine important societal problems and promotes empathy by humanizing the issues and encouraging readers to listen, understand, and work towards positive change.

Related Post

How to master the art of writing expository essays and captivate your audience, convenient and reliable source to purchase college essays online, step-by-step guide to crafting a powerful literary analysis essay, buy essay top quality writing services expertly crafted papers for your academic success, buy high quality thesis paper online expert writing services for your academic success, how to write an effective essay from introduction to conclusio nusing clear structure and engaging content, buy essays help online professional writing services for all your academic needs.

Essays About Freedom: 5 Helpful Examples and 7 Prompts

Freedom seems simple at first; however, it is quite a nuanced topic at a closer glance. If you are writing essays about freedom, read our guide of essay examples and writing prompts.

In a world where we constantly hear about violence, oppression, and war, few things are more important than freedom. It is the ability to act, speak, or think what we want without being controlled or subjected. It can be considered the gateway to achieving our goals, as we can take the necessary steps. 

However, freedom is not always “doing whatever we want.” True freedom means to do what is righteous and reasonable, even if there is the option to do otherwise. Moreover, freedom must come with responsibility; this is why laws are in place to keep society orderly but not too micro-managed, to an extent.

5 Examples of Essays About Freedom

1. essay on “freedom” by pragati ghosh, 2. acceptance is freedom by edmund perry, 3. reflecting on the meaning of freedom by marquita herald.

• 4.  Authentic Freedom by Wilfred Carlson

5. What are freedom and liberty? by Yasmin Youssef

1. what is freedom, 2. freedom in the contemporary world, 3. is freedom “not free”, 4. moral and ethical issues concerning freedom, 5. freedom vs. security, 6. free speech and hate speech, 7. an experience of freedom.

“Freedom is non denial of our basic rights as humans. Some freedom is specific to the age group that we fall into. A child is free to be loved and cared by parents and other members of family and play around. So this nurturing may be the idea of freedom to a child. Living in a crime free society in safe surroundings may mean freedom to a bit grown up child.”

In her essay, Ghosh briefly describes what freedom means to her. It is the ability to live your life doing what you want. However, she writes that we must keep in mind the dignity and freedom of others. One cannot simply kill and steal from people in the name of freedom; it is not absolute. She also notes that different cultures and age groups have different notions of freedom. Freedom is a beautiful thing, but it must be exercised in moderation. 

“They demonstrate that true freedom is about being accepted, through the scenarios that Ambrose Flack has written for them to endure. In The Strangers That Came to Town, the Duvitches become truly free at the finale of the story. In our own lives, we must ask: what can we do to help others become truly free?”

Perry’s essay discusses freedom in the context of Ambrose Flack’s short story The Strangers That Came to Town : acceptance is the key to being free. When the immigrant Duvitch family moved into a new town, they were not accepted by the community and were deprived of the freedom to live without shame and ridicule. However, when some townspeople reach out, the Duvitches feel empowered and relieved and are no longer afraid to go out and be themselves. 

“Freedom is many things, but those issues that are often in the forefront of conversations these days include the freedom to choose, to be who you truly are, to express yourself and to live your life as you desire so long as you do not hurt or restrict the personal freedom of others. I’ve compiled a collection of powerful quotations on the meaning of freedom to share with you, and if there is a single unifying theme it is that we must remember at all times that, regardless of where you live, freedom is not carved in stone, nor does it come without a price.”

In her short essay, Herald contemplates on freedom and what it truly means. She embraces her freedom and uses it to live her life to the fullest and to teach those around her. She values freedom and closes her essay with a list of quotations on the meaning of freedom, all with something in common: freedom has a price. With our freedom, we must be responsible. You might also be interested in these essays about consumerism .

4.   Authentic Freedom by Wilfred Carlson

“Freedom demands of one, or rather obligates one to concern ourselves with the affairs of the world around us. If you look at the world around a human being, countries where freedom is lacking, the overall population is less concerned with their fellow man, then in a freer society. The same can be said of individuals, the more freedom a human being has, and the more responsible one acts to other, on the whole.”

Carlson writes about freedom from a more religious perspective, saying that it is a right given to us by God. However, authentic freedom is doing what is right and what will help others rather than simply doing what one wants. If freedom were exercised with “doing what we want” in mind, the world would be disorderly. True freedom requires us to care for others and work together to better society. 

“In my opinion, the concepts of freedom and liberty are what makes us moral human beings. They include individual capacities to think, reason, choose and value different situations. It also means taking individual responsibility for ourselves, our decisions and actions. It includes self-governance and self-determination in combination with critical thinking, respect, transparency and tolerance. We should let no stone unturned in the attempt to reach a state of full freedom and liberty, even if it seems unrealistic and utopic.”

Youssef’s essay describes the concepts of freedom and liberty and how they allow us to do what we want without harming others. She notes that respect for others does not always mean agreeing with them. We can disagree, but we should not use our freedom to infringe on that of the people around us. To her, freedom allows us to choose what is good, think critically, and innovate. 

7 Prompts for Essays About Freedom

Freedom is quite a broad topic and can mean different things to different people. For your essay, define freedom and explain what it means to you. For example, freedom could mean having the right to vote, the right to work, or the right to choose your path in life. Then, discuss how you exercise your freedom based on these definitions and views. 

The world as we know it is constantly changing, and so is the entire concept of freedom. Research the state of freedom in the world today and center your essay on the topic of modern freedom. For example, discuss freedom while still needing to work to pay bills and ask, “Can we truly be free when we cannot choose with the constraints of social norms?” You may compare your situation to the state of freedom in other countries and in the past if you wish. 

A common saying goes like this: “Freedom is not free.” Reflect on this quote and write your essay about what it means to you: how do you understand it? In addition, explain whether you believe it to be true or not, depending on your interpretation. 

Many contemporary issues exemplify both the pros and cons of freedom; for example, slavery shows the worst when freedom is taken away, while gun violence exposes the disadvantages of too much freedom. First, discuss one issue regarding freedom and briefly touch on its causes and effects. Then, be sure to explain how it relates to freedom. 

Some believe that more laws curtail the right to freedom and liberty. In contrast, others believe that freedom and regulation can coexist, saying that freedom must come with the responsibility to ensure a safe and orderly society. Take a stand on this issue and argue for your position, supporting your response with adequate details and credible sources. 

Many people, especially online, have used their freedom of speech to attack others based on race and gender, among other things. Many argue that hate speech is still free and should be protected, while others want it regulated. Is it infringing on freedom? You decide and be sure to support your answer adequately. Include a rebuttal of the opposing viewpoint for a more credible argumentative essay. 

For your essay, you can also reflect on a time you felt free. It could be your first time going out alone, moving into a new house, or even going to another country. How did it make you feel? Reflect on your feelings, particularly your sense of freedom, and explain them in detail. 

Check out our guide packed full of transition words for essays .If you are interested in learning more, check out our essay writing tips !

Martin is an avid writer specializing in editing and proofreading. He also enjoys literary analysis and writing about food and travel.

View all posts

Freedom Essay for Students and Children

500+ words essay on freedom.

Freedom is something that everybody has heard of but if you ask for its meaning then everyone will give you different meaning. This is so because everyone has a different opinion about freedom. For some freedom means the freedom of going anywhere they like, for some it means to speak up form themselves, and for some, it is liberty of doing anything they like.

Meaning of Freedom

The real meaning of freedom according to books is. Freedom refers to a state of independence where you can do what you like without any restriction by anyone. Moreover, freedom can be called a state of mind where you have the right and freedom of doing what you can think off. Also, you can feel freedom from within.

The Indian Freedom

Indian is a country which was earlier ruled by Britisher and to get rid of these rulers India fight back and earn their freedom. But during this long fight, many people lost their lives and because of the sacrifice of those people and every citizen of the country, India is a free country and the world largest democracy in the world.

Moreover, after independence India become one of those countries who give his citizen some freedom right without and restrictions.

The Indian Freedom Right

India drafted a constitution during the days of struggle with the Britishers and after independence it became applicable. In this constitution, the Indian citizen was given several fundaments right which is applicable to all citizen equally. More importantly, these right are the freedom that the constitution has given to every citizen.

These right are right to equality, right to freedom, right against exploitation, right to freedom of religion¸ culture and educational right, right to constitutional remedies, right to education. All these right give every freedom that they can’t get in any other country.

Value of Freedom

The real value of anything can only be understood by those who have earned it or who have sacrificed their lives for it. Freedom also means liberalization from oppression. It also means the freedom from racism, from harm, from the opposition, from discrimination and many more things.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Freedom does not mean that you violate others right, it does not mean that you disregard other rights. Moreover, freedom means enchanting the beauty of nature and the environment around us.

The Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech is the most common and prominent right that every citizen enjoy. Also, it is important because it is essential for the all-over development of the country.

Moreover, it gives way to open debates that helps in the discussion of thought and ideas that are essential for the growth of society.

Besides, this is the only right that links with all the other rights closely. More importantly, it is essential to express one’s view of his/her view about society and other things.

To conclude, we can say that Freedom is not what we think it is. It is a psychological concept everyone has different views on. Similarly, it has a different value for different people. But freedom links with happiness in a broadway.

FAQs on Freedom

Q.1 What is the true meaning of freedom? A.1 Freedom truly means giving equal opportunity to everyone for liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Q.2 What is freedom of expression means? A.2 Freedom of expression means the freedom to express one’s own ideas and opinions through the medium of writing, speech, and other forms of communication without causing any harm to someone’s reputation.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Life

Essay Samples on Freedom

Why is freedom of religion important.

Freedom of religion stands as one of the fundamental pillars of a democratic and pluralistic society. It safeguards an individual's right to practice their chosen faith without fear of discrimination or persecution. This essay delves into the resons why freedom of religion is important, exploring...

• Religious Tolerance

What Is the Meaning of Freedom: the Price We Pay

The concept of freedom has transcended time and culture, serving as a cornerstone of human aspirations and societal progress. But what is the true meaning of freedom, and what price do we pay to attain and preserve it? This essay will delve into the multifaceted...

What Does Freedom Mean to Me: a Privilege and a Responsibility

Freedom, a concept deeply embedded in the fabric of human history, has been sought, fought for, and cherished by individuals and societies alike. But what does freedom truly mean to me? In this essay, I will delve into my personal understanding and interpretation of freedom,...

How Has Freedom Changed Over Time: A Dynamic Journey

How has freedom changed over time? Throughout history, the concept of freedom has undergone profound transformations, shaped by the evolving sociopolitical, cultural, and technological landscapes. As societies progress, the understanding and pursuit of freedom have adapted to new contexts and challenges. In this essay, we...

Balance Between Freedom And Equality

We hear a lot of people talking about “Freedom and Equality”...but do we really know the real meaning? Freedom and Equality are two fundamental values in a society and they have helped to construct the society known today. Without them, the nation would discriminate unfairly...

Stressed out with your paper?

Consider using writing assistance:

• 100% unique papers
• 3 hrs deadline option

Considering Religious Beliefs And Freedom Of Expression

Whether you believe in something or not, the idea of religion has probably crossed your mind. Some people see it as a way to make sense of the world around us and some see it as way of life. the idea that a higher power,...

• Religious Beliefs

Differences between the Patterson's, Foner's, and King's interpretations of Freedom

Patterson gives three different interpretations of freedom. His first interpretation is about personal freedom. He interprets this freedom as the ability of an individual to do as they please within their limits. His second interpretation is sovereign. Like a sovereign nation, a free person can...

• African American
• Interpretation

Literary Analysis and Review of Annie Dillard's "Living Like Weasels"

I traveled to Hollins pond not to wonder at life, but to further myself from it. Yet I can learn from a weasel how to live life. Weasels survive in mindlessness, a pure and dignified way of living, unlike the bias and ulterior motives that...

• Annie Dillard

Life Without Principle: The Isolation of Oneself in One's World

In Henry David Thoreau's 'Life Without Principle “ the author talks about how we are isolating ourselves from society and how we should live in our own world and not be going towards society. I do agree with Thoreau’s main idea with the passage because...

• Life Without Principle

Annie Dillard's and Alexander Theroux' Analysis of Freedom

Although the essays “Living like Weasels” Annie Dillard and “Black” by Alexander Theroux tackle two different subjects, they both use similar strategies in order to get their points across to the reader. Dillard uses the Weasels feral nature to analyze freedom. Meanwhile Theroux uses the...

The Battle for Individual Freedom and Autonomy in Amistad

On August 26, 1839, US Navy brig Washington discovered a schooner at Long Island, New York. Unlike conventional merchant ships that carried cargos, this Spanish vessel named La Amistad was severely damaged and came ashore with two Spaniards under the control of forty-four Africans. The...

Mental Slavery: Achieving Mental Freedom

We may consider mental slavery as a psychological disease. Many kinds of illusions, abusive fantasies, frustrating discouragement, etc. create a complex gland of self-mortification in the mind area. These glands become very powerful over time. Then these responses go on various activities of day-to-day activities....

• Mental Slavery

"Survival in Auschwitz": How Suffering Leads to Freedom

Introduction In Primo Levi's memoir, "Survival in Auschwitz," he vividly recounts his harrowing experiences as a prisoner in the Auschwitz concentration camp during World War II. Amidst the unimaginable suffering and dehumanization, Levi explores the paradoxical concept of how enduring immense pain and suffering can...

• Survival in Auschwitz

The Symbolism of Horses in "All the Pretty Horses"

Freedom can be interpreted into various of meanings. To have freedom is to live in the moment, without regretting the past or anticipating the future. To have freedom can also mean to be in the state of not being subject to or affected by undesirable...

• All The Pretty Horses

How Hope Leads to Freedom and Success

For any novels to truly connect with the readers the author needs to pay close attention to character development. It’s the human element that is going to resonate with people.A great character is more than just an iconic name it’s the process of creating a...

Chris McCandless: Heroic Adventurer or Naive Risk-taker

Chris McCandless, a young adventurer who left his privileged life behind to embark on a journey into the Alaskan wilderness, has been the subject of much debate. Was he a hero, a brave individual who sought a higher purpose, or a fool who recklessly put...

• Chris Mccandless
• Into The Wild

Impact of the Totalitarian Regime on Society In 'A Clockwork Orange'

Society has established that the validation of choice further progresses the people of a country as a nation of the people. It becomes the idea that individual choice is liberty as it serves as the catalysts that structure the basis of democracy which idealizes the...

• A Clockwork Orange

The Impacts of Social Conditioning on the Individual Freedom

40% of food worldwide is thrown away because of fear of expiration dates. People gravitate towards the idea that nurses are mostly women or that money buys happiness. All these misconceptions and gender stereotypes in today’s society occur because of the impact of social conditioning....

• Individual Identity

Mill's Opinion on Freedom of Expression and Individual Liberty

One of the most important liberties in a free society would be freedom of opinion and freedom of expression. Some extreme freedom of speech absolutists would argue that all sorts of opinions should be given the right to be expressed. These opinions may include hate...

• John Stuart Mill

Challenging Kant's Moral Theory of Freedom and Liberty

In his 1793 essay ‘On the common saying: “This may be true in theory, but it does not apply in practice” Kant outlies his view of the relation between morality and liberty and the role freedom plays within both these concepts. This essay will examine...

• Immanuel Kant

The Challenges of Immigration and Freedom in Charlie Chaplin's Work

Everyone has heard of Charlie Chaplin once in their lives. There’s no way one hasn’t seen at least a clip from one of his many films or come across a work inspired by him throughout the decades. The character Chaplin created, The Tramp, has made...

• Charlie Chaplin

Wester Concept of Freedom, UDHR and Islam

In 1948, United Nations General Assembly adopted a document Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It was drafted by representatives who came from different cultures & had legal expertise. This states fundamental human rights which all individuals as citizens of the world should be entitled...

The Concept of Freedom in the Modern Technological World

The concept of freedom is always changing and is often open to interpretation. In today’s society, humans are generally born free with equal dignity and rights. Depending on the society one is born into, their interpretation of who really has freedom can change. In Aldous...

• Modern Technology

The Healthy Viewpoint on the Concept of American Freedom

America is the freest nation in the world. A lot of people dream of getting into this country and have the same opportunities that Americans have. In other words, opportunities mean freedom, freedom of choice. The concept of freedom, as the right of choice, originated...

• American Culture

The Call of the Wild: A Struggle for Freedom

‘The Call of the Wild’ is a book by Jack London that is set in the midst of the gold discovery that influenced large masses of people to travel into Canada's regions hunting for gold. The narration follows Bucks story in his journey as a...

• Call of The Wild

The Role of Fate and Free Will in Sophocles' Play "Antigone"

Fate is the idea that everything is destined to happen or turn out in a particular way and it is an important part of many tragedies. The lives of the characters have a set ending in their lives and some are able to recognize their...

Malalathe: A Courageous Fighter for Freedom

Freedom is one of the most basic human urge from the moment of their birth. Freedom is one thing that characterizes the essence and existence of the man (Hor Victorson, 2018). Every individual has their own meaning for freedom. In depth to philosophy,” freedom seems...

Nelson Mandela's Journey to Justice, Reconciliation, and Hope

Long Walk to Freedom: The Autobiography of Nelson Mandela is a compelling account of one of the greatest political leaders of the 20th century. Mandela's memoir tells the story of his life, from his childhood in a rural village to his imprisonment for 27 years,...

• Nelson Mandela

Ralph Waldo Emerson and His Belief in the Freedom of an Individual

Over the course of a lifetime, many human beings are faced with challenges that shape them and opportunities to shape others. Ralph Waldo Emerson is a man who experienced much tragedy, including the premature death of many close family members beginning early in his childhood....

• Personal Beliefs
• Ralph Waldo Emerson

Thoreau's Ideas of Transcendentalism Expressed in His Works

Transcendentalism is the movement that emphasizes transcendence from the ordinary limits of thoughts and experiences and acknowledges the new outlook in self-reliance. The movement originated in America in the 19th century after the independence of America from the British gave people a different perspective to...

• Transcendentalism

Symbols of Freedom in the Movie "Shawshank Redemption"

Seen as a movie or literary theme, the right of Freedom is most of the time felt through the adventures of a person who is wrongfully accused and confined. Putting side by side two things like the right every human being is entitled to have,...

• Shawshank Redemption

The Theme of Freedom in the Novel "Purple Hibiscus"

Art classes taught at an early age teach the little learners about the color wheel and mixing colors; when the calming color of blue is mixed with the bold energy of red, a new color called purple is produced. It comes as no surprise that...

• Purple Hibiscus

"Jealous Husband Returns in Form as a Parrot": Search for Freedom

I am analyzing the story called “Jealous Husband Returns in Form of Parrot.” It was written by Robert Olen Butler, and first published in the New Yorker on May 22, 1995. It eventually became a part of his book “Tabloid Dreams” that was published by...

• Short Story

The Power of Freedom in "A Wall of Fire Rising"

Freedom is described to be the power to act however we want. In our lives, we are granted a certain degree of freedom. It is something that we have overused through time and have taken it for granted. In other places, however, the right to...

• A Wall of Fire Rising

The Misery of Pointless Dreams in A Wall of Fire Rising

I love watching phenomena in little kids that they feel like they need a certain toy or the universe will explode. Their whole world revolves around that one thing. But, once they get that toy, it’s no longer fun to them. Their joy fades away,...

Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom: Questioning Socialism

Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman battles against the effects of capitalism and to justify the government intervention in the market. The link between democracy and capitalism, or governmental and economic freedom. Friedman asserts his argument around the relation between the economic freedom and governmental...

The Idea of Freedom in Women's Suffrage

Freedom: having the power to think, speak, and act in any way without control or constriction. Throughout history, women fought to be seen as individuals and to be able to advocate for the things they believed in. The women of this time were unfairly treated...

• Women's Suffrage

Autobiograpical Tale of Finding Freedom in Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass

Frederick Douglass describes the institution of slavery as an institution that dehumanizes people and hardens them through the hardships they go through, such as humiliation, pain, and brutality. He states that 'I was seldom whipped by my former master, and suffering everything little more than...

