The Flight From Freedom(Chapter 1, Existentialism For Beginners)by Ian R Thorpe.

It may sound strange to talk of fleeing from freedom after all people usually flee fromtyranny or oppression or from physical danger. It takes some effort to understand theidea of fleeing as avoiding responsibility. Even this wording can be misleading but ifwe think of freedom and responsibility as two sides of the same coin we can see whyhumans might want to run away from that. Usually when people speak of avoidingresponsibility they mean dodging blame; they want to evade the unpleasantconsequences of having messed something up.

There is however a deeper sense in which we're all fundamentally responsible for ourown decisions regardless of whether they are good or bad, whether we wish to acceptthe responsibility or not. Influencing one's own outcomes is a form of responsibilitynobody can possibly avoid without sacrificing free will, without in effect becoming aslave or vassal or a medieval master, a totalitarian state or a powerful corporation. Aslong as a person retains the ability to make decisions the responsibility for thatconsequences of that decision are entirely their own.

Decisions though are seldom as straightforward as they seem. Even choosing to notmake a decision but to leave your fate to chance, divine providence or externalinfluences such as the government is in itself a decision. OK, when things go pearshaped people can blame bad luck, an angry god or stupid politicians but they willstill be haunted by the feeling that had they decided to plot their own course eventsmight have turned out better for them. Rock band Rush put it simply when they saidâ€oeIf you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. French writer andexistentialist philosopher Jean - Paul Sartre was making much the same point whenhe famously wrote, “men are condemned to be free”.

Political liberty, in the sense of being able to freely act on your own decisions, issomething we all crave. Moral liberty however, in the sense of being the one who hasto confront decisions every moment of every day, is not such an attractive propositionto many people. Such moral liberty can come to feel like a ball and chain clamped toour ankle.

If we examine the reasons why moral freedom feels like a burden to so many peopleit becomes apparent that awareness of our own moral failings is something humansare ill at ease with. We all prefer to think of ourselves in our own private narrative asthe unblemished hero. Sadly we all fall short of this self-image from time to timebecause of decisions we make. Did you have to sleep with that pole dancer when youwere away on a business trim Joe? Did you have to max out the credit card on thosedesigner shoes Mary? These two imaginary people made decisions they might latercome to regret.

There are times we find ourselves in situations where we face a moral dilemma. Lifeis full of ambiguity and moral certainties are few and far between. We constantlyhave to make decisions without having all the facts and ironically one of thedecisions we repeatedly have to make is how much time and effort to expend onseeking more information. The apparent difference between moral shortcomings-when we know what is right and fail to do it - and ignorance - when we’re notsure what is right and what isn't - is actually blurred and constantly shifting.This hardly scratches the skin of the human compulsion to seek the security amidcomfort of the crowd and avoid facing the 'heartache and the thousand naturalshocks that flesh is heir to' as Shakespeare put it.

"But I did what everyone else did, I trusted the wisdom of the crowd" is the excuse.This human urge to seek an illusion of safety in belonging to and being protected bymembership of a group even if conforming to the mores manners of that group isrestricting and calls for the suppression of one's individuality has been dealt aconstand theme for art and literature.

Many novels and films have dealt with the theme of abdicating individuality and freewill, from the works of the Maquis de Sade or The Story of O to George Orwell's1984, Anthony Burgess A Clockwork Orange and The Stepford Wives. Anyone newto existentialist thinking will perhaps not see the recurring theme of control andsubjugation of the individual by a remote and unapproachable authority, theoverriding of individual will by unchallengable force.

It is easy to say "Ah yes but these are fiction, stories. Such things do not happen inreal life. Nobody would voluntarily surrender their freedom to an external authority.In fact such behaviour, if we look closely is the norm for human behaviour ratherthan the exception. Have you heard of The Milgram Experiment? It was a psychologicalexperiment to prove that people are so anxious to conform, to please authority that

they will commit acts they know are wrong amd morally unjustifiable if ordered to doso. It is only one of many demonstrations showing humans will behave in waystotally out of character rather than stand alone against the group. The wisdom of the crowd or the stupidity of the mob? Or perhaps simply the dread of being different, of being the one who does not conform; the desire to cling to that illusion of security.

That is, is it not, exactly the role organized religion has played in all civilized ofsocieties? This does not mean religion is either bad or good, simply that it has hasalways fulfilled important social needs, to bind the members of a tribal or nationalcommunity together through shared values and beliefs, common customs and a senseof connectedness and to offer some refuge from the pressures of moral responsibility.Victor Frankel who was both a Holocaust survivor and an existentialist once wrote:

Ultimately, man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather mustrecognize that it is he who is asked. In a word, each man is questioned by life; and hecan only answer to life by answering for his own life; to life he can only respond bybeing responsible.

