The problem with freedom is that the difference between imaginary freedom and freedom in practice often gives the impression of being unbridgeable. You have to fight so endlessly for it that when you finally achieve it you are more like little Remi in alone in the world or Robinson Crusoe on his otherwise uninhabited island. It seems that you have lost the others along the way. So you become the sole inhabitant of an island abandoned by everyone else. Although no man is an island.* Despite what it sometimes looks like in how a man’s thinking, his loneliness sometimes loses out to his grief. Or a general prevailing lack of understanding. Grief, on the contrary, demands a free approach. A degree of unpredictability that gives you back the playfulness to deal with reality. But even in his grief in the unhealthy distance people take from him as if misfortune were contagious, no one can deny a person the freedom to want to be seen as human.
Seeing what you think of yourself, however, as an existence as a solitary being, the freedom so sung of is only very short-lived. So the decision to what extent you can or may be free as an expression of will must, in my thinking, rest on and be understood by a deep awareness of reality based on (fellow) humanity. By a consciousness inseparable from each human being an sich. His inalienable nor transferable eigenhgeid. An understanding of your autonomy in which you need the other without question. The happening around you the interaction with the other who often puts the necessary obstacles as stumbling stones on your path of life, but despite that often has your best interests at heart. Because of this, the love for the nature of the other and the other often remains a mystery. But a mystery that can be lovingly recounted for those who will listen.
That unhappiness is often our portion is not as bad as it seems, for some forms of compulsion do not stand in the way of happiness, while happiness is neither an absolute necessity nor the sole cause of freedom. Although unhappiness forces most Liberation Serifpeople into passivity experienced as a time of emptiness. Yet the majority may very well lead an empty life, thrive by themselves on the short reins of a compulsion explainable from power and means of power. Does this this passive suffering of injustice not constitute an excuse to leave it at that. For people are worth more than horses. Even if they walk the same laps on the reins of oppression in the treadmill of normalization.
Besides, feeling free is quite different from pursuing the absolute concept of freedom. Freedom as an abstraction has more to do with rights or the lack thereof. At best, you use your licensed positive freedom* to create a better self of yourself. To become a better person in the image of yourself embodied in the other. So like love is embodied in corporeal closeness. With that, you could argue that freedom is a necessity to re-educate yourself. While I agree with the writer Timothy Snyder*in his book; On Freedom, that freedom without charity sounds like a hollow vessel. In the words of the apostle Paul in his letter to the Corinthians. That freedom means an almost corporeal awareness of the other. The fact that all too often and too easily we objectify the other to “das ding an sich” without connecting with it. Because through this objectification we deny ourselves the possibility to do so. This expansion of consciousness by involving the other in our awareness indeed requires a long learning process. Being allowed to read the book is thus also a learning gift from the author to the freedom of the mind.
Yet I rarely see freedom, as a reasonable way to raise oneself richer, being used for that. Freedom as a betterment for all. I see political freedom mostly used to bring other groups to power who then sharply curtail that freedom in order to stay in power themselves. So, in this form, freedom is primarily a casus belli, a declaration of war on the other or opposing party. And it seems to contradict itself, also an obstacle to one’s own freedom in that in a war situation no one can be completely free of it. Or can enjoy freedom unconstrained. Which supports the idea that no war is served by non-commitment if it puts freedom at risk.
Economic freedom to get rich yourself on the backs of others. Where immoderation and a complete lack of regulation in the market are sold as the ultimate freedom to kill the future. Social freedom to exclude, abuse and discriminate against others. As a conclusion of this paragraph, the power of impotence is best able to deform and disfigure the freedom to be free*.
It is unfortunate that all these possibilities are enclosed in what conservation thinking Berlin* calls negative freedom. The situation that arises when one is freed from coercion*. Negative freedom thus essentially sets no limits to abuse of freedom , which is why I prefer to speak of antisocial freedom. In addition, this philosopher paints a picture of positive freedom as the freedom to develop oneself. Yet even in this there is still the possibility that this may be at the expense of another’s freedom. Which tempts me to say, whoever loves the other works with him for a better future for both.
In these times, a new threat to freedom has emerged. How it will relate to the other forms of threat to freedom can only be speculated about now. Although if we look at the development of freedom on the Internet, the addiction to screens and our cell phones, the increase in the last 20 years, the worst is to be feared. it looks very much as if the consumer can only choose hedonism to undergo the false feeling of being free in what he wants without daring to choose a life without all those addictions that insidiously satisfy the most essential human need, his need for a reciprocal social contact.