• Narrative of The Life of Frederick Douglass

Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela: Pioneers in the Fight for Freedom

Mahatma Gandhi was the pioneer who joined India in the battle for its freedom. His peacefulness strategies shook the British and maybe, even the world. A portion of the developments that he started amid freedom wereGandhi's first real accomplishments came in 1918 with the Champaran...

• Mahatma Gandhi

A Doll's House: Discussion about Women's Freedom

A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen was written as a result of the rules and conventions obtained by the Northern European Society. In this novel, he proposed that the society was controlled in a restricted manner and was extremely unfair. Although the social context may...

• A Doll's House
• Gender Equality

Is Our Obsession With Happiness Making Us Miserable?

Coming from a family tree brimming with cases of depression, I developed a fixation with the concept of happiness, or rather the lack of it, at a very young age. My worrisome mother, having been one of those cases, encouraged me to spend a great...

Immanuel Kant’s Essay “What Is Enlightenment” Is Not Longer Relevant To Modern World

Freedom. It is more than a George Michel’s song. It actually means different things for different people. But at its core, freedom is “the power or right to act, speak or think what one wants”. For Immanuel Kant freedom from the guardians is the primary...

Understanding The Meaning Of Leisure

Over centuries, the meaning of leisure has changed drastically due to the always developing societies and their norms and cultures. In other words, everyone has a different understanding of what leisure means for them. One can look at it from many perspectives which makes the...

Does Don Giovanni Suffered In Any Way?

For any given object, the idea is held that essence precedes existence; a chair created for comfort, a fork for ease in eating, a bulb for illumination, etcetera. Sartre presents the idea that existence precedes essence; we are born and thrown into the world with...

• Philosophy of Life

History Of Monasticism In World Religions

Monasticism is the lifestyle that was created by monks and nuns. This kind of lifestyle is when a person decides to seclude themselves and devote their life and time to their religion. This is important to realize because this kind of lifestyle has been around...

How Do The Writers Present Freedom?

The theme of freedom is prevalent throughout both of the texts via self finding journeys, love, education and independence. Ali smiths 2007 novel concentrates on the journey an individual must take to reach personal freedom and how our experiences polish us but do not determine...

• Reading Books

My Definition Of Freedom In My Life

Freedom as a concept is defined in many declarations around the world as a right to freely and safely express one's beliefs and religion. My definition of freedom is my life story. Section One, Chapter 2, Article 29, The Constitution of The Russian Federation: “Everyone...

Inherit the Wind: Drummond as a Figure Fighting for Freedom of Speech

Freedom of thought is an intangible phenomenon that humanity craves. Some may say it is essential to life, but what if we did not have the right to think? Published in 1955, Inherit the Wind is considered a documentary characterizing many historical elements. It examined...

The Problems With School Curriculums And Scheduling System

Teachers are not the problem here, a great teacher can inspire a kid and bring out the best inside them and they can help them when they need it the most and that is truly immeasurable. School curriculums are made by curriculum makers who never...

• School Curriculums

Symbolism As An Important Tool In Literature

Freedom and Rebellion Symbolism is an important tool in literature that allows authors to unveil the truth in a subtle way. Mark Twain and Kate Chopin effectively use this method in their stories to expose the harsh realities that the characters faced. Twain uses multiple...

• Literature Review

Best topics on Freedom

1. Why Is Freedom of Religion Important

2. What Is the Meaning of Freedom: the Price We Pay

3. What Does Freedom Mean to Me: a Privilege and a Responsibility

4. How Has Freedom Changed Over Time: A Dynamic Journey

5. Balance Between Freedom And Equality

6. Considering Religious Beliefs And Freedom Of Expression

7. Differences between the Patterson’s, Foner’s, and King’s interpretations of Freedom

8. Literary Analysis and Review of Annie Dillard’s “Living Like Weasels”

9. Life Without Principle: The Isolation of Oneself in One’s World

10. Annie Dillard’s and Alexander Theroux’ Analysis of Freedom

11. The Battle for Individual Freedom and Autonomy in Amistad

12. Mental Slavery: Achieving Mental Freedom

13. “Survival in Auschwitz”: How Suffering Leads to Freedom

14. The Symbolism of Horses in “All the Pretty Horses”

15. How Hope Leads to Freedom and Success

• Career Goals
• Personality
• Personal Experience

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

Essay on Importance of Freedom

Students are often asked to write an essay on Importance of Freedom in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Importance of Freedom

Understanding freedom.

Freedom is a fundamental right that everyone deserves. It means the power to act, speak, or think without hindrance or restraint. Freedom is crucial for personal growth and happiness.

Freedom’s Role in Society

In a society, freedom is necessary for the development of individuals. It allows us to express our thoughts, make choices, and pursue our dreams.

Freedom and Responsibility

While freedom is essential, it must be balanced with responsibility. We should use our freedom wisely, respecting others’ rights and maintaining peace.

Preserving Freedom

We must always strive to preserve and protect our freedom, ensuring a just and equitable society for all.

Also check:

• Paragraph on Importance of Freedom

250 Words Essay on Importance of Freedom

Introduction to freedom.

Freedom, a term often associated with liberty and autonomy, is a fundamental human right, pivotal to our existence. It is the power to act, speak, or think without externally imposed restraints.

The Essence of Freedom

Freedom is the cornerstone of democracy, where citizens are free to express their thoughts, make choices, and pursue their aspirations. It fosters creativity and innovation, encouraging individuals to explore beyond the confines of conventionality. Freedom is the catalyst for personal and societal evolution.

However, freedom should not be misconstrued as anarchy. It comes with inherent responsibility. The ability to differentiate between right and wrong, the courage to stand up for justice, and the sense of responsibility towards fellow beings, all stem from the seed of freedom.

Freedom: A Global Perspective

On a larger scale, freedom is the backbone of international peace and cooperation. Nations that respect and uphold freedom tend to have more harmonious relationships with others, fostering global unity.

In conclusion, freedom is not just a right, but a necessity for the holistic development of individuals and societies. It is the essence of human dignity and a fundamental element of democracy. However, it is crucial that we exercise our freedom responsibly, to ensure a harmonious co-existence.

500 Words Essay on Importance of Freedom

The concept of freedom.

Freedom, a term often used in political, social, and philosophical discourse, is a concept that has been at the core of human civilization. It is the inherent human right to act, speak, or think without hindrance or restraint. Freedom is a multifaceted construct, encompassing aspects such as political liberty, freedom of thought, and the right to self-determination.

Freedom and Human Dignity

Freedom is intrinsically tied to human dignity. It allows individuals to express their unique identities, beliefs, and values without fear of persecution or discrimination. Freedom empowers individuals to pursue their aspirations, fostering creativity, innovation, and personal growth. It provides a platform for people to voice their opinions, engage in dialogue, and contribute to societal progress.

Political Freedom

Political freedom is a cornerstone of democratic societies. It involves the right to vote, freedom of speech, and the right to peaceful assembly. Political freedom enables citizens to participate in decision-making processes, promoting transparency and accountability in governance. It ensures that power is not concentrated in the hands of a few, preventing authoritarianism and fostering a balanced societal structure.

Freedom of Thought and Expression

Freedom of thought and expression is fundamental to intellectual growth and societal development. It encourages diversity of ideas, leading to advancements in science, technology, arts, and culture. It allows for the questioning of prevailing norms and ideologies, paving the way for societal evolution and progress. Censorship and suppression of free thought can lead to stagnation and regression, hindering societal advancement.

While freedom is essential, it is not absolute. It comes with the responsibility to respect the rights and freedoms of others. This balance between freedom and responsibility is crucial to maintaining social harmony and preventing the misuse of freedom to harm others or infringe upon their rights. Thus, freedom should not be perceived as an unrestricted license, but rather as a principle that promotes mutual respect and coexistence.

Challenges to Freedom

Despite its importance, freedom remains under threat in many parts of the world due to authoritarian regimes, censorship, discrimination, and social inequality. Upholding freedom requires constant vigilance, advocacy, and education. It is the collective responsibility of individuals, communities, and nations to safeguard this fundamental human right.

In conclusion, freedom is a vital aspect of human existence and societal progress. It fosters creativity, innovation, and diversity, while also promoting dignity, respect, and equality. However, it is important to remember that freedom comes with responsibility, and its preservation requires ongoing efforts and vigilance. The importance of freedom cannot be overstated, and it is incumbent upon us all to strive for a world where freedom is a reality for everyone.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Focus
• Essay on Flag
• Essay on My College

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Essay Guides
• Other Essays

How to Write a Freedom Essay

• Speech Topics
• Basics of Essay Writing
• Essay Topics
• Main Academic Essays
• Research Paper Topics
• Basics of Research Paper Writing
• Miscellaneous
• Chicago/ Turabian
• Data & Statistics
• Methodology
• Admission Writing Tips
• Admission Advice
• Other Guides
• Student Life
• Studying Tips
• Understanding Plagiarism
• Academic Writing Tips
• Basics of Dissertation & Thesis Writing

• Research Paper Guides
• Formatting Guides
• Basics of Research Process
• Admission Guides
• Dissertation & Thesis Guides

Table of contents

Use our free Readability checker

It is hard to find an assignment duller than writing an essay. A freedom essay was my last task that I had performed thanks to lots of online sources and examples given on the Internet. How did I cope with it? I can share my plan of actions with you and I hope it will help to save your time and efforts. When I was a child there was a movie called “Braveheart”. Maybe you haven’t heard of it but people around me adored that cool epic war film with Mel Gibson . There was an episode when during horrible tortures Mel screamed “Freedom!” I thought that he had gone out of his mind. What was the point of being free and fighting for rights when you wouldn’t have a chance to live? When I got the task I decided to watch the whole movie and finally understood that our freedom really matters. That’s why firstly I started to look for the definition of the word “freedom”. I think that the primary thing is to find out what your topic means because if you don’t understand the meaning of the “freedom” concept, you’d hardly succeed. So, freedom is a state of mind, it is a right to make a choice, to be yourself. It depends on many things - the epoch and the culture. I’ve chosen several definitions of the word “freedom”– the philosophical, the psychological and the juridical. I considered my essay just a story. It simplifies the task. I imagined that I had to tell a story, that my assignment wasn’t retelling the collected information. It should be a story on the topic “Freedom”.  

Don’t Forget About Boring Rules Which Steal Your Freedom

I wondered why a student hates academic writing. When I had written my first essay I realized why people hate coping with it. My personal experience showed that I didn’t like to write essays because of the following reasons:

• It’s hard to concentrate on the topic when you don’t like or even don’t understand it. Firstly, my tutor didn’t allow me to choose the theme to discuss and I had to squeeze ideas from nowhere.
• Tutors ask to write about the things THEY want. That’s a horrible mistake because a person has no chance to choose and get creative. There is no freedom.
• I tried to get an “A” instead of writing something really qualitative and interesting.
• The topic wasn’t catchy and I wanted to get rid of it as soon as possible.
• I wanted to post my pictures on Instagram more than to deal with the paper.
• I HAD to follow someone’s rules. Format, style, number of pages and words and a great number of other things irritate greatly.

I decided to find the right method of approach. I think that when a person takes a task as something pleasant, not just a duty, it will be much easier to cope with it.

Helpful Tips on Writing a Successful Freedom Essay

I decided to work out my rules which would help to write freely and not fear the task. Here they are! Think that it’s not an essay - just a blog story on freedom. I feel good when posting something. I share my ideas and get rid of the pressure. People love blog stories about freedom. So, imagine that you just develop your website.  

• Love what you do. Writing about freedom may be funny and bring much pleasure. Find the idea and highlight it the way you want.
• Your opinion matters much. You are not to agree with everyone. Rebel and be original. If something about the topic “freedom” surprises you, it can surprise everyone.
• Don’t limit yourself. I never depend on one source and don’t stick to one point. First, I investigate the topic and read the FAQ which concerns my essay to get different points of view. I never force myself to write at least something. I take a rest when I need it and write what I love because that’s MY essay.
• Quote and respect somebody’s idea. And be sure that you know how to quote a quote . Tutors appreciate when students sound logical and clever. Quotes are not always good. It’s better to get ideas and rewrite them by adding your own opinion. “When I do something I do it for my country and don’t wait for the appraisal.” Sounds familiar? Yes! I just rewrote the idea taken from Kennedy’s speech. That’s how freedom quotes should be paraphrased.
• Start with theme essay outline . Continue writing the body and then write the intro and the conclusion. I write the body of my freedom essay, investigate and improve it. I see the strongest point and present it in the intro and highlight it in my freedom essay conclusion. Once I tried to begin with the introduction soon found out that my essay had stronger ideas and, as a result, I had to delete it and write the new one.
• Your writing is your freedom - enjoy it. I don’t like to measure myself. If I have something to say right now, I write it. It can be a single sentence or a paragraph. Later I insert it into my essay. I don’t always have time to finish the paper at once. I can write it for many days. One day I feel great and creative and the other day I feel terrible and don’t touch the keyboard. Inspiration is essential.
• Don’t deal with taboo issues. Clichés and too complicated language spoil the paper. One more thing to remember is avoiding plagiarism. Once a friend of mine had copied a passage from the work and his paper was banned. I am unique, you are unique, and the freedom essay must be unique as well.
• Learn the topic properly. It’s important to find the topic captivating for the society and for you. Freedom is not a limited topic and there are a number of variations.

Below are some topics offered by our creative title generator for essay :

• Freedom of conscience
• Freedom of worship
• Freedom in choosing
• Freedom of action
• Freedom of speech
• Freedom of assembly
• Free people.

Now you can see that freedom can be different. Freedom is a part of the human life and you can describe it in different ways.

Freedom of Speech Essay Sample

It’s not easy to write a freedom of speech essay because freedom of speech doesn’t exist. Freedom is an illusion and our politicians try to serve freedom as a main course. People pay much attention to each word being afraid that social networks will ban their “freedom” paper. Every online website must keep within laws that our government creates. Why do people speak of freedom of the press and other freedom issues?

First of all, it’s necessary to find out what the word “freedom” means. According to the thesaurus, freedom is the power or right to act, think, and speak the way one wants. Its synonym is the word “liberty” that deals with “independence” and “sovereignty”. Freedom of speech is the ability to express ideas, beliefs, complaints, and grudges freely. The government mustn’t punish people who said something wrong or present information without supporting it with facts. Do we really have such freedom? The problem is that freedom of speech doesn’t exist alone and cannot be limitless. If you lie, you deprive a person of the right to live normally. If you publish the harsh truth, you can harm someone innocent and spoil somebody’s freedom. Do you really think that you read and hear 100% verified news on TV, radio, social networks, and printed sources? There is always someone behind it. The team of editors corrects everything they don’t like; they can even refuse to publish the announcement at all. There are only a few bloggers who share the truth and don’t decorate it with beautiful words and nice pictures. Still, some countries try to make everything possible to let people speak without limitations and strict censorship. The first country that provided people with the freedom of speech was Ancient Greece. Everybody could express themselves and say both positive and negative issues about policy, country, and other people. The United States of America introduced the First Amendment that declared the right of Americans to discuss things openly. Though, not all types of speech freedom are protected by the law. It’s forbidden to humiliate somebody, post defamation, threat somebody, publish works that are absolutely not unique and spread the material that contains child pornography or other similar issues. Provocative publications or those which aim us to make somebody violate a law belong to the category of unprotected speeches. Freedom of speech is a part of democracy. Unfortunately, not all democratic countries let their citizens express their thoughts the way they want and need. As long as there are such countries we cannot speak about the notion of absolute freedom of speech.

Contact our essay website and free yourself up from academic writing. Our professionals will deliver fantastic result on any topic even if you have 3 hours before the deadline is over.

Daniel Howard is an Essay Writing guru. He helps students create essays that will strike a chord with the readers.

You may also like

Home — Essay Samples — Literature — The Glass Castle — What Freedom Means To Me

What Freedom Means to Me

• Categories: The Glass Castle

About this sample

Words: 634 |

Published: Mar 14, 2024

Words: 634 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Literature

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

4 pages / 1725 words

3.5 pages / 2123 words

7 pages / 3276 words

4.5 pages / 1980 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on The Glass Castle

The character of Rex Walls in Jeanette Walls' memoir "The Glass Castle" is a complex and intriguing figure. Throughout the book, Rex's actions and motivations reveal a man who is both admirable and deeply flawed. This essay aims [...]

Jeannette Walls' novel "The Glass Castle" offers readers a glimpse into the complexities of family relationships, resilience, and the pursuit of dreams amidst adversity. The memoir delves into the author's upbringing in a [...]

One of the most significant events in Jeannette Walls' memoir "The Glass Castle" is the fire that occurs in the family's house in Welch, West Virginia. The fire serves as a turning point in the memoir, representing the [...]

Jeannette Walls' memoir, The Glass Castle, provides a poignant and raw portrayal of poverty and its devastating impact on a family. The memoir chronicles Walls' childhood, growing up in extreme poverty with dysfunctional parents [...]

Alcoholism is one of the most commonly seen problems in familial environments. It not only affects the health of the person consuming the alcohol, but also has an impact on the wellbeing of those surrounding him or her. [...]

Despite being faced with adverse conditions while growing up, humankind possesses resilience and the capacity to accept and forgive those responsible. In The Glass Castle (2005) by Jeannette Walls, Walls demonstrates a [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Advertisement

Supported by

Henry Louis Gates Jr. on Literary Freedom as an Essential Human Right

• Share full article

By Henry Louis Gates Jr.

• Oct. 12, 2021

“The freedom to write”: PEN America’s always resonant motto has a special resonance for Black authors, because for so many of them, that freedom was one they fought hard for. “Liberation” and “literacy” were inextricable. “For the horrors of the American Negro’s life there has been almost no language,” as James Baldwin once noted . Recall, first, that in many states it was illegal for an enslaved person even to learn how to read and how to write. Then the barbarities of the slave trade, the Middle Passage and cradle-to-grave bondage, were followed by another century of lynching, Jim Crow segregation, disenfranchisement and officially sanctioned forms of violence. Does the English language fail us, Baldwin wonders, in the face of racist terror? No, he decides; we must embrace it, occupy it, refashion it in our images, speak it in our own voices. We must deploy it to redress this terror. “To accept one’s past — one’s history,” as Baldwin insisted , “is not the same as drowning with it; it is learning how to use it.” This, surely, is integral to the freedom to write — the freedom to bear witness to the full range of our common humanity, and all that that entails, no matter how uncomfortable the process can be.

And what of the freedom to learn? Who has the right to study, the right to teach, to broach fraught subjects at a time when the temptation to police culture has never been higher? Today, partisans in various states are passing laws and resolutions in order to regulate what teachers can say, aiming to exclude critical race theory , The New York Times’s 1619 Project and even ban words such as “ multiculturalism,” “equity” and “whiteness .” But we must not exempt ourselves from scrutiny; whenever we treat an identity as something to be fenced off from those of another identity, we sell short the human imagination.

I’m moved that this award is being presented by two people quite dear to me, one a former professor, Wole Soyinka, who introduced me to the highest reaches of the mythopoetic imagination, the other a former student, Jodie Foster, whose own early work on Toni Morrison was so brilliantly insightful. Together, they represent ideals of education I hold sacred. The idea that you have to look like the subject to master the subject was a prejudice that our forebears — women seeking to write about men, Black people seeking to write about white people — were forced to challenge. In the same year that Rosa Parks refused to move from the white section of that public bus, Toni Morrison completed a master’s thesis at Cornell on Virginia Woolf and William Faulkner, taking a seat in the white section of the modernist canon. Any teacher, any student, any reader, any writer, sufficiently attentive and motivated, must be able to engage freely with subjects of their choice. That is not only the essence of learning; it’s the essence of being human.

The great Soyinka helped me grasp this when I came to study with him at the University of Cambridge, almost five decades ago. Despite the fact that I wasn’t African, let alone Yoruba, Wole welcomed me into his mythical, metaphysical world, dense with the metaphor, potency and portent of an alien set of divinities. And what exhilaration I felt, exploring these new realms. From my churchgoing youth in West Virginia, I was put in mind of a passage from the Book of Jeremiah: “Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and show thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not!”