The standard existentialist view is that life is a trial, often one as incomprehensible asthat described in Franz Kafka's novel 'The Trial' and some people want to use a beliefsystem as a cheat-sheet. Moral certainties and a promise of forgiveness andresurrection to a better life are very appealing when compared to the silence andemptiness of eternity. Ay there's the rub, even those of us who worship no god, whoreject even the certainties of science, cannot quite accept death as our ultimate end.Somewhere in the unexplored depths of the human mind there is a belief thatsomething of us remains after our bodies die and consciousness ends. Perhaps we aresimply not equipped to accept our own non being.

To respond to the question of what really matters, what gives meaning to our lives bytaking full responsibility for one's actions entails a lifetime of commitment and a fullembrace of our own moral freedom in the face of uncertainties and contradictions. Itmeans making no excuses and doing the best you can despite the knowing this willnever be enough or knowing of yourself that you chose not to do so and living withthat knowledge. It means accepting that the test of life leaves us alone, outside themainstream.

Where a religion (even the religion of science) provides certainty then this burden islifted. If you are willing to abdicate your responsibility to a priest, a holy book, a setof rituals or an unproveable theory then you can win the illusion of a free lunch:liberty within the framework of the group without the awful sacrifices associated withindividual responsibility. No longer do you have to live a life dedicated to answeringthe quest for meaning, you can simply point to your religion and say 'I'm not reallysure what the answer is, but they've got it over there and I'm with them.'

Many have argued against the teaching of the creation myth claiming it is'unscientific.' There is in fact no more hard evidence in support of Big Bang theorythan for the creation myths of various religions and cultures. All that can be offered insupport of the idea that the universe popped into being out of nothingness because ofthe laws of physics is theory and mathematical speculation. "I would rather believethe mathematics than some ancient scripture," Big Bang's supporters will insist, notseeing that their position is no different from that of the creationist. Both have chosenwhat they believe and are sticking within it. That is their right of course. Personally, Icannot see what is wrong with the answer "We don't know," to questions like 'Howdid the universe begin?' and 'Is there any meaning to life?"

This criticism has been made of religion before by atheists, but although I do not likethe term 'atheist' to describe my own godlessness atheism doesn't mean an escapefrom all these questions. Many of the great existentialist philosophers were atheist butmany more were not. Really we can only refer to the 'existentialists' as thosephilosophers whose work was done after the term was coined. This excludes the

enlightenment philosophers but any class in existentialism is likely to start with aperson who came before long before Immanuel Kant, David Hume, Rene Descartesor others of the enlightenment era. Brauch Spinoza an Amsterdam Jew who wasexcommunicated by leaders of his community for his heresies is often (though notuniversally) regarded as the first thinker to suggest something like an existentialistapproach to life.

I have taken two phrases from Hamlet's Soliloquy written by William Shakespearewho predates Spinoza by several decades. "To be or not to be" is one of the bestknown phrases in the English language right up alongside 'I'm working late at theoffice darling,' 'But there is a monster in the cupboard Mum,' or 'Not tonight I have aheadache,' but while Hamlet's monologue may be a sublime encapsulation ofexistential angst, it is unlikely Shakespeare originated the ideas. His inspiration mayhave come from Francis Bacon a contemporary and one of the first renaissance thinkersto challenge religious orthodoxies who was influenced by the work of the Athenianphilosopher Aristotle.

Athenian philosophers beginning from Socrates argued ideas that we would recogniseas related to existentialism, that there is no universal truth and we must each find forourselves an answer to the questions posed by life's uncertainties.

That is not to say that existential thinking is the total opposite of religious philosophy.The militant atheists who proclaim the omnipotence if science may refer tothemselves as secular humanists but there is nothing about humanism that demandsunquestioning faith in scientific theories of being. Both Jesus and Buddha could becorrectly described as humanists. Parallels with existentialism can be found inHinduism and Buddhism.

People who would like a Christian take on existentialism need look no further thanthe ideas of Soren Kirkegaad who was both devoutly Christian and fully aware of thefact that one cannot duck the great questions of life by pretending that religion cananswer them on your behalf. Islamic Sufism and Secular Judaeism both take a similarview in opposition to the more fundamentalist strands of those faiths.

Living an existential life “living according to Frankl's challenge”is just as difficult foran non theist as strict adherence to a religious creed is for a religious person. Clearlyorganized religion can't serve as a source of false comfort anymore. That doesn'tmean that there are no surrogates to be found, however, and the replacement religionfor most of the seemingly enlightened atheists of the West is the scientificestablishment or more broadly, academia.

Obviously science and academia are no more intrinsically evil than organizedreligion, but the parallels between the two are striking. Not only do they oftenprovide the same function by offering an illusion of certainty, both primise andanswers to the Big Questions in exchange for our allegiance, but if you trace thebeginnings of modern colleges and universities you will find they spring from themonastic schools of the medieval era.

These origins go back even further than the Christianisation of the western world,Glastonbury, site of the medieval Cistercian Abbey where King Arthur's grave can befound* and a modern Rock Festival where ageing hippies congregate was once thehome of a Druidic learning centre as was the magnificent Mont St. Michel in WesternFrance. Few people ever question people the strange garb students are required todress in for graduation ceremonies or the arcane rituals and rites of passage they mustgo through before receiving their degrees.