The new threat The freedom to be an ordinary everyday person. Threatened as we are by what especially those who see the benefits to themselves are cheering about. As the hope for the future that will free us from all problems. Artificial Intelligence abbreviated by A.I. But is this assumption based on anything other than yet another flight into the possitivism of an ever further inhumanization of science and its produce? Certainly A.I. is many times better and faster than the human brain at discovering patterns in all sorts of areas. Language models write entire books within ten minutes without having to think about it. A task that takes me months. While the task for me as a writer is essentially never finished, because my thinking evolves. Other paths Whether A.I. will thereby also win the Nobel Prize for literature remains to be seen. All wonderful and almost too wonderful to hear and dwell on, how A.I. is able to detect the very beginning of diseases like cancer. Giving us average answers to our questions. Solve mathematical problems effortlessly, partly because axioms in mathematics do not rely on variable quantities of different order. What seems to be preserved to love alone.
Except that today’s A.I. is not building new techniques to better understand the human body. Thus A.I. can undoubtedly recognize more social relationships and the possible cohesion between them. More threats in terms of terrorism. But for now, it mainly puts social relationships on edge. Not to mention the data hunger of these artificial intelligence systems. A hunger satisfied by undermining our right to privacy. Whether privacy is not part of the concept of freedom. Privacy is part of our unpredictability. The right to keep things to yourself. The freedom not to be exploited for the sake of better sales. Given the idea that future freedom cannot consist of pushing the less educated further into the mud and muck. Lower educated who are largely victims of the economic demand for cheap labor. How we can make this class feel less inferior as is already the case the artificial intelligence due to lack of awareness and a false idea of understanding things has no concept of it.
Personally with this development in this case I would speak of Artificial Inferiority. A complex that paralyzes free will with which freedom evaporates. And for the foreseeable future I do not expect everyone to accept this without discussion or objection. And rightly so! Because a human being is not a sewing machine, although he often has a loose stitch. The freedom to make and repair your own mistakes is a school for freedom.
It is not out of the blue, the media are trumpeting everywhere that soon A.I. systems will be more intelligent than humans. What this means for man’s self-image, however, no one wonders in the unworldly Big Tech World. How that must feel if you already cannot keep up. Being discarded not only of body, but now of mind. The freedom to think for yourself however laborious sometimes has to be surrendered. We want to give everything a second chance if at all possible, reuse yet this does not apply to our comprehension or intelligence itself. We do broadly establish the archetypes of all kinds of ideals but forget the preconditions. That even the simplest person should be able to work with them.
But it is not only the belief in ourselves that is affected. While the question remains whether truth consists in being able to explain the transcendent*. Also the belief in God as a necessary immanence* of our free will and worldview , the choice to live by his word. That for me mysterious faith that for many people constitutes the meaning of their existence. Which I make no judgment about other than on the basis of my lack of understanding.
The cause of the salvation expectation of the new is in my opinion, the fragmentation of focus that many sciences suffer from. To think that finding the missing piece of the puzzle will solve the whole puzzle. Whereas knowing the cause, making the right diagnosis does not automatically lead to a cure. Something that becomes more and more clear to me with age,
we should be more aware that all problems never end. That every solution creates new problems. Not that this has to lead to doom and gloom, because man’s ability to think coupled and interact with the group is the greatest problem solver of all time. Which cannot be said of all political systems that compulsively suppress freedom. For it is precisely through trial and error that we choose the right path after much trial and error. At least so far we have outlived ourselves as a species. Whereas not using A.I. for its intended purpose is a dictatorial violation of human dignity and an irreparable violation of the evolution of freedom.* Explains with when the power goes out you can only play dumb with yourself because you are indeed living like a zombie alone in your own empty-headed screenless world.
Which leads to my final conclusion; that freedom must be pursued by decoupling the concept of freedom from both the unilateral reference to the absolute right of the individual and also to national sovereignty . In other words that a world reforming freedom blossoms in unity with the other by not denying but adding up the differences in ability to feel and think, leading to an enlargement of human consciousness that no artificial intelligence can match. Everyone can maintain faith in themselves. In conclusion, I would like to call for a discussion, not only about the technical possibilities that artificial intelligence offers, but especially about what impact this development has on the functioning of all sections of today’s society. Without an intelligent utopia being presented to us as a sausage. If we have to objectify something, artificial intelligence is the first candidate.
Ludo
* Main character in Alone in the World; youth novel by French writer Hector Malot.
* Robinson Crusoe; fictional main character from the novel of the same name.
* No man is an Island; opening line of the famous poem by the English writer; John Donne ( 1572-1661) . The poem explores the connection between humanity and loss.
* Positive freedom; distinction made by British philosopher; Isaiah Berlin.1909-1977 in his 1958 lecture ; Two Concepts of Liberty.
* The freedom to be free; long essay on our concept of freedom in the light of two revolutions by one of the greatest thinkers of the twentieth century , the German American political philosopher Hannah Arend.
*Timothy D. Snyder; American professor and writer; reference is made here to his book; On Freedom.
* transcendence; being able to transcend reality in one’s mind allowing limitations in thought and thought to be lifted in freedom as long as one is in that sphere.
* immanence; that which belongs to the structure of something and does not transcend it It can also be seen as the freedom of consciousness to find salvation and grace within one’s own experience. Whereby this grace constitutes a transcendent love to the other.
*