But then Black Africa’s first Nobel laureate in literature had himself studied Shakespeare with the great English critic G. Wilson Knight, who later hailed him as among his most remarkable students. The literary imagination summons us all to dwell above what W. E. B. Du Bois called “the veil” of the color line. As he wrote, yearningly: “I summon Aristotle and Aurelius and what soul I will, and they come all graciously with no scorn or condescension. So, wed with Truth, I dwell above the veil.” Du Bois never let anyone tell him to stay in his lane. When he needed to, he paved his own. As a lifelong dissident, he also knew that liberation was not secured by filtering out dissident voices; courage, not comfort, was his ideal.

What I owe to my teachers — and to my students — is a shared sense of wonder and awe as we contemplate works of the human imagination across space and time, works created by people who don’t look like us and who, in so many cases, would be astonished that we know their work and their names. Social identities can connect us in multiple and overlapping ways; they are not protected but betrayed when we turn them into silos with sentries. The freedom to write can thrive only if we protect the freedom to read — and to learn. And perhaps the first thing to learn, in these storm-battered days, is that we could all do with more humility, and more humanity.

Henry Louis Gates Jr. is the Alphonse Fletcher university professor and director of the Hutchins Center for African & African American Research at Harvard University. His most recent books are “Stony the Road: Reconstruction, White Supremacy, and the Rise of Jim Crow” and “The Black Church: This Is Our Story, This Is Our Song.” This essay is adapted from remarks he delivered at PEN America’s annual literary gala on Oct. 5, when he was presented with the 2021 PEN/Audible Literary Service Award.

Follow New York Times Books on Facebook , Twitter and Instagram , s ign up for our newsletter or our literary calendar . And listen to us on the Book Review podcast .

Explore More in Books

Want to know about the best books to read and the latest news start here..

John S. Jacobs was a fugitive, an abolitionist — and the brother of the canonical author Harriet Jacobs. Now, his own fierce autobiography has re-emerged .

Don DeLillo’s fascination with terrorism, cults and mass culture’s weirder turns has given his work a prophetic air. Here are his essential books .

Jenny Erpenbeck’s “ Kairos ,” a novel about a torrid love affair in the final years of East Germany, won the International Booker Prize , the renowned award for fiction translated into English.

Kevin Kwan, the author of “Crazy Rich Asians,” left Singapore’s opulent, status-obsessed, upper crust when he was 11. He’s still writing about it .

Each week, top authors and critics join the Book Review’s podcast to talk about the latest news in the literary world. Listen here .

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Locke On Freedom

John Locke’s views on the nature of freedom of action and freedom of will have played an influential role in the philosophy of action and in moral psychology. Locke offers distinctive accounts of action and forbearance, of will and willing, of voluntary (as opposed to involuntary) actions and forbearances, and of freedom (as opposed to necessity). These positions lead him to dismiss the traditional question of free will as absurd, but also raise new questions, such as whether we are (or can be) free in respect of willing and whether we are free to will what we will, questions to which he gives divergent answers. Locke also discusses the (much misunderstood) question of what determines the will, providing one answer to it at one time, and then changing his mind upon consideration of some constructive criticism proposed by his friend, William Molyneux. In conjunction with this change of mind, Locke introduces a new doctrine (concerning the ability to suspend the fulfillment of one’s desires) that has caused much consternation among his interpreters, in part because it threatens incoherence. As we will see, Locke’s initial views do suffer from clear difficulties that are remedied by his later change of mind, all without introducing incoherence.

Note on the text: Locke’s theory of freedom is contained in Book II, Chapter xxi of An Essay Concerning Human Understanding . The chapter underwent five revisions in Locke’s lifetime [E1 (1689), E2 (1694), E3 (1695), E4 (1700), and E5 (1706)], with the last edition published posthumously. Significant changes, including a considerable lengthening of the chapter, occur in E2; and important changes appear in E5.

1. Actions and Forbearances

2. will and willing, 3. voluntary vs. involuntary action/forbearance, 4. freedom and necessity, 5. free will, 6. freedom in respect of willing, 7. freedom to will, 8. determination of the will, 9. the doctrine of suspension, 10. compatibilism or incompatibilism, select primary sources, select secondary sources, additional secondary sources, other internet resources, related entries.

For Locke, the question of whether human beings are free is the question of whether human beings are free with respect to their actions and forbearances . As he puts it:

[T]he Idea of Liberty , is the Idea of a Power in any Agent to do or forbear any Action, according to the determination or thought of the mind, whereby either of them is preferr’d to the other. (E1–4 II.xxi.8: 237)

In order to understand Locke’s conception of freedom, then, we need to understand his conception of action and forbearance.

There are three main accounts of Locke’s theory of action. According to what we might call the “Doing” theory of action, actions are things that we do (actively), as contrasted to things that merely happen to us (passively). If someone pushes my arm up, then my arm rises, but, one might say, I did not raise it. That my arm rose is something that happened to me, not something I did . By contrast, when I signal to a friend who has been looking for me, I do something inasmuch as I am not a mere passive recipient of a stimulus over which I have no control. According to some interpreters (e.g., Stuart 2013: 405, 451), Locke’s actions are doings in this sense. According to the “Composite” or “Millian” theory of action, an action is “[n]ot one thing, but a series of two things; the state of mind called a volition, followed by an effect” (Mill 1974 [1843]: 55). On this view, for example, the action of raising my hand is composed of (i) willing to produce the effect of my hand’s rising and (ii) the effect itself, where (ii) results from (i). According to some interpreters (arguably, Lowe 1986: 120–121; Lowe 1995: 141—though it is possible that Lowe’s theory applies only to voluntary actions), Locke’s actions are composite in this sense. Finally, according to what we might call the “Deflationary” conception of action, actions are simply motions of bodies or operations of minds.

Some of what Locke says suggests that he holds the “Doing” theory of action: “when [a Body] is set in motion it self, that Motion is rather a Passion, than an Action in it”, for “when the Ball obeys the stroke of a Billiard-stick, it is not any action of the Ball, but bare passion” (E1–5 II.xxi.4: 235—see also E4–5 II.xxi.72: 285–286). Here Locke is clearly working with a sense of “action” according to which actions are opposed to passions. But, on reflection, it is unlikely that this is what Locke means by “action” when he writes about voluntary/involuntary actions and freedom of action. For Locke describes “a Man striking himself, or his Friend, by a Convulsive motion of his Arm, which it is not in his Power…to…forbear” as “acting” (E1–5 II.xxi.9: 238), and describes the convulsive leg motion caused by “that odd Disease called Chorea Sancti Viti [St. Vitus’s Dance]” as an “Action” (E1–5 II.xxi.11: 239). It would be a mistake to think of these convulsive motions as “doings”, for they are clearly things that “happen” to us in just the way that it happens to me that my arm rises when someone else raises it. Examples of convulsive actions also suggest that the Millian account of Locke’s theory of action is mistaken. For in the case of convulsive motion, there is no volition that one’s limbs move; indeed, if there is volition in such cases, it is usually a volition that one’s limbs not move. Such actions, then, cannot be composed of a volition and the motion that is willed, for the relevant volition is absent (more on volition below).

We are therefore left with the Deflationary conception of action, which is well supported by the text. There are, Locke says, “but two sorts of Action, whereof we have any Idea , viz. Thinking and Motion” (E1–5 II.xxi.4: 235—see also E1–5 II.xxi.8: 237 and E4–5 II.xxi.72: 285); “Thinking, and Motion…are the two Ideas which comprehend in them all Action” (E1–5 II.xxii.10: 293). It may be that, in the sense in which “action” is opposed to “passion”, some corporeal motions and mental operations, being produced by external causes rather than self-initiated, are not actions. But that is not the sense in which all motions and thoughts are “called and counted Actions ” in Locke’s theory of action (E4–5 II.xxi.72: 285). As seems clear, convulsive motions are actions inasmuch as they are motions, and thoughts that occur in the mind unbidden are actions inasmuch as they are mental operations.

What, then, according to Locke, are forbearances? On some interpretations (close counterparts to the Millian conception of action), Locke takes forbearances to be voluntary not-doings (e.g., Stuart 2013: 407) or voluntary omissions to act (e.g., Lowe 1995: 123). There are texts that suggest as much:

sitting still , or holding one’s peace , when walking or speaking are propos’d, [are] mere forbearances, requiring…the determination of the Will . (E2–5 II.xxi.28: 248)

However, Locke distinguishes between voluntary and involuntary forbearances (E2–5 II.xxi.5: 236), and it makes no sense to characterize an involuntary forbearance as an involuntary voluntary not-doing. So it is unlikely that Locke thinks of forbearances as voluntary not-doings. This leaves the Deflationary conception of forbearance, according to which a forbearance is the opposite of an action, namely an episode of rest or absence of thought. On this conception, to say that someone forbore running is to say that she did not run, not that she voluntarily failed to run. Every forbearance would be an instance of inaction, not a refraining.

In E2–5, Locke stipulates that he uses the word “action” to “comprehend the forbearance too of any Action proposed”, in order to “avoid the multiplying of words” (E2–5 II.xxi.28: 248). The reason he so stipulates is not that he literally takes forbearances to be actions (as he puts it, they “pass for” actions), but that most everything that he wants to say about actions (in particular, the distinction between voluntary and involuntary actions, and the account of freedom of action) applies pari passu to forbearances (see below).

Within the category of actions, Locke distinguishes between those that are voluntary and those that are involuntary. To understand this distinction, we need to understand Locke’s account of the will and his account of willing (or volition). For Locke, the will is a power (ability, faculty—see E1–5 II.xxi.20: 244) possessed by a person (or by that person’s mind). Locke explains how we come by the idea of power (in Humean vein, as the result of observation of constant conjunctions—“like Changes [being] made, in the same things, by like Agents, and by the like ways” (E1–5 II.xxi.1: 233)), but does not offer a theory of the nature of power. What we are told is that “ Powers are Relations” (E1–5 II.xxi.19: 243), relations “to Action or Change” (E1–5 II.xxi.3: 234), and that powers are either active (powers to make changes) or passive (powers to receive changes) (E1–5 II.xxi.2: 234). In this sense, the will is an active relation to actions.

Locke’s predecessors had thought of the will as intimately related to the faculty of desire or appetite. For the Scholastics (whose works Locke read as a student at Oxford), the will is the power of rational appetite. For Thomas Hobbes (by whom Locke was deeply influenced even though this was not something he could advertise, because Hobbes was a pariah in Locke’s intellectual and political circles), the will is simply the power of desire itself. Remnants of this desiderative conception of the will remain in Locke’s theory, particularly in the first edition of the Essay . Here, for example, is Locke’s official E1 account of the will:

This Power the Mind has to prefer the consideration of any Idea to the not considering it; or to prefer the motion of any part of the body to its rest. (E1 II.xxi.5: 236)

And here is Locke’s official E1 account of preferring:

Well, but what is this Preferring ? It is nothing but the being pleased more with the one , than the other . (E1 II.xxi.28: 248)

So, in E1, the will is the mind’s power to be more pleased with the consideration of an idea than with the not considering it, or to be more pleased with the motion of a part of one’s body than with its remaining at rest. When we lack something that would deliver more pleasure than we currently experience, we become uneasy at its absence. And this kind of uneasiness (or pain: E1–5 II.vii.1: 128), is what Locke describes as desire (E1–5 II.xx.6: 230; E2–5 II.xxi.31–32: 251) (though also as “joined with”, “scarce distinguishable from”, and a “cause” of desire—see Section 8 below). So, in E1, the will is the mind’s power to desire or want the consideration of an idea more than the not considering it, or to desire or want the motion of a part of one’s body more than its remaining at rest. (At E2–5 II.xxi.5: 236, Locke adds “and vice versâ ”, to clarify that it can also happen, even according to the E1 account, that one prefers not considering an idea to considering it, or not moving to moving.) [ 1 ]

In keeping with this conception of the will as desire, Locke in E1 then defines an exercise of the will, which he calls “willing” or “volition”, as an “actual preferring” of one thing to another (E1 II.xxi.5: 236). For example, I have the power to prefer the upward motion of my arm to its remaining at rest by my side. This power, in E1, is one aspect of my will. When I exercise this power, I actually prefer the upward motion of my arm to its remaining at rest, i.e., I am more pleased with my arm’s upward motion than I am with its continuing to rest. This is what Locke, in E1, thinks of as my willing the upward motion of my arm (or, as he sometimes puts it, my willing or volition to move my arm upward ).

In E2–5, Locke explicitly gives up this conception of the will and willing, explaining why he does so, making corresponding changes in the text of the Essay , even while leaving passages that continue to suggest the desiderative conception. He writes: “[T]hough a Man would preferr flying to walking, yet who can say he ever wills it?” (E2–5 II.xxi.15: 241). The thought here is that, as Locke (rightly) recognizes, my being more pleased with flying than walking does not consist in (or even entail) my willing to fly. This is in large part because it is necessarily implied in willing motion of a certain sort that one exert dominion that one takes oneself to have (E2–5 II.xxi.15: 241), that “the mind [endeavor] to give rise…to [the motion], which it takes to be in its power” (E2–5 II.xxi.30: 250). So if I do not believe that it is in my power to fly, then it is impossible for me to will the motion of flying, even though I might be more pleased with flying than I am with any alternative. Locke concludes (with the understatement) that “ Preferring which seems perhaps best to express the Act of Volition , does it not precisely” (E2–5 II.xxi.15: 240–241).

In addition, Locke points out that it is possible for “the Will and Desire [to] run counter”. For example, as a result of being coerced or threatened, I might will to persuade someone of something, even though I desire that I not succeed in persuading her. Or, suffering from gout, I might desire to be eased of the pain in my feet, and yet at the same time, recognizing that the translation of such pain would affect my health for the worse, will that I not be eased of my foot pain. In concluding that “ desiring and willing are two distinct Acts of the mind”, Locke must be assuming (reasonably) that it is not possible to will an action and its contrary at the same time (E2–5 II.xxi.30: 250). [ 2 ]

With what conception of the will and willing does Locke replace the abandoned desiderative conception? The answer is that in E2–5 Locke describes the will as a kind of directive or commanding faculty, the power to direct (or issue commands to) one’s body or mind: it is, he writes,

a Power to begin or forbear, continue or end several actions of our minds, and motions of our Bodies, barely by a thought or preference of the mind ordering, or as it were commanding the doing or not doing such or such particular action. (E2–5 II.xxi.5: 236)

Consonant with this non-desiderative, directive conception of the will, Locke claims that

Volition , or Willing , is an act of the Mind directing its thought to the production of any Action, and thereby exerting its power to produce it, (E2–5 II.xxi.28: 248)

Volition is nothing, but that particular determination of the mind, whereby, barely by a thought, the mind endeavours to give rise, continuation, or stop to any Action, which it takes to be in its power. (E2–5 II.xxi.30: 250)

Every volition, then, is a volition to act or to forbear , where willing to act is a matter of commanding one’s body to move or one’s mind to think, and willing to forbear is a matter of commanding one’s body to rest or one’s mind not to think. Unlike a desiderative power, which is essentially passive (as involving the ability to be more pleased with one thing than another), the will in E2–5 is an intrinsically active power, the exercise of which involves the issuing of mental commands directed at one’s own body and mind.

Within the category of actions/forbearances, Locke distinguishes between those that are voluntary and those that are involuntary. Locke does not define voluntariness and involuntariness in E1, but he does in E2–5:

The forbearance or performance of [an] action, consequent to such order or command of the mind is called Voluntary . And whatsoever action is performed without such a thought of the mind is called Involuntary . (E2–4 II.xxi.5: 236—in E5, “or performance” is omitted from the first sentence)

Locke is telling us that what makes an action/forbearance voluntary is that it is consequent to a volition, and that what makes an action/forbearance involuntary is that it is performed without a volition. The operative words here are “consequent to” and “without”. What do they mean? (Henceforth, following Locke’s lead, I will not distinguish between actions and forbearances unless the context calls for it.)

We can begin with something Locke says only in E1:

Volition, or the Act of Willing, signifies nothing properly, but the actual producing of something that is voluntary. (E1 II.xxi.33: 259)

On reflection, this is mistaken, but it does provide a clue to Locke’s conception of voluntariness. The mistake (of which Locke likely became aware, given that the statement clashes with the rest of his views and was removed from E2–5) is that not every instance of willing an action is followed by the action itself. To use one of Locke’s own examples, if I am locked in a room and will to leave, my volition will not result in my leaving (E1–5 II.xxi.10: 238). So willing cannot signify the “actual producing” of a voluntary action. However, it is reasonable to assume that, for Locke, willing will “produce” a voluntary action if nothing hinders the willed episode of motion or thought. And this makes it likely that Locke takes a voluntary action to be not merely temporally consequent to, but actually caused by, the right kind of volition (Yaffe 2000; for a contrary view, see Hoffman 2005).

Understandably, some commentators have worried about the problem of deviant causation, and whether Locke has an answer to it (e.g., Lowe 1995: 122–123; Yaffe 2000: 104; Lowe 2005: 141–147). The problem is that if I let go of a climbing rope, not as a direct result of willing to let it go, but as a result of being discomfited/paralyzed/shaken by the volition itself, then my letting go of the rope would not count as voluntary even though it was caused by a volition to let go of the rope. The solution to this problem, if there is one, is to claim that, in order for an action to count as voluntary, it is not sufficient for it to be caused by the right kind of volition: in addition, it is necessary that the action be caused in the right way (or non-deviantly) by the right kind of volition. Spelling out the necessary and sufficient conditions for non-deviant causation is a steep climb. Chances are that Locke was no more aware of this problem, and was in no better position to answer it, than anyone else was before Chisholm (1966), Taylor (1966) and Davidson (1980) brought it to the attention of the philosophical community.

Locke’s view, then, is that an action is voluntary inasmuch as its performance is caused by a volition. The volition, as we have so far presumed, must be of the right kind. For example, Locke would not count the motion of my left arm as voluntary if it were caused by a volition that my right arm move (or a volition that my left arm remain at rest). Locke assumes (reasonably) that in order for an action A to be voluntary, it must be caused (in the right way) by a volition that A occur (or, as Locke sometimes puts it, by a volition to do A ).

What, then, on Locke’s view, is it for an action to be involuntary ? Locke says that an involuntary action is performed “without” a volition. This might suggest that an action of mine is involuntary only when I have no volition that the action occur. Perhaps this is what Locke believes. But it is more reasonable to suppose that Locke would also count as involuntary an action that, though preceded by the right kind of volition, is either not caused by the volition or caused by the volition but not in the right way. [ 3 ]

Some commentators have worried that Locke’s “locked room” example is a problematic illustration of his theory of voluntariness, at least as applied to forbearances (e.g., Lowe 1986: 154–157; Stuart 2013: 420). Locke imagines a man who is “carried, while fast asleep, into a Room, where is a Person he longs to see and speak with”, but who is “there locked fast in, beyond his Power to get out: he awakes, and is glad to find himself in so desirable Company” and “stays willingly” in the room. Locke makes clear that, on his view, the man’s remaining in the room is a voluntary forbearance to leave (E1–5 II.xxi.10: 238). But one might worry that if the man is unable to leave the room, then it is false to say that his volition not to leave causes his not leaving. At best, it might be argued, the man’s not leaving is overdetermined (Stuart 2013: 420). But, as some authors have recently argued, cases of overdetermination are rightly described as involving two (or more) causes, not a single joint cause or no cause at all (see, e.g., Schaffer 2003). On such a view of overdetermination, it is unproblematic for Locke to describe the man in the locked room as caused to remain both by his volition to remain and by the door’s being locked. [ 4 ]

Another problem that has been raised for Locke stems from his example of a man who falls into a river when a bridge breaks under him. Locke describes the man as willing not to fall, even as he is falling (E1–5 II.xxi.9: 238). The worry here is that Locke holds that the objects of volition are actions or forbearances, so the man would need to be described as willing to forbear from falling. But, it might be argued, falling is not an action, for it is something that merely happens to the man, and not an exercise of his agency; so his willingly forbearing from falling would be willingly forbearing from something that is not an action, and this is impossible (Stuart 2013: 405). The answer to this worry is that falling is an action, according to Locke’s Deflationary conception of action, which counts the motion of one’s body in any direction as a bona fide action (see Section 1 above).

