Dialectics: Freedom and Authority

Freedom and authority pose a very interesting dialectic. The definition of freedom itself has a dialectic nature. For example, in our post 9/11 world the United States government can tap your phone lines, intercept your emails, read your text messages, and access your web history. Many people say this is a violation of our personal freedoms, but the government claims these are measures to protect American freedom. Therefore, we must give up freedom to attain it.

In my previous example as in countless others, authority will sometimes limit your freedom in order to save it all together. Take the Romans for another example. They had written into their legislation that in a time of crisis, the elected leader could impose a military dictatorship to protect the empire. Although human nature made this policy imperfect and resulted in Caesars, the basic principal was the same. It was a sacrifice of freedom, for freedom.

Some philosophers argue though that freedom doesn't exist without authority. Philosophers such as Hegel and Holbach argue that we have no free will. Without free will there exists no freedom. You may feel free in your small portion of existence, but in the grand scheme of things you are not free. You answer to some greater authority at all times. This idea is also very post-modern. In post-modern theory, you exist as part of "the system" with no free will, much like the movie the matrix. You're only freedom is to find your niche in life, but you are never one hundred percent free. Authority determines your freedom at all times.

I then thought to apply this dialect relationship to my own experiences, and determined that high school is a perfect example of this struggle between freedom and authority. For instance, I cannot yell at my teachers when they annoy me, for then I would get a detention, clever restriction of freedom in which I am forced to sit in a classroom before or after school hours. I can also not leave whenever I want because I would get privileges taken away from me and not be able to have free period or open lunch. I also can't use my phone during class, because it would be taken away from me, and for added fun and enjoyment, I would probably receive several detentions. School is another authority that grants and relinquishes freedoms in an attempt to force obidience. Freedom has become the ultimate leverage for authorities of all kind.

Blogging Around

Merrick's blog post was about suicide, and whether or not we have the right to our lives.

Merrick this was an excellent post. I completely understand and respect your opinion, but I also disagree almost one hundred percent.

Life is a gift, but is existence itself a gift? To what degree should quality of life play a role in suicide regulations and your opinion of whether or not you have the right to your own life? Being raised Christian, I understand how Darrell and Merrick feel about God's greatest gift to us being life. but, for some people life a burden. Take for example someone that is paralyzed in a car accident from the neck down. Their quality of life is extremely low. Granted some people in this situation find new passions in life, many fall into depression. They can no longer do anything for themselves or lead any form of a "normal" life. They cannot even bathe themselves. For an adult that is completely degrading.

This applies to the terminally and chronically ill as well. If we keep them alive using our medicine and technology are they truly living, or are they merely existing? We need to realize that not everyone has the mental resiliency or faith in God to bear a life of such burden. Some people would honestly be happier if they didn't have to fight through the everyday battles life. I full heartedly believe that you have the right to your own life. Although suicide is selfish and tragic, it can be acceptable. People with incurable conditions that will force them to suffer physically or mentally through the rest of their lives should have the choice of whether or not they are up for the fight.

Chelsea's blog post described the terms of intimacy in our relationships.

I think I agree with you Chelsea, and Anna a little bit too. We definitely have a lack of intimacy in most high school relationships, like Anna pointed out. But with divorce rates at almost fifty percent, I think you're onto something Chelsea. A lot of criticism is put on our culture for our relationships and friendships lacking intimacy and being left to technology, and usually those arguments annoy me. But, I am starting to connect the dots and see that there must be a connection divorce rates and our culture.

You also brought up names, and how we address our most intimate friends by their names. Out of curiosity I decided to test this theory and go through my text messages and see how many people I actually addressed by name. Other than my family, and closest friends, I never referred to anyone else by name. Great insights Chel!