The robes, tassels, and silly hats that denote membership of the Noble Order Of the Ivory Tower look incongruous alongside the myth created by modern academics that their institutions are centres of secular learning where science, logic, reason and order rule unchallenged. The clothesand ceremonies are relics from the rituals of ancient priestly communities.

On a superficial level western society is dividing culturally between traditionalisttheists and progressive atheists, but if you look closely and with a critical eyeEvangelical Christians and devotees of the Cult of Science have many things incommon. The claim that God must certainly exist is equally untenable as the claimthat He must certainly not, and both sides cling to their irrational dogma with equalferocity while demonizing their opposition and lavishing their followers with self - righteous moralizing.

The real struggle however, the one that will determine the future course of thewestern nations, is not between atheists and theists but between the realists whoaccept that we are frail creatures whose lives are governed by pure chance to a much

greater extant than we would wish and those who believe to sacrifice theirindividuality and freedom to act of their own volition for an illusory sense ofcertainty. This point is spelled out very clearly in articles like “The Truth Wears Off"(The New Yorker) or “Placebos work even without deception” (Medical Daily).The first relates the ominous failings of the scientific method as this short extractshows:

“... But now all sorts of well-established, multiply confirmed findings havestarted to look increasingly uncertain. It's as if our facts were losing their truth:claims that have been enshrined in textbooks are suddenly unprovable. Thisphenomenon doesn't yet have an official name, but it's occurring across a widerange of fields, from psychology to ecology. In the field of medicine, thephenomenon seems extremely widespread, affecting not only antipsychoticsbut also therapies ranging from cardiac stents to Vitamin E and antidepressants:[University of California] Davis has a forthcoming analysis demonstrating thatthe efficacy of antidepressants has gone down as much as threefold in recentdecades. For many scientists, the effect is especially troubling because of whatit exposes about the scientific process. If replication is what separates the rigorof science from the squishiness of pseudoscience, where do we put all theserigorously validated findings that can no longer be proved? Which resultsshould we believe? Francis Bacon, the early-modern philosopher and pioneerof the scientific method, once declared that experiments were essential,because they allowed us to “put nature to the question.” But it appears thatnature often gives us different answers.”

As proof that well established drugs are fully effective slips through our fingers thesecond article details the extent to which sugar pills -placebos which are notmedically active but are prescribed to mollify concerned patients who don't want tohear there is no effective medicine for their ailment - often outperform prescriptiondrugs even when people know they are only taking a sugar pill.

Karl Marx called religion opiate of the masses. He was right but not because formany centuries a political elite sought to keep the lower orders docile, but simplybecause human beings were more than willing to voluntarily exchange freedom foran instubstantial apparition of certainty in order to escape the burden of moralresponsibility. Given this precedent, we should hardly be surprised that so manytoday are willing to exchange political liberty for safety, whether it be safety fromterrorist attack or from financial ruin.

It is crucial for any libertarian, and I use that work reluctantly and only becausethe word liberal has been hijacked and tainted by the dark forces of socialistauthoritarianism, to understand the extent to which people seek to get rid of their ownfree-will by abdicating it to political or religious leaders or academic 'experts' . Therhetoric of liberty and freedom is so widespread it has been reduced to the level ofcliché and aphorism.

Political campaigners talk of fairness and rights in such hackneyed and meaningless ways we too frequently take it for granted that the real discussion is only about how to achieve these ends. Instead we should consider how basic freedoms, to choose what we eat and drink, what medication we accept and what deviations from the norms of society we are prepared to tolerate are being eroded.

In reality many people need to be convinced that political and moral liberty issomething worth fighting for George Orwell sounded the alarm in his novels 1984and Animal Farm. Aldous Huxley's Brave New World took a different angle andAnthiny Burgess' A Clockwork Orange in the way it clever first makes us hate thecentral character Alex and his Droogs but then feel sympathy for Alex as he isidentified as the intelligent one, the thinker who will lead others to rebel againstconformity.

RELATED POSTS:Atheist Civilization Denounced By Atheist PoetInfinity And The Myth Of Space And TimeMore on philosophy by Ian R ThorpeIan's biography and personal page

TO BE, OR NOT TO BE (FROM HAMLET SC. 3, ACT 1) - WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE

To be, or not to be: that is the question:Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to sufferThe slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;No more; and by a sleep to say we endThe heart-ache and the thousand natural shocksThat flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummationDevoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;For in that sleep of death what dreams may comeWhen we have shuffled off this mortal coil,Must give us pause: there's the respectThat makes calamity of so long life;For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,The insolence of office and the spurnsThat patient merit of the unworthy takes,

When he himself might his quietus makeWith a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,To grunt and sweat under a weary life,But that the dread of something after death,The undiscover'd country from whose bournNo traveller returns, puzzles the willAnd makes us rather bear those ills we haveThan fly to others that we know not of?Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;And thus the native hue of resolutionIs sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,And enterprises of great pith and momentWith this regard their currents turn awry,And lose the name of action. - Soft you now!The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisonsBe all my sins remember'd.