Some commentators think that Lockean freedom (or, as Locke also calls it, “liberty”) is a single power, the power to do what one wills (Yolton 1970: 144; D. Locke 1975: 96; O’Higgins 1976: 119—see Chappell 1994: 103). However, as Locke describes it, freedom is a “two-way” power, really a combination of two conditional powers belonging to an agent, that is, to someone endowed with a will (see Chappell 2007: 142). (A tennis ball, for example, “has not Liberty , is not a free Agent”, because it is incapable of volition (E1–5 II.xxi.9: 238).) In E1, Locke’s definition reflects his conception of the will as a power of preferring X to Y , or being more pleased with X than with Y . But in E2–5, Locke’s definition reflects his modified conception of the will as a power to issue commands to one’s body or mind (see Section 2 above):

[S]o far as a Man has a power to think, or not to think; to move, or not to move, according to the preference or direction of his own mind, so far is a Man Free . (E2–5 II.xxi.8: 237) So that the Idea of Liberty , is the Idea of a Power in any Agent to do or forbear any particular Action, according to the determination or thought of the mind, whereby either of them is preferr’d to the other. (E2–5 II.xxi.8: 237) Liberty is not an Idea belonging to Volition , or preferring; but to the Person having the Power of doing, or forbearing to do, according as the Mind shall chuse or direct. (E2–5 II.xxi.10: 238) Liberty …is the power a Man has to do or forbear doing any particular Action, according as its doing or forbearance has the actual preference in the Mind, which is the same thing as to say, according as he himself wills it. (E1–5 II.xxi.15: 241)

The central claim here is that a human being (person, agent) is free with respect to a particular action A (or forbearance to perform A ) inasmuch as (i) if she wills to do A then she has the power to do A and (ii) if she wills to forbear doing A then she has the power to forbear doing A (see, e.g., Chappell 1994: 103). [ 5 ] So, for example, a woman in a locked room is not free with respect to the act of leaving (or with respect to the forbearance to leave) because she does not have the power to leave if and when she wills to leave, and a woman who is falling (the bridge under her having crumbled) is not free with respect to the forbearance to fall (or with respect to the act of falling) because she does not have the power to forbear falling if she wills not to fall (E1–5 II.xxi.9–10: 238). (Locke describes agents who are unfree with respect to some action as acting under, or by, necessity—E1–5 II.xxi.8: 238; E1–5 II.xxi.9: 238.) But if the door of the room is unlocked, then the woman in the room is able to stay if she wills to stay, and is able to leave if she wills to leave: she is therefore both free with respect to staying and free with respect to leaving.

Notice that freedom, on Locke’s conception of it, is a property of substances (persons, human beings, agents). This simply follows from the fact that freedom is a dual power and from the fact that “ Powers belong only to Agents , and are Attributes only of Substances ” (E1–5 II.xxi.16: 241). At no point does Locke offer an account of performing actions or forbearances freely , as if freedom were a way of performing an action or a way of forbearing to perform an action. (For a contrary view, see LoLordo 2012: 27.)

Locke does write that

[w]here-ever any performance or forbearance are not equally in a Man’s power; where-ever doing or not doing, will not equally follow upon the preference of his mind directing it, there he is not Free . (E2–5 II.xxi.8: 237)

The “follow upon” language might suggest a counterfactual analysis of the claim that an agent has the power to do A if she wills to do A , namely, that if she were to will to do A then she would do A (e.g., Lowe 1995: 129; Stuart 2013: 407—for a similar account that trades the subjunctive conditionals for indicative conditionals, see Yaffe 2000: 15). The counterfactual analysis is tempting, but also unlikely to capture Locke’s meaning, especially if he has a Deflationary conception of action/forbearance (see Section 1 above). It might happen, for example, that I am prevented (by chains or a force field) from raising my arm, but that if I were to will that my arm rise, you would immediately (break the chains or disable the force field and) raise my arm. Under these conditions, I would not be free with respect to my arm’s rising, but it would be true that if I were to will that my arm rise, then my arm would rise. So Locke’s dual power conception of freedom of action is not captured by any counterfactual conditional or pair of counterfactual conditionals.

Does Locke think that there is a conceptual connection between freedom of action and voluntary action? It might be thought that freedom with respect to a particular action requires that the action be voluntary, so that if an action is not voluntary then one is not free with respect to it. In defense of this, one might point to Locke’s falling man, whose falling is not voluntary and who is also not free with respect to the act of falling (Stuart 2013: 408). But the falling man’s unfreedom with respect to the act of falling is not explained by the involuntariness of his falling. In general, it is possible for one’s action to be involuntary even as one is free with respect to it. Imagine that you let your four-year old daughter raise your arm (just for fun). According to Locke’s conception of voluntariness, the motion of your arm is not voluntary, because it is not caused by any volition of yours (indeed, we can even imagine that you do not even have a volition that your arm rise). But, according to Locke’s conception of freedom, you are most certainly free with respect to your arm’s rising: (i) if you will that your arm rise, you have the power to raise it, and (ii) if you will that your arm not rise, you have the power to forbear raising it.

Voluntariness, then, is not necessary for freedom; but it is also not sufficient for freedom, as Locke’s “locked room” and “paralytick” cases show. The man in the locked room wills to stay and talk to the other person in the room, and this volition is causally responsible for his staying in the room: on Locke’s theory, his remaining in the room is, therefore, voluntary. But the man in the locked room “is not at liberty not to stay, he has not freedom to be gone” (E1–5 II.xxi.10: 238). The reason is that even if the man wills to leave, he does not have the power to leave. Similarly, if the paralyzed person wills to remain at rest (thinking, mistakenly, that he could move if he willed to move) and his remaining at rest is caused (at least in part) by his volition not to move, then his “sitting still…is truly voluntary”. But in this case, says Locke, “there is want of Freedom ” because “a Palsie [hinders] his Legs from obeying the determination of his Mind, if it would thereby transferr his Body to another Place” (E2–5 II.xxi.11: 239): that is, the paralyzed person is unable to move even if he wills to move.

Thus far, we have been focusing on freedom with respect to motion or rest of one’s body . But, as we have seen, Locke thinks that actions encompass acts of mind (in addition to acts of body). So, in addition to thinking that some acts of mind are voluntary (e.g., the mental acts of combining and abstracting ideas involved in the production of abstract ideas of mixed modes—E2–5 II.xxxii.12: 387–388), Locke thinks that we are free with respect to some mental actions (and their forbearances). For example, if I am able to combine two ideas at will, and I am able to forbear combining two ideas if I will not to combine them, then I am free with respect to the mental action of combining two ideas. It can also happen that we are not free with respect to our mental acts:

A Man on the Rack, is not at liberty to lay by the Idea of pain, and divert himself with other Contemplations. (E4–5 II.xxi.12: 239)

In this case, even though the man on the rack might will to be rid of the pain, he does not have the power to avoid feeling it. [ 6 ]

Is the will free? This question made sense to Scholastic philosophers (including, e.g., Bramhall, who engaged in a protracted debate on the subject with Hobbes), who tended not to distinguish between the question of whether the will is free and the question of whether the mind or soul is free with respect to willing, and, indeed, some of whom thought that acts cannot themselves be free (or freely done) unless the will to do them is itself free. But, according to Locke, the question, if literally understood, “is altogether improper” (E1–5 II.xxi.14: 240). This follows directly from Locke’s account of the will and his account of freedom. The will is a power (in E2–5, the power to order the motion or rest of one’s body and the power to order the consideration or non-consideration of an idea—see Section 2 above), and freedom is a power, namely the power to do or not do as one wills (see Section 4 above). But, as Locke emphasizes, the question of whether one power has another power is “a Question at first sight too grosly absurd to make a Dispute, or need an Answer”. The reason is that it is absurd to suppose that powers are capable of having powers, for

Powers belong only to Agents , and are Attributes only of Substances , and not of Powers themselves. (E1–5 II.xxi.16: 241)

The question of whether the will is free, then, presupposes that the will is a substance, rather than a power, and therefore makes no more sense than the question of whether a man’s “Sleep be Swift, or his Vertue square” (E1–5 II.xxi.14: 240). To suppose that the will is free (or unfree!) is therefore to make a category mistake (see Ryle 1949: chapter 1).

The fact that it makes no sense to suppose that the will itself is free (or unfree) does not entail that there are no significant questions to be asked about the relation between freedom and the will. Indeed, Locke thinks that there are two such questions, and that these are the questions that capture “what is meant, when it is disputed, Whether the will be free” (E2–5 II.xxi.22: 245). The first (discussed at E1–5 II.xxi.23–24) is whether agents (human beings, persons) are free with respect to willing-one-way-or-another; more particularly, whether agents are able, if they so will, to avoid willing one way or the other with respect to a proposed action. The second (discussed at E1–5 II.xxi.25) is whether agents are free with respect to willing-a-particular-action. The majority of commentators think that Locke answers both of these questions negatively, at least in E1–4 (see Chappell 1994, Lowe 1995, Jolley 1999, Glauser 2003, Stuart 2013, and Leisinger 2017), and some think that Locke then qualifies his answer(s) in E2–5 in a way that potentially introduces inconsistency into his moral psychology (e.g., Chappell 1994). Other commentators think that Locke answers the first question negatively for most actions, but with one important qualification that is clarified and made more explicit in E5, and that he answers the second question positively, all without falling into inconsistency (Rickless 2000; Garrett 2015). What follows is a summary of the interpretive controversies. In the rest of this Section, we focus on the first question. In the next, we focus on the second question.

In E1–4, Locke states his answer to the first question thus:

[ A ] Man in respect of willing any Action in his power once proposed to his Thoughts cannot be free . (E1–4 II.xxi.23: 245)

His argument for the necessity of having either a volition that action A occur or a volition that action A not occur, once A has been proposed to one’s thoughts, is simple and clever: (1) Either A will occur or A will not occur; (2) If A occurs, this will be the result of the agent having willed A to occur; (3) If A does not occur, this will be the result of the agent having willed A not to occur; therefore, (4) The agent necessarily wills one way or the other with respect to A ’s occurrence (see Chappell 1994: 105–106). It follows directly that “in respect of the act of willing , a Man is not free” (E1–4 II.xxi.23: 245). For, first, “ Willing , or Volition [is] an Action” (E1–5 II.xxi.23: 245—this because actions comprise motions of the body and operations of mind, and volition is one of the most important mental operations—E1–5 II.vi.2: 128), and, second, freedom with respect to action A , as Locke defines it, consists in (i) the power to do A if one wills to do A and (ii) the power not to do A if one wills not to do A . Thus, if an agent does not have the power to avoid willing one way or the other with respect to A (even if the agent wills to avoid willing one way or the other with respect to A ), then the agent is not free with respect to willing one way or the other with respect to A .

In his New Essays on Human Understanding (ready for publication in 1704, but not published then because that was the year of Locke’s death) Gottfried Leibniz famously questions premise (3) of this argument:

I would have thought that one can suspend one’s choice, and that this happens quite often, especially when other thoughts interrupt one’s deliberation. Thus, although it is necessary that the action about which one is deliberating must exist or not exist, it doesn’t follow at all that one necessarily has to decide on its existence or non-existence. For its non-existence could well come about in the absence of any decision. (Leibniz 1704 [1981]: 181)

Leibniz’s worry is that, even if one is thinking about whether or not to do A , it is often possible to postpone willing whether to do A , and the non-occurrence of A might well result from such postponement. Under these conditions, it would be false to say that A ’s non-occurrence results from any sort of volition that A not occur. Leibniz illustrates the claim with an amusing reference to a case that the Areopagites (judges on the Areopagus, the highest court of appeals in Ancient Athens) were having trouble deciding, their solution (i.e., de facto , but not de jure , acquittal) being to adjourn it “to a date in the distant future, giving themselves a hundred years to think about it” (Leibniz 1704 [1981]: 181).

It is something of a concern, then, that Locke himself appears committed to agreeing with Leibniz’s criticism of his own argument, at least in E2–5. For in E2–5 (but not in E1) Locke emphasizes his acceptance of the doctrine of suspension, according to which any agent has the “power to suspend the execution and satisfaction of any of its desires”, during which time the will is not yet “determined to action” (E2–5 II.xxi.47: 263). That is, Locke acknowledges in E2–5, even as he does not remove or alter the argument of II.xxi.23 in E2–4, that it is possible to postpone willing with respect to whether to will one way or the other with respect to some proposed action (see Chappell 1994: 106–107).

However, Locke makes changes in E5 that have suggested to some commentators how he would avoid Leibniz’s criticism without giving up the doctrine of suspension. Recall Locke’s answer to the first question:

[A] Man in respect of willing any Action in his power once proposed to his Thoughts cannot be free. (E1–4 II.xxi.23: 245)

Here, now, is Locke’s restatement of his answer in E5:

[A] Man in respect of willing , or the Act of Volition, when any Action in his power is once proposed to his Thoughts , as presently to be done, cannot be free. (E5 II.xxi.23: 245—added material italicized)

The crucial addition here is the phrase “as presently to be done”. In E5, Locke is not saying that it is with respect to willing one way or the other with respect to any proposed action that an agent is not free: what he is saying is that it is with respect to willing one way or the other with respect to any proposed action as presently to be done that an agent is not free. Some actions that are proposed to us are to occur at the time of proposal : as I am singing, a friend might propose that I stop singing right now . Other actions that are proposed to us are to occur at a time later than the time of proposal : at the beginning of a long bicycle trip, a friend might propose that we take a rest once we have reached our destination. Locke is telling us in E5 that premise (3) is supposed to apply to the former, not to the latter, sort of actions. If this is right, then it is no accident that Locke’s own illustration of the argument of II.xxi.23 involves “a Man that is walking, to whom it is proposed to give off walking” (E1–5 II.xxi.24: 246).

So, as Locke incipiently recognizes as early as E1 but explicitly underlines in E5, his initial answer to the first question is an overgeneralization, and needs to be restricted to those actions that are proposed to us as presently to be done (see Rickless 2000: 49–55; Glauser 2003: 710; Garrett 2015: 274–277). But it is also possible that Locke comes to recognize, and eventually underline, a second restriction. At the moment, I am sitting in a chair. In a few minutes, my children will walk in and propose that I get up and make dinner. I am busy, my mind is occupied, so I will likely postpone (perhaps only for a few minutes) making a decision about whether to get up. The result of such postponement is that I will not get up right away, but this will not be because I have willed not to get up right away. Again, it seems that premise (3) is false, for reasons similar to the ones described by Leibniz. But this time, the relevant action (getting up) is proposed as presently to be done. Locke’s E5 emendations do not explicitly address this sort of example.

However, in E2–5, but not in E1, Locke emphasizes the fact that in his “walking man” example, the man either “continues the Action [of walking], or puts an end to it” (E2–5 II.xxi.24: 246). This suggests a different restriction, on top of the “as presently to be done” restriction. It may be that Locke is thinking that premise (3) applies, not to actions of all kinds, but only to processes in which one is currently engaged. The walking man is already in motion, constantly putting one leg in front of the other. When it is proposed to him that he give off walking, he has no option but to will one way or the other with respect to whether to give off walking: if he stops walking, this will be because he willed that his walking cease; and if he continues to walk, this will be because he willed that his walking continue. Either way, he must will one way or the other with respect to whether to stop walking. By contrast, when I am sitting in my chair, I am not engaged in a process: I am (or, at least, my body is) simply at rest. It is for this reason that it is possible for me to avoid willing with respect to whether to get up right now: processes require volition to secure their continuation, but mere states (non-processes) do not (see Rickless 2000: 49–55; for a contrary view, see Glauser 2003: 710).

Locke’s considered answer to the first question, then, is this: (i) when an action that is a process in which the agent is currently engaged is proposed as presently to be continued or stopped, the agent is not free with respect to willing one way or the other with respect to its continuing, but (ii) when an action is not a process in which the agent is currently engaged or is proposed as to be done sometime in the future, then it is possible for the agent to be free with respect to willing one way or the other with respect to its performance or non-performance. Given that, as Locke puts it in E5, the vast majority of voluntary actions “that succeed one another every moment that we are awake” (E5 II.xxi.24: 246) are (i)-actions rather than (ii)-actions, it makes sense for him to summarize his answer to the first question as that it is “in most cases [that] a Man is not at Liberty to forbear the act of volition” (E5 II.xxi.56: 270). But, as Locke also emphasizes, one has the ability, at least with respect to (ii)-actions, to suspend willing. So there is no inconsistency at the heart of Locke’s theory of freedom in respect of willing.

The second question regarding the relation between freedom and the will that Locke takes to be significant is “ Whether a Man be at liberty to will which of the two he pleases , Motion or Rest ” (E1–5 II.xxi.25: 247). Consider a particular action A . What Locke is asking is whether an agent is free with respect to the action of willing that A occur . For example, suppose that I am sitting in a chair and that A is the action of walking to the fridge. Locke wants to know whether I am free with respect to willing the action of walking to the fridge.

Most commentators think that Locke’s answer to this question is NO. The main evidence for this interpretation is what Locke says about the question immediately after raising it:

This Question carries the absurdity of it so manifestly in it self, that one might thereby sufficiently be convinced, that Liberty concerns not the Will. (E5 II.xxi.25: 247)

It is tempting to suppose that the thought that “Liberty concerns not the Will” is the thought that agents are not free to will, and that Locke is saying that we are driven to this thought because the second question is absurd, in the sense of demanding a negative answer.

But it is difficult to make sense of what Locke goes on to say in II.xxi.25 if he is interpreted as answering the second question negatively. Section 25 continues:

For to ask, whether a Man be at liberty to will either Motion, or Rest; Speaking, or Silence; which he pleases, is to ask, whether a Man can will , what he wills ; or be pleased with what he is pleased with. (E1–5 II.xxi.25: 247)

Locke says that the second question reduces to another that can be put in two different ways: whether a man can will what he wills, and whether a man can be pleased with what pleases him. (The reason it can be put in these two different ways, at least in E1, is that Locke there adopts a desiderative theory of willing, according to which willing an action is a matter of being more pleased with the action than with its forbearance.) But asking whether a man can will what he wills, or whether a man can be pleased with what he is pleased with, is similar to asking whether a man can steal what he steals. And the answer to all of these questions is: “OF COURSE!”

It is obvious that whatever it is that a man actually steals he can steal. Similarly, it is obvious that whatever it is that a man actually wills (or is actually pleased with) is something that he can will (or can be pleased with). The reason is that it is a self-evident maxim (just as self-evident as the maxim that whatever is, is—see E1–5 IV.vii.4: 592–594) that whatever is actual is possible. Locke, it seems, wishes to answer the second question in the affirmative!

This raises the issue of what Locke could possibly mean, then, when he describes the second question as “absurd”. One possibility is that, for Locke, a question counts as absurd not only when the answer to it is obviously in the negative (think: “Is the will free?”), but also when the answer to it is obviously in the affirmative (think: “Is it possible for you to do what you are actually doing?”). But it also raises the issue of why Locke would think that the second question actually reduces to an absurd question of the latter sort. One possible solution derives from Locke’s theory of freedom of action. As we have seen, Locke thinks that one is free with respect to action A if and only if (i) if one (actually) wills to do A , then one can do A , and (ii) if one (actually) wills not to do A , then one can avoid doing A . Applying this theory directly to the case in which A is the action of willing to do B , we arrive at the following: one is free with respect to willing to do B if and only if (i) if one (actually) wills to will to do B , then one can will to do B , and (ii) if one (actually) wills to avoid willing to do B , then one can avoid willing to do B . Suppose, then, that willing to will to do an action is just willing to do that action, and willing to avoid willing to do an action is just not willing to do that action. In that case, one is free with respect to willing to do B if and only if (i) if one (actually) wills to do B , then one can will to do B , and (ii) if one (actually) avoids willing to do B , then one can avoid willing to do B . Given that actuality obviously entails possibility, it follows that (i) and (ii) are both obviously true. This is one explanation for why Locke might think that the question of whether one is free with respect to willing to do B reduces to an absurd question, the answer to which is obviously in the affirmative. It may be for this reason that Locke says that the question is one that “needs no answer” (E1–5 II.xxi.25: 247).

Locke goes on to say, at the end of II.xxi.25, that

they, who can make a Question of it [i.e., of the second question], must suppose one Will to determine the Acts of another, and another to determinate that; and so on in infinitum . (E1–5 II.xxi.25: 247)

It is unclear what Locke means by this. One possibility, consistent with the majority interpretation that Locke provides a negative answer to the second question, is that Locke is providing an argument here for the claim that the proposition that it is possible to be free with respect to willing to do an action leads to a vicious infinite regress of wills. The thought here is that being free with respect to willing to do an action, on Locke’s theory, requires being able to will to do an action if one wills to will to do it; that being free with respect to willing to will to do an action then requires being able to will to will to do it if one wills to will to will to do it; and so on, ad infinitum . But another possible interpretation, consistent with the minority interpretation that Locke provides an affirmative answer to the second question, is that Locke’s argument here is not meant to target those who answer the question affirmatively, but is rather designed to target those who would “make a question” of the second question, i.e., those who think that the answer to the second question is un obvious, and worth disputing. These people are the ones who think that willing to will to do A does not reduce to willing to do A , and that willing to avoid willing to do A does not reduce to avoiding willing to do A . These are the people who are committed to the existence of an infinite regress of wills, each determining the volitions of its successor. According to Locke, who accepts the reductions, the infinite regress of wills can’t get started (see Rickless 2000: 56–65; Garrett 2015: 269–274).

The next important question for Locke is “what is it determines the Will” (E2–5 II.xxi.29: 249—the question is also raised in the same Section in E1). Locke gives one answer to this question in E1, and a completely different answer in E2–5. The E1 answer is that the will is always determined by “ the greater Good ” (E1 II.xxi.29: 251), though, when he is writing more carefully, Locke says that it is only “the appearance of Good, greater Good” that determines the will (E1 II.xxi.33: 256, E1 II.xxi.38: 270). Regarding the good, Locke is a hedonist:

Good and Evil…are nothing but Pleasure and Pain, or that which occasions, or procures Pleasure or Pain to us. (E1–5 II.xxviii.5: 351—see also E1–5 II.xx.2: 229 and E2–5 II.xxi.42: 259)

So Locke’s E1 view is that the will is determined by what appears to us to promise pleasure and avoid pain.

When in 1692 Locke asks his friend, William Molyneux, to comment on the first (1690) edition of the Essay , Molyneux expressly worries that Locke’s E1 account of freedom appears to “make all Sins to proceed from our Understandings, or to be against Conscience; and not at all from the Depravity of our Wills”, and that “it seems harsh to say, that a Man shall be Damn’d, because he understands no better than he does” (de Beer 1979: 601). Molyneux’s point is well taken, and Locke acknowledges as much in his reply (de Beer 1979: 625). The source of the problem for the E1 account is that, with respect to the good (at least in the future), appearance does not always correspond with reality: it is possible for us to make mistakes about what is apt to produce the greatest pleasure and the least pain. Sometimes this is because we underestimate how pleasurable future pleasures will be (relative to present pleasures) or overestimate how painful present pains are (relative to future pains); and sometimes this is because we just make simple mistakes of fact, thinking, for example, that bloodletting will ease the pain of gout. As Molyneux sees it, we are not responsible for many of these mistakes, and yet it seems clear that we deserve (divine) punishment for making the wrong choices in our lives (e.g., when we choose the present pleasures of debauchery and villainy over the pleasures of heaven). Our sins, in other words, should be understood to proceed from the defective exercise of our wills, rather than from the defective state of our knowledge.

Part of Locke’s answer in E2–5 is that what determines the will is not the appearance of greater good, but rather “always some uneasiness” (E2–4 II.xxi.29: 249—the word “uneasiness” is italicized in E5). “Uneasiness” is Locke’s word for “[a]ll pain of the body of what sort soever, and disquiet of the mind” (E2–5 II.xxi.31: 251). On this view, then, our wills are determined by pains (of the mind or of the body). How this answer is supposed to address Molyneux’s concern is not, as yet, entirely clear.

What, to begin, does Locke mean by “determination”? On a “causal” reading, for a will W to be determined by X is for X to cause W to be exercised in a particular way. One might say, for example, that fear of the tiger caused Bill to choose to run away from it, and, in one sense, that Bill’s volition to run away from the tiger was determined by his fear of it. On a “teleological” reading, for a will W to be determined by X is for the agent to will the achievement or avoidance of X as a goal. One might say, for example, that the pleasure of eating the cake determined my will in the sense of fixing the content of my volition (as the volition to acquire the pleasure of eating the cake) (see Stuart 2013: 439; LoLordo 2012: 55–56).

It would be anachronistic to suppose that Locke is using the word “determine” as we do today when we discuss causal determinism (see the entry on causal determinism ). And the desire to avoid anachronism might lead us to adopt the teleological interpretation of determination. But there are many indications in E2–5 II.xxi that Locke has something approaching the causal interpretation in mind. Locke’s picture of bodies, both large and small, is largely a mechanistic one (though he allows for phenomena that can’t be explained mechanistically, such as gravitation, cohesion of body parts, and magnetism): bodies, he writes, “knock, impell, and resist one another,…and that is all they can do” (E1–5 IV.x.10: 624). And there are indications that this mechanistic model of corporeal behavior affects Locke’s model of mental phenomena. Throughout the Sections of II.xxi added in E2–5, Locke talks of uneasiness moving the mind (E2–5 II.xxi.29: 249; E2–5 II.xxi.43–44: 260), setting us upon a change of state or action or work (E2–5 II.xxi.29: 249; E2–5 II.xxi.31: 251; E2–5 II.xxi.37: 255; E2–5 II.xxi.44: 260), working on the mind (E2–5 II.xxi.29: 249; E2–5 II.xxi.33: 252), exerting pressure (E2–5 II.xxi.32: 251; E2–5 II.xxi.45: 262), driving us (E2–5 II.xxi.34: 252; E2–5 II.xxi.35: 253), pushing us (E2–5 II.xxi.34: 252), operating on the will, sometimes forcibly (E2–5 II.xxi.36: 254; E2–5 II.xxi.37: 255; E2–5 II.xxi.57: 271), laying hold on the will (E2–5 II.xxi.38: 256), influencing the will (E2–5 II.xxi.38: 256; E2–5 II.xxi.39: 257), taking the will (E2–5 II.xxi.45: 262), spurring to action (E2–5 II.xxi.40: 258), carrying us into action (E2–5 II.xxi.53: 268), and being counterbalanced by other mental states (E2–5 II.xxi.57: 272; E2–5 II.xxi.65: 277). It is difficult to read all of these statements without thinking that Locke thinks of uneasiness as exerting not merely a pull, but also a push, on the mind.

Locke’s view, then, seems to be that our volitions are caused (though not, perhaps, deterministically, i.e., in a way that is fixed by initial conditions and the laws of nature) by uneasinesses. How is this supposed to work? As Locke sees it, either “all pain causes desire equal to it self” (E2–5 II.xxi.31: 251) or desire is simply identified with “ uneasiness in the want [i.e., lack] of an absent good” (E2–5 II.xxi.31: 251). So the desire that either is or is caused by uneasiness is a desire for the removal of that uneasiness, and this is what proximately spurs us to take means to secure that removal.

Locke provides evidence from observation and from “the reason of the thing” for the claim that it is uneasiness, rather than perceived good, that determines the will. Empirically, Locke notes that agents generally do not seek a change of state unless they experience some sort of pain that leads them to will its extinction. A poor, indolent man who is content with his lot, even one who recognizes that he would be happier if he worked his way to greater wealth, is not ipso facto motivated to work. A drunkard who recognizes that his health will suffer and wealth will dissipate if he continues to drink does not, merely as a result of this recognition, stop drinking: but if he finds himself thirsty for drink and uneasy at the thought of missing his drinking companions, then he will go to the tavern. That is, Locke recognizes the possibility of akratic action, i.e., pursuing the worse in full knowledge that it is worse (E II.xxi.35: 253–254). (For more on Locke on akrasia, see Vailati 1990, Glauser 2014, and Moauro and Rickless 2019.)

Regarding “the reason of the thing”, Locke claims that “we constantly desire happiness” (E2–5 II.xxi.39: 257), where happiness is “the utmost Pleasure we are capable of” (E2–5 II.xxi.42: 258). Moreover, he says, any amount of uneasiness is inconsistent with happiness, “a little pain serving to marr all the pleasure” we experience. Locke concludes from this that we are always motivated to get rid of pain before securing any particular pleasure (E2–5 II.xxi.36: 254). Locke also argues that absent goods cannot move the will, because they don’t exist yet; by contrast, on his theory, the will is determined by something that already exists in the mind, namely uneasiness (E2–5 II.xxi.37: 254–255). Finally, Locke argues that if the will were determined by the perceived greater good, every agent would be consistently focused on the attainment of “the infinite eternal Joys of Heaven”. But, as is evidently the case, many agents are far more concerned about other matters than they are about getting into heaven. And this entails that the will must be determined by something other than the perceived greater good, namely, uneasiness (E2–5 II.xxi.38: 255–256). (For interesting criticisms of these arguments, see Stuart 2013: 453–456.)

So far, Locke has argued that the wrong turns we make in life do not usually proceed from defects in our understandings. What spurs us to act or forbear acting is not perception of the greater good, but some uneasiness instead. This answers part, but not the whole, of Molyneux’s worry. What Locke still needs to explain is why agents can be justly held responsible for choices that are motivated by uneasinesses. After all, what level of pain we feel and when we feel it is oftentimes not within our control. Locke’s answer relies on what has come to be known as the “doctrine of suspension”.

Having argued that uneasiness, rather than perception of the greater good, is what determines the will, Locke turns to the question of which of all the uneasinesses that beset us “has the precedency in determining the will to the next action”. His answer:

that ordinarily, which is the most pressing of those [uneasinesses], that are judged capable of being then removed. (E2–5 II.xxi.40: 257)

Locke therefore assumes that uneasinesses can be ranked in order of intensity or strength, and that among all the uneasinesses importuning an agent, the one that ordinarily determines her will is the one that exerts the greatest pressure on her mind. The picture with which Locke appears to be working is of a mind that is the playground of various forces of varying strengths exerting different degrees of influence on the will, where the will is determined by the strongest of those forces.

Notice, however, Locke’s use of the word “ordinarily”. Sometimes, as Locke emphasizes, the will is not determined by the most pressing uneasiness:

For the mind having in most cases, as is evident in Experience, a power to suspend the execution and satisfaction of any of its desires, and so all, one after another, is at liberty to consider the objects of them; examine them on all sides, and weigh them with others. (E2–5 II.xxi.47: 263)

This is the doctrine of suspension. On this view, we agents have the “power to suspend any particular desire, and keep it from determining the will , and engaging us in action” (E2–5 II.xxi.50: 266). As Locke makes clear, this power to prevent the will’s determination, that is, this power to avoid willing, is absent when the action proposed is to be done presently and involves the continuation or stopping of a process in which one is currently engaged (see Section 6 above). But when it comes to “chusing a remote [i.e., future] Good as an end to be pursued”, agents are “at Liberty in respect of willing ” (E5 II.xxi.56: 270). [ 7 ]

Some commentators (e.g., Chappell 1994: 118) think that, at least in E5, Locke comes to see that the doctrine of suspension conflicts with his answer to the question of whether we are free to will what we will (raised in II.xxi.25). This is because they take Locke’s answer to the latter question to be negative, and take the doctrine of suspension to entail a positive answer to the same question, at least with respect to some actions. But there are good reasons to think that there is no inconsistency here: for Locke’s answer to the II.xxi.25 question is arguably in the affirmative (see Section 7 above). [ 8 ]

Commentators also wonder whether the doctrine of suspension introduces an account of freedom that differs from Locke’s official account, both in E1 and in E2–5. The problem is that Locke says that “in [the power to suspend the prosecution of one’s desires] lies the liberty Man has”, that the power to suspend is “the source of all liberty” (E2–5 II.xxi.47: 263), that it is “the hinge on which turns the liberty of intellectual Beings” (E2–5 II.xxi.52: 266), and that it is “the great inlet, and exercise of all the liberty Men have, are capable of, or can be useful to them” (E2–5 II.xxi.52: 267). These passages suggest that Locke takes freedom to be (something intimately related to) the power to suspend our desires, a power that cannot simply be identified with the two-way power that Locke identifies with freedom of action at II.xxi.8 ff. (see Yaffe 2000: 12–74).

But there is a simple interpretation of these passages that does not require us to read Locke as offering a different account of freedom as the ability to suspend. The power to suspend is the power to keep one’s will from being determined, that is, the power to forbear willing to do A if one wills to forbear willing to do A . This is just one part of the freedom to will to do A , according to Locke’s definition of freedom of action applied to the action of willing to do A . (The other part is the power to will to do A if one wills to will to do A .) Thus if, as Locke seems to argue in II.xxi.23–24, we are (except under very unusual circumstances) free with respect to the act of willing with respect to a future course of action, then it follows immediately that we have the power to suspend. Locke’s claims about the power to suspend being the source of all liberty and the hinge on which liberty turns can be understood as claims that the power to suspend is a particularly important aspect of freedom of action as applied to the action of willing. What makes it important is the fact that it is the misuse of this freedom that accounts for our responsibility for actions that conduce to our own unhappiness or misery.

How so? Locke claims that the power of suspension was given to us (by God) for a reason, so that we might “examine, view, and judge, of the good or evil of what we are going to do” (E2–5 II.xxi.47: 263) in order to discover

whether that particular thing, which is then proposed, or desired, lie in the way to [our] main end, and make a real part of that which is [our] greatest good. (E2–5 II.xxi.52: 267)

When we make the kinds of mistakes for which we deserve punishment, such as falling into gluttony or envy or selfishness, it is not because we have, after deliberation and investigation, perhaps through no fault of our own, acquired a mistaken view of the facts; it is because we engage in “a too hasty compliance with our desires” (E2–5 II.xxi.53: 268) and fail to “hinder blind Precipitancy” (E2–5 II.xxi.67: 279). What matters is not that we have failed to will the forbearing to will to go to the movies or clean the fridge. What matters is that we have failed to will the forbearing to prosecute our most pressing desires, allowing ourselves to be guided by uneasinesses that might, for all we know, lead us to evil. If we have the power to suspend the prosecution of our desires (including our most pressing desire), then we misuse it when we do not exercise it (or when we fail to exercise it when its exercise is called for). So, not only is Locke’s doctrine of suspension consistent with his account of the freedom to will, it also provides part of the answer to Molyneux’s worry:

And here we may see how it comes to pass, that a Man may justly incur punishment…: Because, by a too hasty choice of his own making, he has imposed on himself wrong measures of good and evil…He has vitiated his own Palate, and must be answerable to himself for the sickness and death that follows from it. (E2–5 II.xxi.56: 270–271) [ 9 ]

Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with causal determinism, and incompatibilism is the thesis that free will is incompatible with causal determinism. Is Locke a compatibilist or an incompatibilist?

The fact that Locke thinks that freedom of action is compatible with the will’s being determined by uneasiness might immediately suggest that Locke is a compatibilist. But, as we have seen ( Section 8 above), it is illegitimate to infer compatibility with causal determinism from compatibility with determination of the will by uneasiness. Still, the evidence strongly suggests that Locke would have embraced compatibilism, if the issue had been put to him directly. Freedom of action, on Locke’s account, is a matter of being able to do what one wills and being able to forbear what one wills to forbear. Although we sometimes act under necessity (compulsion or restraint—E1–5 II.xxi.13: 240), the mere fact (if it is a fact) that our actions are determined by the laws of nature and antecedent events does not threaten our freedom with respect to their performance. As Locke makes clear, if the door to my room is unlocked, I am free with respect to the act of leaving the room, because I have the ability to stay or leave as I will. It is only when the door is locked, or when I am chained, or when my path is blocked, or something else deprives me of the ability to stay or leave, that I am unfree with respect to the act of leaving. Determinism by itself represents no threat to our freedom of action. In this respect, Locke is a forerunner of many other compatibilist theories of freedom, including, for example, those of G.E. Moore (1912) and A.J. Ayer (1954). (For a contrary view, see Schouls 1992: 121. And for a response to Schouls 1992, see Davidson 2003: 213 ff.)

• de Beer, E.S. (ed), 1979, The Correspondence of John Locke , volume 4, Letters 1242–1701, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm, 1704 [1981], New Essays on Human Understanding , edited by Jonathan Bennett and Peter Remnant, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
• Locke, John, 1690, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding , edited by Peter H. Nidditch, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975.
• Ayer, A.J., 1954, “Freedom and Necessity”, in Philosophical Essays , London: Macmillan, pp. 271–284.
• Chappell, Vere, 1994, “Locke on the Freedom of the Will”, in Locke’s Philosophy: Content and Context , edited by G.A.J. Rogers, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 101–121.
• –––, 2004, “Review of Liberty Worth the Name , by Gideon Yaffe”, Mind , 113: 420–424.
• –––, 2007, “Power in Locke’s Essay ”, in The Cambridge Companion to Locke’s “Essay Concerning Human Understanding” , edited by Lex Newman, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 130–156.
• Chisholm, Roderick, 1966, “Freedom and Action”, in Freedom and Determinism , edited by Keith Lehrer, New York: Random House, pp. 11–44.
• Davidson, Donald, 1980, “Freedom to Act”, in Essays on Actions and Events , Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 63–81.
• Davidson, Jack D., 2003, “Locke’s Finely Spun Liberty”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 33: 203–227.
• Dicker, Georges, 2019, Locke on Knowledge and Reality: A Commentary on An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, New York: Oxford University Press, Chapter 9.
• Garrett, Don, 2015, “Liberty and Suspension in Locke’s Theory of the Will”, in A Companion to Locke , edited by Matthew Stuart, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 260–278.
• Glauser, Richard, 2003, “Thinking and Willing in Locke’s Theory of Human Freedom”, Dialogue , 42: 695–724.
• –––, 2014, ‘Locke and the Problem of Weakness of the Will’, in Mind, Values, and Metaphysics , Anne Reboul (ed.), Cham: Springer, pp. 483–499.
• Hoffman, Paul, 2005, “Locke on the Locked Room”, Locke Studies , 5: 57–73.
• Jolley, Nicholas, 1999, Locke: His Philosophical Thought , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Leisinger, Matthew A., 2017, ‘Locke’s Arguments Against the Freedom to Will’, British Journal for the History of Philosophy , 25: 642–662.
• Locke, Don, 1975, “Three Concepts of Free Action, Part 1”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Supplemental Volume), 49: 95–112.
• LoLordo, Antonia, 2012, Locke’s Moral Man , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Lowe, E.J., 1986, “Necessity and the Will in Locke’s Theory of Action”, History of Philosophy Quarterly , 3: 149–163.
• –––, 1995, Locke on Human Understanding , London: Routledge.
• –––, 2004, “Locke: Compatibilist Event-Causalist or Libertarian Substance-Causalist?” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 48: 688–701.
• –––, 2005, Locke , London: Routledge.
• Magri, Tito, 2000, “Locke, Suspension of Desire, and the Remote Good”, British Journal for the History of Philosophy , 8: 55–70.
• Mill, John Stuart, 1974 [1843], System of Logic: Ratiocinative and Inductive , in Collected Works of John Stuart Mill , Vol. 7, edited by J.M. Robson, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
• Moauro, Leonardo, and Rickless, Samuel C., 2019, ‘Does Locke Have an Akrasia Problem?’, Journal of Modern Philosophy , 1: 9. doi:10.32881/jomp.39
• Moore, G.E., 1912, Ethics , London: Williams and Norgate.
• O’Higgins, J., 1976, “Introduction” and “Notes”, in Determinism and Freewill: Anthony Collins’ A Philosophical Inquiry Concerning Human Liberty , edited by J. O’Higgins, The Hague: Nijhoff, pp. 1–45 and 115–124.
• Rickless, Samuel C., 2000, “Locke on the Freedom to Will”, Locke Newsletter (now Locke Studies ), 31: 43–67.
• –––, 2001, “Review of Liberty Worth the Name: Locke on Free Agency , by Gideon Yaffe”, Locke Studies , 1: 235–255.
• –––, 2014, Locke , Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Ryle, Gilbert, 1949, The Concept of Mind , London: Hutchinson.
• Schaffer, Jonathan, 2003, “Overdetermining Causes”, Philosophical Studies , 114: 23–45.
• Schouls, Peter, 1992, Reasoned Freedom: John Locke and Enlightenment , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Stuart, Matthew, 2013, Locke’s Metaphysics , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Taylor, Richard, 1966, Action and Purpose , Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Vailati, Ezio, 1990, ‘Leibniz on Locke on Weakness of Will’, Journal of the History of Philosophy , 28: 213–228.
• Walsh, Julie, 2014, “Locke and the Power to Suspend Desire”, Locke Studies , 14: 121–157.
• –––, 2018, ‘Locke’s Last Word on Freedom: Correspondence with Limborch’, Res Philosophica , 95: 637–661.
• Yaffe, Gideon, 2000, Liberty Worth the Name: Locke on Free Agency , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Yolton, John W., 1970, Locke and the Compass of Human Understanding , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Broad, Jacqueline, 2006, “A Woman’s Influence? John Locke and Damaris Masham on Moral Accountability”, Journal of the History of Ideas , 67: 489–510.
• Chappell, Vere, 1994, “Locke on the Intellectual Basis of Sin”, Journal of the History of Philosophy , 32: 197–207.
• –––, 1998, “Locke on the Suspension of Desire”, Locke Newsletter (now Locke Studies ), 29: 23–38.
• Colman, John, 1983, John Locke’s Moral Philosophy , Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• Corneanu, Sorana, 2011, Regimens of the Mind: Boyle, Locke, and the Early Modern Cultura Animi Tradition , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Darwall, Stephen, 1995, The British Moralists and the Internal ‘Ought’, 1640–1740 , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Glauser, Richard, 2009, “Liberté, Compatibilisme et Agnosticisme chez Locke”, Revue Philosophique de Louvain , 107: 675–697.
• Harris, James, 2005, Of Liberty and Necessity: The Free Will Debate in Eighteenth-Century British Philosophy , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• LoLordo, Antonia, 2013, “Reply to Rickless”, Locke Studies , 13: 55–64.
• Marko, Jonathan S., 2017, ‘Why Locke’s Of Power Is Not a Metaphysical Pronouncement: Locke’s Response to Molyneux’s Critique’, Philosophy and Theology: Marquette University Quarterly , 29: 41–68.
• Rickless, Samuel C., 2013, “Locke on Active Power, Freedom, and Moral Agency”, Locke Studies , 13: 33–54.
• –––, 2013, ‘Will and Motivation’, in The Oxford Handbook of British Philosophy in the Seventeenth Century , Peter R. Anstey (ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press, 393–414.
• Schindler, D. C., 2017, Freedom from Reality: The Diabolical Character of Modern Liberty , Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, Chapter 1.
• Sleigh, Robert, Vere Chappell, and Michael Della Rocca, 1998, ‘Determinism and Human Freedom’, in The Cambridge History of Seventeenth-Century Philosophy , Daniel Garber and Michael Ayers (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Volume 2: 1195–1278.
• Walsh, Julie, 2010, “‘Things’ for ‘Actions’: Locke’s Mistake in ‘Of Power’”, Locke Studies , 10: 85–94.
• Wolfe, Charles T, 2009, “Locke’s Compatibilism: Suspension of Desire of Suspension of Determinism?” in Action, Ethics and Responsibility , edited by Joseph Keim Campbell, Michael O’Rourke, and Harry Silverstein, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 109–126.
• Yaffe, Gideon, 2001, “Locke on Refraining, Suspending, and the Freedom to Will”, History of Philosophy Quarterly , 18: 373–391.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Locke: Ethics entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy , by Julie Walsh.

agency | Collins, Anthony | compatibilism | determinism: causal | euthanasia: voluntary | free will | Hobbes, Thomas | Hume, David: on free will | incompatibilism: (nondeterministic) theories of free will | Locke, John | Locke, John: moral philosophy | Masham, Lady Damaris

Copyright © 2020 by Samuel Rickless < srickless @ ucsd . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• Essay On Freedom

Freedom Essay

500+ words essay on freedom.

We are all familiar with the word ‘freedom’, but you will hear different versions from different people if you ask about it. The definition of freedom varies from person to person. According to some people, freedom means doing something as per their wish; for some people, it means taking a stand for themselves. Ultimately, the fact is that every individual wants to be free and lead their life as per their choice.

Freedom Meaning

Freedom is all about a state of independence where individuals can do what they want without any restrictions. We inherit freedom from the day we are born. It is a quality that each individual possesses. Freedom is a feeling that is felt from within. It can also be defined as a state of mind where you have the right to do what you can think of. The concept of freedom is applied to different aspects of life, and it’s not an absolute term.

All societies describe freedom in their aspect. People of different cultures see freedom in different ways, and accordingly, they enjoy their freedom. We should remember that our freedom should not disregard the rights of others. As good human beings, we should respect others’ freedom and not just live freely. We have to consider the rights and the feelings of people around us when living our freedom.

Creative minds flourish in societies that encourage freedom of opinion, thoughts, beliefs, expression, choice, etc.

Indian Freedom Struggle

The Indian freedom struggle is one of the most significant progress in the history of India. In 1600, the Britishers entered India in the name of trade-specific items like tea, cotton and silk and started ruling our country. Later on, they started ruling our country and made our Indian people their slaves. So, our country has to face the most challenging times to gain independence from British rule. In 1857, the first movement against the British was initiated by Mangal Pandey, an Indian soldier.

India also started various movements against the Britishers to get independence from their rule. One of them includes the Civil Disobedience Movement that started against the British salt monopoly. India could not manufacture salt and had to buy it from the British people by paying huge sums.

After we gained independence, India became one country that gave its citizens some freedom with limited restrictions. Now, India is a free country and the world’s largest democracy.

Freedom of India

During the days of struggle with the Britishers, India drafted a Constitution, which became applicable after independence. Our Constitution provides several freedom rights relevant to all Indian citizens equally. More importantly, these rights are constitutionally equal to every citizen.

Our constitutional rights are the right to equality, freedom, right against exploitation, freedom of religion, culture and educational rights, and right to constitutional remedies.

Importance of Freedom

We can understand the actual value of something when we achieve or earn it by sacrificing our lives. Freedom also means liberalisation from oppression, freedom from racism, opposition, discrimination, and other relatable things. Freedom doesn’t allow us to violate and disregard others’ rights.

The Freedom of Speech

Freedom of Speech is one of the fundamental human rights of an Indian citizen. An individual can convey his emotions, needs, and wants through speech. For a healthy democracy, the right to freedom of speech is essential for the citizens. The framers of the Constitution knew the importance of this right and declared this a Fundamental Right of every Indian citizen. The Constitution of India guarantees the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a). It entitles every citizen to express an opinion without fearing repression by the Government.

Conclusion of the Freedom Essay

At last, we can sum it up by saying that freedom is not what we think. It is a concept, and everybody has their opinions about it. If we see the idea of freedom more broadly, it is connected with happiness. Similarly, it has added value for other people.

Students of the CBSE Board can get essays based on different topics, such as Republic Day Essay , from BYJU’S website. They can visit our CBSE Essay page and learn more about essays.

Frequently Asked Questions on Freedom Essay

What were the slogans used during the indian struggle for freedom.

Slogans used during the Indian independence movement include ‘Karo ya Maro’ (Do or die), ‘Inqlaab Zindabad’ (Long live the Revolution) and ‘Vande Mataram’ (Praise to Motherland)

What is the meaning of freedom?

In simple words, freedom means the ability to act or change without constraint and also possess the power to fulfil one’s resources.

What are examples of freedom?

Even the act of letting a bird out of the cage is an example of freedom. A woman regaining her independence after ending a controlling or abusive marriage is another instance of freedom achieved.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

The meaning of freedom today Analytical Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Personal freedom, sartre’s existentialist definition of freedom, equality and independence, karl marx on freedom, the practice of freedom, michael foucault on freedom.

In the contemporary society, people consider freedom a basic need in that person who is not free must be in a rough co-existence with him and others. It is therefore very important to exalt freedom, which begins with personal liberty to the sovereignty of nations.

The extent to which a person can be free as well as the exact definition of freedom has been subjected to philosophical discourses from time immemorial with renowned philosophers such as Karl Marx, Michael Foucault and Jean Paul Sartre having differing arguments in the matter. According to the school of thought that each one of them represented, the idea of freedom to them bears differing definitions and extends.

In order to come up with an agreeable and logical definition of freedom as it is in the contemporary society, people have critically analyzed the input of these philosophers and their definition of freedom in this paper with the intention of clearly understanding what freedom is according to the schools of thought they represent today.

As I reveal, the exact meaning of freedom must comprise of the different aspects such as personal liberty, the right to life, equality and independence from coercion and repressive conditions such as poverty, ignorance and diseases. Any meaning of freedom is wanting if it does not address the issue of personal liberty.

Freedom starts with a sense of self-control or rather self-ownership. In this case, reason influences the person’s sense of freedom. In a free state, every person receives an equal chance of exercising freedom at personal level. In this case, no other person influences another’s decisions and the extent to which he/she makes decisions remains strictly limited by him/her.

This is in other words to say that in a free state a person’s freedom is not limited as long as it does not impact negatively or limit the freedom of the other people. For instance, a person’s freedom cannot include enslaving other people. As a slave, a person is not free to make certain decisions, movements and interactions with other people in the society.

In a free state therefore, a person is not entitle to take the freedom of another person for personal interests since it is against their wish to be treated so. My fellow panelist Sartre concurs with my view of freedom despite his limited definition of the freedom.

According to Jean Paul Sartre, man is condemned to be free. This is without regard to whether he acts from external constraints to repress it or just follows his pragmatic decisions.

A person is free when s/he refuses to act in bad faith and instead follow what he is. For instance, when the waiter who knows really well that he is impersonating a waiter stops that and instead does what his freedom grants, he is at that particular moment embracing freedom.

By being a waiter, the person is only denying his or her own freedom. According to existentialism, one cannot claim that external forces shape his/her deeds or actions. For instance, the profession of a person cannot shape the person’s identity considering that the roles played in that profession are only as a matter of bad faith and will eventually cease.

Being aware of one’s significance in the process of doing the roles in the profession inform the choices that a person makes and that seem directed to the person’s sense of freedom. However, I stand to criticize his definition based on how limited it appears.

Sartre, as well as other existentialists, concentrates more on the intrinsic definition of self-freedom rather than giving a definition and an extent to freedom that one can put into practice in the contemporary society. He does not clarify whether a person is free or not clearly defined in that existentialists hold that in every situation a person has still the freedom of choice.

Having the freedom of choice is not that important and does not qualify as being the absolute meaning of being free. This is basically for the simple reason that even a person who is enslaved by another has the freedom to choose either to rebel or to show complicity but that does not mean that they are free.

In the contemporary society, a person is only free if any other person or condition can implement his /her thoughts and choices without any repression. The issue of equality of freedom constitutes the meaning of freedom.

Equality is very essential in any situation for a person to be free in the contemporary society. This ranges from political, sexual, racial as well as religious equality.

For people to consider another as free in a free state, he/she must go through an equal treatment with others regardless of their gender or any other affiliations. When a person is marginalized on the any of the above areas, their freedom is interfered with and eventually the person is deprived the necessity of being free.

With equality comes independence in making decisions as well as living without any coercion from anyone. This implies that the different types of independence that Karl Marx and others who embrace the Marxist school of thought argued mostly about.

Karl Marx in his Manifesto of the communist party conceptualizes freedom from an economic point of view. Marx conceptualizes freedom from an individualistic point of view whereby he argues that freedom is an individual’s collective use of reason to create a reconciled definition of personal and public freedom.

From this, Marx argues that a person who exercises freedom at the expense of the masses abuses it since the freedom of the majority is the one that matters. For instance, a person who owns means of production and abuses his employees for the sake of enriching himself and expanding his financial freedom by enriching himself is infringing the freedom of the others.

It is therefore clear from his arguments that Marx’s view of freedom is more informed by the social relations of people in the society. He argues that for a state to be termed as free there has to be a revolution whereby the proletariat overpower the bourgeoisie and own the means of production.

In that case, the majority would be free in that they will be in a position to cope with life without the fear of being oppressed by a powerful ruling class. However, I stand to criticize the view based on its one-sidedness.

Marx’s idea of the masses overpowering the ruling class, as a necessary precondition for their freedom, is one sided and has failed to hold on for a long time. This stands out because he fails to address other important aspects such as equality, the addressing of human rights and the dealing with other factors that lead to the oppression of people.

His address however on the issue of economic oppression holds until today as evidenced by workers rising up against their oppressive employers in the contemporary society and demanding for a fair exchange for their labor. This is because a person’s freedom seems abused if he/she faces oppression in any given situation.

The fact that in order to be completely free one must keenly be aware of the limits of his/her freedom is a very important factor to consider when defining freedom in the society today.

This is in the sense that other people’s freedom is as important as your freedom. A question arises as to whether a person has or should have the right to defend him/herself against coercion. This brings forth a quite interesting aspect of freedom regarded as the freedom of defense.

In most Free states where freedom of people seems held with dignity, always a system acts to differentiate acts of coercion as either offensive or defensive. In this case, whether a person acted in an effort to defend him/herself or was interfering with another’s rights is established. Foucault’s meaning today’s of freedom is wanting based on its failure to explain how one can free him/herself.

According to Michael Foucault, being free is a practice of the different practices of freedom. To him it is therefore a continuous process. Foucault emphasizes more on the practices of freedom over the process of liberation. He argues that it the practices of freedom that eventually upholds freedom rather than the process of liberation.

For instance, he uses the example of a colonized nation, which liberates itself from the colonizers. The society would still be in need of practices of freedom as they engage in building their own government.

One can clearly notice that Foucault’s works are in a way, skeptical about the extent to which people can free themselves. If people cannot stand out of the constraints of relations of power, knowledge and subjectivity, then to him their practices of freedom are simply on a small notion of resistance from within.

In order to answer the question of what one exactly means by ‘being free’ in the contemporary society, it is of great essence to be all-round while addressing the aspects of freedom.

The problem with the definitions and the answers that philosophers Karl Marx, Michael Foucault and Jean Paul Sartre presents is that they are in most cases one sided whereby they all aimed at addressing a single aspect within the complex issue of freedom. Therefore, it is arguable that one can summon their arguments to contribute to the broad definition of today’s freedom.

• Nietzsche’s and Sartre’s Views on Morality
• Hell in Dante's Inferno and Sartre's No Exit
• Satre human freedom
• Nietzsche: Death of God
• St. Augustine. Solution to the Problem of Evil
• The Concept of Metaphysics and Nature
• Inequality's Philosophical Description
• “What Is the Meaning of Life?” in the Works of Gilgamesh and Agamemnon
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, May 31). The meaning of freedom today. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-meaning-of-freedom-today/

"The meaning of freedom today." IvyPanda , 31 May 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/the-meaning-of-freedom-today/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'The meaning of freedom today'. 31 May.

IvyPanda . 2018. "The meaning of freedom today." May 31, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-meaning-of-freedom-today/.

1. IvyPanda . "The meaning of freedom today." May 31, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-meaning-of-freedom-today/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The meaning of freedom today." May 31, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-meaning-of-freedom-today/.

The First 10 Amendments: Foundations of American Freedom

This essay is about the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights. It explains how these amendments were introduced to protect individual liberties and limit government power. Key highlights include the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly; the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms; and the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches. The essay also covers the Fifth through Tenth Amendments, detailing rights related to criminal proceedings, civil trials, protection from excessive bail and punishment, and the balance of power between federal and state governments. These amendments collectively ensure the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms in American democracy.

How it works

The first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States, collectively recognized as the Bill of Rights, are elemental to American jurisprudence and governance. Sanctioned on December 15, 1791, these modifications were introduced to safeguard individual liberties and curtail governmental authority, ensuring equilibrium between hegemony and personal freedoms. Grasping these modifications affords insight into the foundational principles that underlie American democracy.

The First Amendment perhaps stands as the most renowned and broadly referenced. It guarantees the liberties of expression, religiosity, journalism, congregation, and petition.

This amendment constitutes the cornerstone of American democratic ideals, permitting individuals to articulate their viewpoints, freely practice their faith, and hold the government accountable through transparent discourse and demonstration. These freedoms are imperative for a vibrant, operative democracy wherein concepts can be freely exchanged and governmental actions can be scrutinized.

The Second Amendment deals with the entitlement to possess arms. This amendment has been the subject of extensive deliberation, especially in the milieu of contemporary gun regulation dialogues. It stipulates that a well-regulated militia is indispensable for the safeguarding of a free polity, thereby protecting the populace’s entitlement to possess and carry arms. The construal of this amendment endures an evolution, mirroring the ongoing dialogue about harmonizing individual privileges with communal security.

The Third Amendment, though comparatively less discussed, proscribes the lodging of troops in private residences without the proprietor’s assent. This amendment was a reaction to British practices during the colonial epoch and mirrors the overarching American esteem for privacy and property prerogatives.

The Fourth Amendment shields against unwarranted searches and confiscations, ensuring that citizens retain a right to privacy and security within their own dwellings. It mandates that law enforcement procure a warrant grounded on probable cause before conducting searches, thus safeguarding individuals from arbitrary or invasive governmental measures. This amendment is pivotal in preserving the rule of law and shielding citizens from governmental overreach.

The Fifth Amendment furnishes numerous protections for individuals accused of transgressions. It encompasses the entitlement to due process, safeguards against being tried twice for the same offense, and the entitlement against self-incrimination. Additionally, it includes the Takings Clause, which ensures that private property cannot be expropriated for public use without just remuneration. These protections are integral to ensuring equity and justice within the legal framework.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, encompassing the right to a prompt and public trial, an unprejudiced jury, and the right to legal counsel. It also ensures that defendants are apprised of the accusations leveled against them and can challenge witnesses. These rights are imperative for a fair legal process and help forestall transgressions within the judicial system.

The Seventh Amendment extends the entitlement to a jury trial in civil cases wherein the value in dispute surpasses twenty dollars. This amendment reinforces the significance of trial by jury as a means of ensuring that disputes are settled impartially and equitably.

The Eighth Amendment interdicts excessive bail, disproportionate fines, and savage and unusual punishments. This amendment reflects the principle that penalties should be commensurate with the offense and that individuals should not be subjected to inhumane treatment by the state.

The Ninth Amendment addresses the apprehension that cataloging specific privileges in the Constitution might intimate that these were the sole privileges protected. It stipulates that the enumeration of certain privileges should not be construed to disavow or belittle others retained by the populace. This amendment underscores the principle that individuals possess fundamental privileges beyond those explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment reaffirms the federal configuration of the United States government by proclaiming that powers not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the states are retained by the states or the populace. This amendment emphasizes the significance of state autonomy and restricts the extent of federal authority, ensuring a balance of authority between disparate tiers of government.

Collectively, the Bill of Rights serves as a pivotal restraint on governmental authority, safeguarding the liberties and rights of individuals. These amendments reflect the framers’ dedication to erecting a government that respects and upholds the innate dignity and liberty of every individual. They provide a framework for comprehending and safeguarding individual rights in the face of shifting societal standards and challenges.

The persistent pertinence of the first decadal amendments lies in their capacity to adapt to novel contexts while preserving their foundational principles. Whether addressing quandaries of free expression in the digital era, harmonizing firearm rights with communal security, or ensuring due process in a labyrinthine legal system, the Bill of Rights remains an indispensable component of American democracy. It continues to animate and steer endeavors to safeguard and enlarge human rights across the globe, serving as a testimonial to the enduring potency of the principles it enshrines.

The first decadal amendments are not merely antiquated relics but living manuscripts that persistently shape and delineate the American ordeal. They embody a pledge of liberty and justice that must be perpetually championed and defended, ensuring that the privileges and freedoms they guarantee remain dynamic and efficacious in the presence of novel challenges and opportunities.

Cite this page

The First 10 Amendments: Foundations of American Freedom. (2024, May 28). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-first-10-amendments-foundations-of-american-freedom/

"The First 10 Amendments: Foundations of American Freedom." PapersOwl.com , 28 May 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-first-10-amendments-foundations-of-american-freedom/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The First 10 Amendments: Foundations of American Freedom . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-first-10-amendments-foundations-of-american-freedom/ [Accessed: 31 May. 2024]

"The First 10 Amendments: Foundations of American Freedom." PapersOwl.com, May 28, 2024. Accessed May 31, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-first-10-amendments-foundations-of-american-freedom/

"The First 10 Amendments: Foundations of American Freedom," PapersOwl.com , 28-May-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-first-10-amendments-foundations-of-american-freedom/. [Accessed: 31-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The First 10 Amendments: Foundations of American Freedom . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-first-10-amendments-foundations-of-american-freedom/ [Accessed: 31-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Politics of Development
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

The Idea of Freedom: New Essays on the Kantian Theory of Freedom

• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Kant describes the concept of freedom as “the keystone of the whole structure of a system of pure reason, even of speculative reason.” Kant’s theory of freedom thus plays a foundational and unifying role in all aspects of his philosophy and is thus of significant interest to historians of Kant’s philosophy. Kant’s theory of freedom has also played a significant role in contemporary debates in metaphysics, normative ethics, and metaethics. This volume brings historians of Kant’s philosophy into conversation with contemporary metaphysicians and ethicists with the aim of representing the current state of scholarship on Kant’s and Kantian accounts of freedom while at the same time opening new avenues of exploration. The volume includes papers by leading scholars on a range of historical and contemporary topics centrally related to the Kantian theory of freedom, including transcendental idealism, determinism, Kant’s normative ethical theory, Kant’s conception of cognition, Kant’s theory of beauty, Kant’s conception of logic, and many others.

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

A style expert shares fresh Target finds to help you kick off summer — from $10

• TODAY Plaza
• Share this —

• Watch Full Episodes
• Read With Jenna
• Inspirational
• Relationships
• TODAY Table
• Newsletters
• Start TODAY
• Shop TODAY Awards
• Citi Concert Series
• Listen All Day

Follow today

More Brands

• On The Show

54 famous freedom quotes to share on the 4th of July

Nearly 250 years ago, America's Founding Fathers made good on their dream of establishing one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

On July 4, 1776, they signed The Declaration of Independence, officially declaring the U.S. free from British rule, and we've been observing the anniversary ever since.

However you plan to celebrate the Fourth of July this year — whether it's by enjoying a local fireworks display or spending time with loved ones, take a moment to post or share one of these inspiring freedom quotes in honor of Independence Day.

In the collection below, you'll find famous quotes by luminaries such as George Washington, Eleanor Roosevelt, Robert Frost, Bob Marley and other notable figures in history.

Use one as a Fourth of July caption for Instagram or jot one of these patriotic sayings in a greeting card to send to friends and relatives.

In fact, you can use these freedom quotes however you see fit, including simply reading them over in remembrance of the many sacrifices made by men and women to ensure that America continues to be the land of the free and home of brave .

Whatever you decide, these quotes are certain to have your heart beating red, white and blue on the Fourth of July and every day after.

Freedom Quotes

• “I was born an American; I will live an American; I shall die an American!” — Daniel Webster
• “Liberty has been planted here; and the more it is attacked, the more it grows and flourishes.” — Samuel Sherwood
• “Who ever walked behind anyone to freedom? If we can’t go hand in hand, I don’t want to go.” — Hazel Scott
• “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.” — Nathan Hale
• “This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.” — Elmer Davis
• “In the face of impossible odds, people who love this country can change it.” — Barack Obama

• “Better to die fighting for freedom then be a prisoner all the days of your life.” ― Bob Marley
• “I am no longer accepting the things I cannot change. I am changing the things I cannot accept.” — Angela Davis
• “Doing what you like is freedom. Liking what you do is happiness.” ― Frank Tyger
• “May we think of freedom, not as the right to do as we please but as the opportunity to do what is right.” — Peter Marshall
• “Freedom is what we do with what is done to us.” — Jean-Paul Sartre
• “The secret of happiness is freedom, the secret of freedom is courage.” — Carrie Jones

• “You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don’t ever count on having both at once.” — Robert Heinlein
• “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” — George Washington
• “Freedom is not something that anybody can be given. Freedom is something people take, and people are as free as they want to be.” — James Baldwin
• “Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth.” —John F. Kennedy
• “He who is brave is free.” — Lucius Annaeus Seneca
• “True patriotism springs from a belief in the dignity of the individual, freedom and equality not only for Americans but for all people on earth.” — Eleanor Roosevelt

• “Thought is free.” — William Shakespeare, “The Tempest”
• “One flag, one land, one heart, one hand, one nation, evermore!” — Oliver Wendell Holmes
• “This nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” — Abraham Lincoln
• “Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth.” — George Washington
• “Freedom is nothing but a chance to be better.” — Albert Camus
• “Freedom lies in being bold.” ― Robert Frost
• “Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves.” ― Abraham Lincoln

• “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” ― George Orwell
• “We must be free not because we claim freedom, but because we practice it.” ― William Faulkner, “Essays, Speeches & Public Letters”
• “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people.” — Franklin D. Roosevelt
• “For to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.” ― Nelson Mandela
• “I am no bird; and no net ensnares me; I am a free human being with an independent will.” ― Charlotte Brontë, “Jane Eyre”
• “And should we win the day, the Fourth of July will no longer be known as an American holiday, but as the day the world declared in one voice: ‘We will not go quietly into the night!’”— President Thomas Whitmore, “Independence Day”

• “Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes.” ― Mahatma Gandhi
• “I’ve found that there is always some beauty left — in nature, sunshine, freedom, in yourself; these can all help you. Look at these thing, then you find yourself again” ― Anne Frank, “The Diary of a Young Girl”
• “No one loses anyone, because no one owns anyone. That is the true experience of freedom: having the most important thing in the world without owning it.” ― Paulo Coelho, “Eleven Minutes”
• “I am not free while any woman is unfree, even when her shackles are very different from my own.” ― Audre Lorde
•  “Just living is not enough, one must have sunshine, freedom, and a little flower.” — Hans Christian Andersen, “The Complete Fairy Tales”

• “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” ― Benjamin Franklin
• “A free bird leaps / on the back of the wind / and floats downstream / till the current ends / and dips his wing / in the orange sun rays / and dares to claim the sky.” ― Maya Angelou, “The Complete Collected Poems”
• “Freedom is something that dies unless it’s used.” ― Hunter S. Thompson
• “I have tasted freedom. I will not give up that which I have tasted.” — Harvey Milk
• “Nothing speaks so strongly of freedom as the fact that the descendants of those who went through great agony — which, thank Heaven, has passed away — have now full opportunities and can help celebrate my fifty years’ work for liberty.” ― Susan B. Anthony

• “She had not known the weight until she felt the freedom!” ― Nathaniel Hawthorne, “The Scarlet Letter”
• “If you assume that there is an instinct for freedom, there are opportunities to change things, there’s a chance you may contribute to making a better world. The choice is yours.” — Noam Chomsky
• “Freely we serve, Because we freely love, as in our will To love or not; in this we stand or fall.” — John Milton, “Paradise Lost”
• “But laws alone cannot secure freedom of expression; in order that every man may present his views without penalty there must be a spirit of tolerance in the entire population.” — Albert Einstein
• “You never completely have your rights, one person, until you all have your rights.” — Marsha P. Johnson

•  “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.” ― Thomas Paine
• “All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope.” ― Winston Churchill
• “Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.” ― Martin Luther King Jr.
• “The function of freedom is to free someone else.” ― Toni Morrison

• “Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.” ― John Milton, “Areopagitica”
• “Power can be taken, but not given. The process of the taking is empowerment in itself.” — Gloria Steinem
• “Lock up your libraries if you like; but there is no gate, no lock, no bolt that you can set upon the freedom of my mind.” ― Virginia Woolf, “A Room of One’s Own”
• “While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious not to violate the rights of conscience in others.” — George Washington

Sarah is a lifestyle and entertainment reporter for TODAY who covers holidays, celebrities and everything in between.

Inspiring 4th of July quotes to share on America's birthday

50 fun July 4th activities to celebrate America's birthday

20 Fourth of July movies to stream this summer

Lehighton students honored for essays on freedom

What does freedom mean to me?

That was the theme for the 2023-2024 Americanism Essay Contest hosted by the Shoemaker-Haydt Unit 314 American Legion Auxiliary of Lehighton.

The winners of each of the three classes were honored at a dinner Wednesday at the Lehighton American Legion, where they were presented with certificates and a monetary award by LaRue Fritz, essay contest chairman and president; and Frances Keener, first vice president.

Brillee Andrews, a student at Lehighton Elementary School, won first place in Class 1, which consisted of boys and girls in third and fourth grades. Andrews is the daughter of Christina and John Andrews of Lehighton.

In her essay, Andrews wrote, “The freedom of choice lets me choose what to do with my life. How I want to act, speak and dress. I can choose my future ... Freedom is that I can make choices about my life. My freedom in life is important.”

Shaniya Doyle, a student at Lehighton Middle School won first place in Class 2, fifth and sixth grades. She is the daughter of Shirley Solomon and John Doyle of Lehighton.

“When I was little, I got asked the same question. I thought freedom was being able to play with your toys or not getting in trouble. The more I grew up, the more I think about it ... the definition changes. I think freedom is being able to pursue my happiness, and it’s a very precious aspect of my life.”

Parker Derr, a student at Lehighton Middle School, won first place in Class 3, seventh and eighth grades. He is the son of Tara and Daniel Derr of Lehighton.

“The Constitution states, ‘We the People’, not me or I. This means we are all equal. No one is better than another. We should all be thankful and show our gratitude to the men and women of the United States military. They have fought and some sacrificed their lives to protect the Constitution, our rights, and our freedoms.”

In addition to winning first place in Lehighton, all three students also won in the American Legion Auxiliary Four-County Council, consisting of Carbon, Lehigh, Monroe and Northampton counties. They were honored May 11 at a dinner in Weatherly where they read their essays.

Also at the dinner, a memorial service was held to honor members of the Auxiliary who passed away. The service was presented by LaRue Fritz; Debra Bokan, secretary and memorial chairwoman; and Brenda Fisher, chaplain. Those who were honored were Gail Steigerwalt, Janice Harleman, Magdalen Armbruster, Tammy Kardolly and Susan Rhoads-Procina.

One killed in Mahoning crash

Second man dies from injuries in mahoning township crash, coroner releases name of man who drowned in lehigh, man drowns in tubing incident on lehigh, blaze hit barn on summer valley road.

Prof Jem Bendell

essays on collapse risk, readiness & response

Greens will return to freedom and democracy

Most leaders of the Green movement and profession in the West who I talk with, or read from, don’t want to recognize either the validity or significance of a public backlash against senior experts and authorities on matters of public concern. Nor do they want to admit their own role in contributing to that distrust and backlash. Perhaps they don’t want to recognise how they helped to amplify the damaging pharma-defined authoritarian and pseudo-moralizing narratives and policies promoted to us during the early years of the pandemic.

They prefer to regard any concerns about eco-authoritarianism as being fanciful conspiracy theories dreamt up by opportunistic YouTubers. While it is true that some influencers appear to be so out-of-touch and attention-seeking that they ignore the suffering of millions of poor people from climatic change to instead warn, without evidence, that the WHO will initiate ‘climate lockdowns’ [1], that does not mean there are not valid concerns about creeping censorship, propaganda, and authoritarianism. It does not mean some of that anti-democratic creep has been supported by environmental leaders, including those in power in Germany and elsewhere.

Many environmentalists in the West congratulate themselves on a few new elected representatives while a political earthquake is happening around them, involving the rise of opportunistic parties that (claim to) reject the authoritarianism over the last 4 years. Given that the first people to challenge the over-pharmacological and authoritarian response to the pandemic in 2020 were the deep greens in natural health, it is ironic that right wingers have come to be regarded as the defenders of medical freedom. Many of them, like Jordan Peterson, only joined the criticism publicly in 2022. As always, opportunists and right wingers never offer a coherent analysis of corporate power in general, or ideas for how to organize to tame such power. Instead they just tell us about one bad leader, one bad corporation, or one bad sector. And we are always told to be angry at anyone but the bankers who run the show and benefit from it. One key reason why there is not a more coherent response to the new wave of authoritarianism is that the leaders of the Western environmental movement constantly demonized any environmentalist who spoke out against the Covid orthodoxy. People like myself, Charles Eisenstein, Paul Kingsnorth, amongst others, were slandered by some of the most famous green commentators as spreading lethal disinformation. Members of the general public who were deeply concerned about the policy agenda and media narratives since 2020 were therefore driven towards the opportunists and right wingers, who, surprise-surprise, now tell their audiences to blame immigrants, protesters, chemtrails, tofu eaters, space lasers, AI, and, of course, those remote cabals of bogeymen. They choose anyone and anything but bankers and the exploitative omnicidal system that they administer. (Check out Chapter 10 of my book if you want a summary of the role of banking in our current predicament).

Fortunately, in the past year I have discovered something different during face-to-face conversations with environmentalists and environmentally-curious, in various countries, from various generations, and economic classes. In particular, I have heard how critical they were of the orthodox agenda on the pandemic and resisted it in various ways. For instance, refusing the (illegal) demand from senior colleagues that they be jabbed before coming to the office (do I need to repeat that the jabs don’t prevent transmission?). I discovered that they are concerned with the centralization of the public sphere by American BigTech who now manipulate our sense of what our peers, experts and the general public believe. I have discovered they believe in, and practice, an environmentalism which is about local collaborative actions, not relying on pseudo-solutions from big corporations and financiers. It is these people who share what I describe as an ‘ecolibertarian’ ethic in my book Breaking Together . We believe it is because people are manipulated and exploited that we have been destroying the environment at the scale and pace that we have – an understanding which then shapes our aims and tactics.

My interest in bringing attention to resistance from within the environmental movement to the authoritarian trajectories of society, is why I am sharing with you a recent essay from Micha Narberhaus. I first met Micha in 2006 when we were both working for the environmental group WWF-UK. He now works with Protopia, which seeks to upgrade the quality of dialogue in society on collective challenges, including the ecological crisis. In the essay he explains many of the facets of an emerging authoritarianism. Although some might not wish to bother with a discussion of woke-antiwoke, I agree with Micha that it is an aspect and exemplar of how moral psychology is being weaponized by the powerful to shame people away from open discussion, just at the time when we need it the most. Of course, we do not need to agree on everything to agree on the broader trend that is undermining democracy (for instance, I don’t agree on everything with the people Ive name checked in this blog). As more understanding spreads about these issues, perhaps a more ecolibertarian mood will shape the leadership of Western environmentalism. That might help to overcome the massive set backs that the managerial classes have caused for environmentalism over the last few years through their kowtowing to corporate power and their demonization of dissent (including from fellow greens). Although eco-authoritarianism will unfortunately be a feature of our era of societal disruption and collapse, I now know that many greens will return to freedom and democracy as central facets of our agenda.

Endnote 1: As an example, in a video in May, comedian and social commentator-influencer Russell Brand told us to check the draft WHO treaty to see how it can enable WHO to mandate governments to lockdown over climate change. However, the treaty only mentions that environmental and climatic changes influence pandemic risk, which has been understood in ecology for decades (which I explain in Chapter 4 of Breaking Together). The treaty says nothing further about a WHO role on climate. The WHO has been co-opted by big pharma and, on balance, has become unhelpful. Many African medical professionals and politicians are therefore resisting aspects of the WHO agenda, on the pandemic treaty and elsewhere. But the lazy demonisation of concern and action on climate change is a symptom of the problems I describe in this blog and my book. (The draft treaty . The Brand video) .

You can read more from Micha at his substack .

Sleepwalking into totalitarianism – Part 2 – by Micha Narberhaus

This is the second part of my two-part essay on my observations of the totalitarian tendencies in the West. In the first part, which you can  read here , I argue that initially wokeism was not driven by governments. It was a kind of soft totalitarianism, a decentralised system of elite control. Then came the highly authoritarian response to Covid, with some totalitarian elements, especially towards the end. 

In this second part I provide evidence of how Western governments are now becoming increasingly totalitarian in the name of ‘saving democracy’, as they say. I show how the ‘fight for democracy’ is being operationalised through the fight against what has come to be called ‘hate speech’ and the push to eliminate ‘disinformation’, and I explore what might be the reasons that have led us to this situation.

If the pandemic was the turning point that introduced us Western citizens to a new culture of extensive censorship and a mainstream media landscape that marches in lockstep with governments, reporting the facts as they fit their predetermined narrative, then what has happened since is the consolidation and perfection of these tools.

While the pandemic has disappeared from the headlines, the narrative of crisis and the moralisation of everything has not. The overarching narrative that has dominated public discourse since then is that we are fighting the battle of our lives against the so-called enemies of democracy. It is the story of a battle between the good guys – those who do not question the dogmas and elite consensus on the most contentious issues such as immigration, climate change, lockdowns, gender ideology, Ukraine or Gaza – and the bad guys on the other side – those who dare to question or fundamentally disagree with the dogmas. This narrative implies that we no longer debate who has the better arguments. Instead, those who disagree are automatically seen as evil and their motives are portrayed as obviously bad.

This battle is most often explicitly aimed at the national populist parties that have recently gained strength, as well as their voters and sympathisers. But this is by no means exclusive. If you happen to be on the wrong side of any of the issues mentioned above, you run the risk of becoming the target of serious defamation. In Germany these days, for example, anyone who expresses too much support for the people of Gaza runs the risk of being labelled an anti-Semite and immediately excluded from polite society.

I have no doubt that many politicians, journalists and other public figures fully believe in the narrative they promote. This total conviction that there is an evil enemy, however nebulously defined, which is growing stronger and which must be defeated to save democracy, rather than listened to and debated, makes them firmly believe that any means of fighting the enemy is justified, be it public defamation, ostracism, censorship or even criminal prosecution. 

The most fascinating and frightening thing is that all this is being done in the name of ‘saving democracy’, when in fact it is a step-by-step programme to dismantle all the key elements of what we once knew as Western democracy.

The invention of disinformation and of hate speech

The way in which this ‘fight for democracy’ is operationalised is through the fight against what has come to be called ‘hate speech’, and through the push to eliminate ‘disinformation’. In practice, the two concepts, while sounding like separate problems, are used interchangeably. In reality, they both mean that the ideas and words that the ruling establishment doesn’t like should be eliminated from public discourse, which mostly, though not exclusively, means from digital platforms.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting  last January, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said that “misinformation and disinformation” pose a greater threat to the global economy than war and climate change. The solution, according to von der Leyen, is for businesses and governments to work together to combat disinformation.

In line with von der Leyen’s speech, the mainstream media are constantly warning their audiences about the growing dangers of hate speech and disinformation and the need for decisive action by lawmakers and law enforcement against them. The media is usually quite vague about what exactly is being said that is so dangerous, but the fact that ordinary people are constantly hearing about these concepts and how bad they are probably makes people more receptive to cracking down on them.

The EU itself had already taken a big step towards enforcing its vision of policing speech on major digital platforms, when the Digital Services Act (DSA) came into force in August 2023. Using vague and highly bureaucratic language, the DSA pushes platform companies to remove or reduce the impact of what the EU considers ‘harmful information’ or disinformation. In order to do this, platform companies must work with ‘vetted researchers’ who have been pre-approved by the EU.

The term ‘vetted researchers’ refers to what are more commonly known as fact-checking organisations, which have become very influential in recent years. While some people may still believe that fact-checking organisations play a useful role in improving our public discourse and reducing lies and fake news, the reality is that most of these organisations actually make things worse due to their own often very biassed perspectives. Behind the veneer of neutral journalism, these organisations behave more like activists who see fact-checking as a way to fight a political enemy. Moreover, the idea that we can easily separate lies from facts is an illusion, especially given the fact that our public discourse is often about highly contentious issues that are far from settled. The fact that a majority holds a view does not mean that it is true.

In the case of these EU vetted researchers, who will play an important role in auditing platform companies, it is foreseeable that their political bias will be highly favourable to the dogmas of the EU’s political powers and that this will influence what is considered harmful or disinformation.

For a deeper insight into how powerful the global fact-checking anti-disinformation industry has become, and what the consequences are, we need only look at the case study of the  Global Disinformation Index  (GDI), brilliantly researched and recently published by the British heterodox media outlet Unherd.

Founded in 2018, the UK company began with the ambition to disrupt the business model of online disinformation by starving offending publications of funding. They originally defined disinformation as “deliberately false content designed to deceive”. As discussed above, this is problematic in itself, but the organisation has since broadened this definition to include “anything that uses an ‘adversarial narrative’ – stories that may be factually true but pit people against each other by attacking an individual, an institution or ‘science'”, as Unherd reports. 

The GDI is used by advertisers around the world. Media companies that score low on the index struggle to attract advertising for their websites. This is what happened to Unherd. Because Unherd has published a number of high quality writers who are critical of the mainstream narrative on trans ideology, it was deemed by the GDI to be publishing “anti-LGBTQI+ narratives” and therefore spreading disinformation. Most interestingly, the GDI is partly funded by the UK government, the European Union, the German Foreign Office and the US State Department.

This example illustrates the forces and hidden dynamics that are increasingly at work to keep our public conversation within narrow ideological parameters and to punish anyone who tries to break out of the apparent consensus. And, importantly, Western governments are playing an active role by funding these activities.

Western governments are also stepping up their direct efforts to criminalise what they perceive to be hate speech or hate crime. In Scotland, the new Hate Crime and Public Order Act recently came into force. The Irish government has its own new Hate Speech Bill in the pipeline. The problem with all these efforts is that while they purport to punish clearly defined bigotry, in reality these laws fail to define what constitutes hate, and the law becomes an easy tool against anyone who disagrees with the ruling establishment. 

The anti-hate crime structures being built up across the West are not dissimilar to what the former East German Ministry of State Security, commonly known as the Stasi, did to its citizens. Everywhere, the state, the police and their NGO allies are compiling lists of people who have said things that are allegedly anti-feminist, racist, anti-LGBTI+, etc. So far, only some of the people on these lists have faced any real life consequences, but the very fact that these lists are allowed to exist should be of great concern.

In Germany, the new  Self-Determination Act , which allows children to change their official gender from the age of 14 and then once a year if they wish, also includes a clause making it illegal to reveal or research the previous gender marker and previous forenames. Violations of this law can result in fines of up to €10,000. Given that such laws are highly controversial and opposed by large sections of our society, these draconian penalties are particularly problematic. De facto, the law decides who is a woman and who is a man, and anyone who challenges this definition can be prosecuted and heavily fined.

Also in Germany, a Bundesliga football club was recently fined €18,000 because fans had put up a banner saying “ There are many styles of music, but only two sexes ”. This was obviously because the banner was considered offensive to trans people.

Many things can be offensive to some people, but the more words and ideas that are banned from being expressed in public, the more totalitarian the atmosphere in our society becomes. And in any case, hatred, let’s assume it’s real hatred, which is outlawed, doesn’t disappear, it goes underground where it’s much harder to challenge.

Saving democracy from the threat of the far right 

Most of these dynamics are very similar across the West, but the hysterical idea that we are in the fight of our lives to save democracy from the threat of the far right reached new heights in Germany between January and February this year (2024). 

While I still believe it is a good thing that my generation of Germans has been thoroughly educated about the horrors of our own past and how to ensure that nothing like it ever happens again, this sensitivity and self-consciousness also has a downside: that we are too easily seeing the phantoms of a new Nazi regime. It also means that we can be easily manipulated into thinking that the Nazis are about to take over again.

On 13th February the German Minister of the Interior, Ms Faeser, and the Minister of Family Affairs, Ms Paus, gave a remarkable press conference. I thought I couldn’t believe my ears. Ms Faeser began by saying that democracy was in danger because of the activities of right-wing circles and that therefore measures against right-wing extremism had to be strengthened. 

She and Ms Paus then suggested that it wasn’t enough to use the criminal law to prosecute extremists and that “hate on the internet also takes place below the criminal threshold”. Ms Paus said: “Many enemies of democracy know exactly what is meant by freedom of expression.” And Ms Faeser added: “Those who mock the state must be confronted with a strong state”. What the two were suggesting was nothing less than that the state could from now on take completely arbitrary action against dissidents. And if we were to take Ms Faeser literally, any comedian or satirist who poked fun at the government could now expect retaliation from the state.

But as the German author and journalist Ijoma Mangold  succinctly puts it , 

The state is not a community of shared beliefs; its monopoly on the use of force is justified by a single purpose: to secure the freedom of its citizens. And this freedom of the citizen always includes freedom from the State itself. That is why civil rights are rights of defence against the state – this fundamental insight, which goes back to the beginnings of civil society, has been forgotten today.

This press conference was preceded by a month of highly orchestrated and successful mobilisation of large sections of the German population against what they perceived as a right-wing attack on democracy.

A meeting in November 2023 of about 20 people with a right-wing orientation, including some considered right-wing extremists, was portrayed as a conspiratorial secret meeting to plan the deportation of millions of people with a migrant background. In January, an investigative media organisation called Correctiv, which is also a fact-checking organisation, published an  investigative report  on the meeting and cleverly linked it to the Wannsee Conference, where in 1942 the Nazis planned the details of the so-called “final solution of the Jewish question”, the mass deportation of Jews and ultimately the genocide of Jews by the Germans, even though the meeting had nothing to do with that dreadful conference except for the fact that the two meetings took place not so far apart geographically. 

On the day of publication, the media response was massive, with everyone emphasising the link with the Nazi mass deportations; a week later,  miraculously , a play about the inquiry was already being staged in Berlin; and two weeks later, millions of Germans rallied after the government and NGOs called for demonstrations against the right-wing threat. Chancellor Scholz said: “Let me be clear: right-wing extremists are attacking our democracy. They want to destroy our social cohesion.

What exactly was discussed at the meeting is only partially known. Participants deny allegations that anyone at the meeting suggested the forcible deportation of people with German passports. But while the discussion at this private meeting may have had an ugly flavour, it wasn’t an AfD meeting, it wasn’t secret, and apparently no master plan for mass deportation was discussed. The importance of the meeting seems  greatly exaggerated , and the timing of Correctiv’s publication seems orchestrated. The organisation is known to be well-connected in government circles and receives a large amount of state funding, and it looks suspicious that the publication came six weeks after the actual meeting took place, conveniently helping to distract the public from a deep government crisis.

In January, discontent with Germany’s left-wing government over high energy costs, poorly conceived climate change policies and high levels of illegal immigration had reached new heights. The populist right-wing AfD benefited from this discontent, reaching an unprecedented 23% in some polls.  Farmers’ protests , supported by a majority of the population, had also peaked, putting additional pressure on the government.

The whole hysteria was also hypocritical because Scholz himself had called for mass deportations after Hamas attacked Israel on 7 October and many people of Arab origin in Germany took to the streets to show their support for Hamas. At the time, Scholz said in an  interview :  “We must finally deport on a large scale.”

But the idea that any means are justified to fight the political enemy is not unique to Germany. In mid-April, the mayor of Brussels tried very hard to cancel the big  National Conservatism conference  in Brussels, claiming that he couldn’t guarantee security against left-wing protests. In reality, it is more likely that he saw it as a threat to Brussels’ reputation that a genuinely conservative conference was successfully held in his city.

Under pressure from the mayor, several venues had cancelled their contracts with the organisers. At the last minute, Brussels’ Claridge nightclub agreed to host the conference. The following is a flavour of what  happened  next:

The mayor’s lackeys repeatedly threatened the Tunisian-Belgian owner of the Claridge, Lassaad Ben Yaghlane, to force him to cancel the conference. They towed away his car, threatened his family and said they would take away the venue’s licence to put him out of business. They forced the  company providing security for the conference to cancel its contract. They did the same to the companies providing catering services such as crockery or food. They threatened to cut off the venue’s electricity.

In a last-minute, late-night decision, a court ruled against the mayor and the second day of the conference went ahead as planned.  

This was not a conference of far-right extremists as portrayed by the  mainstream media . It was a conference of conservatives discussing issues such as the democratic deficit in the EU or the problem of unregulated immigration in Europe. To believe that such a gathering should not be allowed to take place in order to protect the EU and liberal democracy is ultimately a completely undemocratic and, I would say, totalitarian belief.

But the new norm of denying the right to speak to people whose ideas one doesn’t like doesn’t just affect conservatives and people on the right. The Palestine Congress planned for mid-April in Berlin was a high-profile gathering of left-wing activists, politicians and intellectuals. It was cancelled by the police, allegedly to prevent threats of ‘anti-Semitic and violence-glorifying statements’. Previously, former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis had been officially banned from speaking at the conference and is now banned from entering the country altogether.

All these phenomena show us elements of an increasingly illiberal order of censorship and thought-policing in which all opposition to the dominant political opinion is sought to be suppressed.

It is clear that all these efforts will not solve any of the real problems that cause people to rebel against the current establishment. They will only further polarise society and make it more likely that the most extreme version of the Right will eventually gain the upper hand.

Why is this happening?

In fact, I don’t think many of the political and social leaders who are responsible for all these activities are even remotely aware of how illiberal and undemocratic their actions have become, and how what they are doing is laying the foundations of a totalitarian regime.

Illiberalism does not necessarily arise from bad intentions and evil motives. It can arise insidiously from trends in our political culture that many people do not understand, or only half understand. In the Western world, it seems, we have lost the appreciation of true plurality.

The hyper novelty of the internet

The analysis of why all this is happening now cannot be separated from the fact that it was only yesterday that the whole of humanity began to be connected through the internet, social media and smartphones. Before the internet age, we had the broadcast age, where elites controlled the narrative, but it allowed for more plurality than today’s media landscape. Partly due to online subscription models and paywalls, most online media started to be captured by their audience and their reporting became much more biassed.

What’s more, social media algorithms do not encourage pluralism and do not promote the most sensible ideas and views, but those that attract the most attention and outrage. The algorithms also reinforce our own ideological views, leading over time to more extreme views and epistemic filter bubbles.

All of this has led to a real sensemaking crisis that should rightly concern us. Even for people who are fully aware of all these dynamics, it has become much harder to figure out what is true than it was, say, 20 years ago.

It is also true that people often behave badly in the online world and say things they might not say to the real person in front of them, especially if the accounts are anonymous, but even if they are not anonymous, social media encourages aggressive behaviour.

None of this justifies journalists and media organisations putting narrative first and only caring about the truth if it fits the narrative, but it does explain why this is happening. Few have the courage to rebel against the forces, most conform and adapt to the new dynamics, if only to avoid losing their jobs and income.

Controlling the despised working class

While the internet is not the utopian world of free flow of information dreamed of by the early internet pioneers, it has clearly changed the power dynamics and democratised the information ecology. The working classes have benefited, at least so far, from the opportunity to participate, at least to some extent, in this new information landscape.

For example, Trump wouldn’t have won the presidency in 2016 if he didn’t have more than 11 million followers on Twitter (at that time). Twitter allowed him to communicate directly with his followers without filters. The filter that traditional broadcasters put between politicians and their audiences would have made it much harder – or perhaps impossible – for him to win without Twitter.

As the American writer and academic Michael Lind describes in his book  The New Class War , since the 1970s the working classes across the West had lost their influence on politics and culture. Working class dissatisfaction with an increasingly powerful urban liberal-progressive elite was the energy behind the success of national populism, or what many refer to as the far right, in recent years.

A growing number of ordinary people feel that many of the political developments of recent years have not been in their interests and that most of what is discussed in public has nothing to do with the reality of their everyday lives. They feel economically neglected and culturally patronised by a new elite that seeks to impose its progressive ideology on everyone through the institutions it controls.

The whole programme of hate speech and anti-disinformation laws, and censorship in general, is to a large extent a response to the right-wing working class rebellion of recent years, which is increasingly threatening the power of the liberal-progressive establishment.

The urban elites now live distant lives and operate in a different universe from most ordinary people. The elites find the ordinary people’s overt displays of national patriotism vulgar and distasteful, and their religious views are viewed with suspicion and contempt.

The elites don’t trust the people they rule. They feel morally superior, so they can justify to themselves that they don’t have to take into account the interests and views of ordinary people. As the American philosopher  Matthew Crawford  argues:

The idea of a common good has given way to a partition of citizens along the lines of a moral hierarchy. The decision-making class has discovered that it enjoys the mandate of heaven, and with this comes certain permissions, certain exemptions from democratic scruple. The permission structure is built around grievance politics. Very simply: If the nation is fundamentally racist, sexist, and homophobic, I owe it nothing. More than that, conscience demands that I repudiate it.

The harder it is for governments and the elites in general to control the working class through traditional means, such as public broadcasting in Europe, the more they resort to crude censorship on social media platforms and well-orchestrated campaigns, as seen in Germany with Correctiv.

Another reason why this illiberalism is emerging now is that it is much cheaper and easier for governments to control the masses in our digital age than in previous analogue times. The Chinese government has perfected the digital control of its people. The way Western governments and elite institutions are increasingly controlling discourse is looking more and more like the Chinese way, as also lamented by Chinese dissident artist  Ai Weiwei , who ironically sought refuge from Chinese totalitarianism in Europe years ago.

The Covid pandemic not only showed how quickly our Western governments can become authoritarian, it was also a moment when it became clearer than ever that large parts of Western societies now value their safety more than their civil liberties. Of course, this was not the first sign of a new safety culture in the West. Safe spaces on campuses were a warning sign years ago. A whole generation has now been brought up with the idea that speech can be violence, rather than making a clear distinction between actual physical violence and, say, ugly words.

In 2018, in their seminal book  The Coddling of the American Mind , Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff wrote that a culture of safetyism and safety parenting is creating fragile children. They argue that today’s generation of young people (Gen Z) have grown up without the opportunity for unsupervised and unstructured play, and have therefore been prevented from learning key parts of childhood development, including how to deal with moderate levels of risk and fear through games such as hiding, exploring and climbing trees. 

In the book, Haidt and Lukianoff argue that denying children the freedom to explore for themselves deprives them of important learning opportunities that help them develop a range of social skills central to living with others in a free society. 

A society that weakens children’s ability to learn these skills denies them what they need to smooth social interaction. The coarsening of social interaction that will result will create a world of more conflict and violence, and one in which people’s first instinct will be increasingly to invoke coercion by other parties to solve problems they ought to be able to solve themselves. (Steven Horwitz, cited in The Coddling of the American Mind)

It is no coincidence, then, that during the pandemic it was the Zoomers (Gen Z) who were most likely to call for lockdowns and masks, and who feel most  unsafe  from too much hate speech on social media.

Conservative author  N.S. Lyons argues  that even the United States, the society best protected from attacks on freedom of speech by its First Amendment, is ultimately not immune to the fact that a growing segment of Western societies now “values security over freedom and top-down control over self-governance”. He argues that this  new intrinsic constitution , “the spirit that governs the American people”, will ultimately prevail over the written constitution. We’re already seeing this shift in the way several Supreme Court justices seemed to interpret the First Amendment in a recent hearing of the landmark censorship case  Murthy v. Missouri , about whether the federal government can collude with social media companies to systematically suppress its citizens’ communications.

Mass formation

Last but not least, we’re in the midst of an epidemic of loneliness in the West, linked to the sharp decline in birth rates and family formation, and exacerbated by the fact that we now spend most of our time in front of screens rather than with real people.

In addition, Christian affiliation is plummeting across the West and the void left by religion has led to a crisis of meaning.

Mattias Desmet, a clinical psychologist, argues that the crisis of meaning and social isolation increases the rate of depression in society and leads to what he calls ‘free-floating anxiety’. He believes that these conditions make people susceptible to manipulation by propaganda and lead to  mass formation : When people collectively find a cause that gives new meaning to their lives, they move from social isolation to massive social connection, feeling that they are waging a war against the cause of their collective anxiety.

People who feel unfulfilled by their individualistic lifestyles inevitably develop a longing for orientation and community, and for an escape valve for accumulated aggression.

In such a situation, a powerful media announcement of an emergency can have a surprising, even revolutionary, effect. When the population is told in an authoritative manner that a general threat has materialised and that overcoming it requires decisive and above all collective action, many feel existentially relieved and gratefully commit themselves fully and completely to the given direction.

Desmet argues that this is exactly what happened during the pandemic and how the propaganda against the so-called unvaccinated could be so effective. These patterns seem to be repeating themselves now that we are supposed to be saving our democracy from the threat of the far right.

Desmet describes very similar dynamics and patterns to those described by Hannah Arendt in her seminal book,  Origins of Totalitarianism . The (potentially tragic) irony of this story is that many of the academics and researchers who have studied Hannah Arendt and the developments that led to totalitarian systems in the past seem to have missed the important lesson that totalitarian regimes can emerge from different ideologies: Instead of looking for superficial similarities, we should look for patterns that signal totalitarian tendencies, such as those Desmet has explored.

In this essay I have given some examples which I believe show that our Western societies are moving away from the principles of liberal democracy and instead moving closer to the characteristics of totalitarian societies. I have suggested some ideas about what might be at the root of these dynamics. I don’t pretend that this analysis is complete, and I would love to read your comments on other possible causes.

I was going to write a short final chapter on ideas about what to do about the situation we find ourselves in, but I realise that this essay is already far too long, so I’ll leave that for another time.

In any case, I see this discussion as part of the activities of  The Protopia Lab : I encourage you to check out our new website.

Donate  to keep Jem writing /  Read  his book Breaking Together /  Ask JemBot a question / Read  Jem’s key ideas on collapse /  Subscribe  to this blog /  Study with Jem / Browse his latest posts / Read  the Scholars’ Warning /  Visit  the Deep Adaptation Forum /  Receive  Jem’s Biannual Bulletin /  Receive  the Deep Adaptation Review /  Watch  some of Jem’s talks /  Find  Emotional Support / Jem’s actual views on Covid

Share this:

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Watch our Memorial Day tribute to the military who sacrificed all to serve their country

Memorial Day is the unofficial start of summer. It's a time to gather with friends and family for a grill out, a picnic, or maybe a trip to the beach to soak up the sun. But while it may well feel like a day of celebration, what sometimes gets forgotten is that it was conceived as a day of commemoration for the brave military members who died serving their country.  

A University of Phoenix survey found that less than half of Americans polled knew the exact purpose of Memorial Day, while around a third were unsure of the difference between Memorial Day and Veterans Day.

To clarify, Veterans Day, which takes place in November, is a tribute to all those who served honorably in the military in wartime or peacetime, whether living or dead.

The confusion is compounded by Armed Forces Day, a military celebration held in May for those currently serving. However, while the reasons differ, the sentiment of each day is the same: all three are important opportunities to show gratitude.

So, when you chow down on that hot dog, barrel down that slip 'n slide, or whatever you do for fun this Memorial Day, spare a moment to acknowledge the people in uniform whose sacrifice made a difference.

On this Memorial Day, watch the video for a surprise reunion of battle buddies bonded by the loss of their leade r

Humankind is your go-to spot for good news! Click here to submit your uplifting, cute, or inspiring video moments for us to feature. Also, click here to subscribe to our newsletter , bringing our top stories of the week straight to your inbox.