Chapter 30 Triple O Freedom

Among some big mantras, such as democracy, equality, rights, obligations, etc., "freedom" seems to be more often spoken; but the meaning is the most difficult to determine, so the problem is the most complicated.For example.Young couple, on Sunday, the woman wanted to go to the market to buy something together, but the man said no, because she agreed to visit a certain scenic spot with a female colleague. Freedom, I want to go.” In terms of facts, here are two questions in order of depth: First, do men have this kind of freedom?Second, yes or no, why?In my opinion, the answer can only be that it is difficult for an upright official to decide on housework, and he pretends to turn a blind eye and ignore it.It is difficult to answer because the issues related to "freedom" are too complicated.The following would like to explore various aspects of this complexity.

Let’s talk about the most difficult one first, which we are able to think about but unable to deal with, is the philosophical issue of “freedom of will”.The so-called freedom of will, the old saying is "I want benevolence, benevolence is perfect", the new saying is that in two kinds of behaviors, such as one evil and one good, our will has the ability to reject evil and take good.Our awareness recognizes this freedom, and in general, it is the vast majority of our activities (a few, like dreaming, where we have no power to choose), that we want to be (either one or the other) The second that becomes action is based on this awareness, and we can establish a whole set of moral system and legal system.For example, if a person cheats a friend, we despise him, which is theoretically assumed that he can not cheat.It is even more obvious within the scope of the law. If a person kills someone, the court will sentence him to publish. This is also theoretically assumed that he can not kill someone.Because he has the independent ability not to do bad things, so he has to "responsible for himself" when he does bad things.Responsibility and deep pursuit are based on the freedom of will in terms of philosophy.That is, people can "do" what they think.If this is the case, we can and should be happy when things are small, but when things are big, we can and should look forward to them; if we do the opposite from time to time, we can be reprimanded if they are mild, and punished if they are serious.In short, we will have a bright future, optimism, and upward.Unfortunately, this awareness goes hand in hand with belief in the laws of cause and effect, or simply scientific knowledge.According to this kind of knowledge, not only us, but our world, large and small, are all in the chain of cause and effect, and there is no effect without a cause. In other words, all effects become inevitable.If so, where is the freedom of will freedom?Taking the old saying as an example, "benevolence is perfect" is inevitable, but what about "I want benevolence"?If so, then it is also the effect of antecedents, and the freedom of will will become an illusion. If this is the case, "personal responsibility" will lose its foundation, because the author himself has no ability to change the cause and effect.So we are caught in a dilemma: If we prefer freedom of will, there will be exceptions to the law of causality. Can exceptions still become the law?If we lean towards the law of cause and effect, morality and law will become empty, and even life will no longer have a purpose.How to break a way out of the cracks?Probably not possible in theory.So we have to back down and use the method of not asking for a deep understanding: when planting melons, we believe in the law of cause and effect so that we can get melons; when we sit in a restaurant and read recipes, we believe in freedom of will.The question of freedom of will is so unreasonable.It's not good to be entangled with impossible things, so after knowing that there is such a thing, I have to leave philosophy and talk about the freedom of common sense.

The freedom of common sense refers to not being constrained by "all kinds of things that are uncomfortable (physical, emotional) and can be avoided".To say that it can be avoided, removes a great deal of unavoidable restraint.This multitude of constraints can be divided into two categories.One kind comes from nature, such as relying on Mount Tai to surpass the North Sea, nature restricts us from having such great power, which is also a constraint, but we don't think it is a constraint, so we don't demand such freedom.The other type comes from written or unwritten social contracts (in Rousseau’s language). For example, if you buy a carp at five yuan a catty on the market, you have to pay ten yuan for a carp that weighs two catties. Because if you want the group to live in peace, you must have this kind of restraint.Let me talk about another condition, it is not comfortable to come.We live, we have to move, and there are a lot of movements every day, one or the other, it doesn't matter, and it will not cause discomfort, so we can't say that we are free or not free.For example, a husband and wife sit together and eat breakfast, each with a boiled egg. The husband wants to smash the small head first, but the wife says that it is better to knock the big head first. My husband said that this is a small restraint, but it will not cause discomfort, and I will not feel that it is not free.The above is based on the definition, and if a large number of undefined ones are removed, how many of them are left that meet the definition?Still the problem is complicated.Still take the daily life as an example, the husband is a smoking addict, the wife objected, according to the trend of the times, the husband has to obey, but the husband said that this is restraint, restraint, uncomfortable, and looking at the state of the world, it can be avoided, can you say yes not free?It's hard to explain, so we have to rely on common sense.Common sense would say that this is a trivial matter, and out of good intentions, even if you are restrained, you cannot wear such a big hat.This again has to eliminate a large number, which may be beneficial to oneself if it is small, so it should be accepted.Analyzing this point, we will find that it is not easy to clarify what is freedom and unfreedom from the definition or rationale; mean what.There are large ones, such as in the era of autocracy, when they rose up with their hands and said that they would not support the person sitting on the throne. Separated, the people under the rule must worship the father and brother in the morning and evening, and they must not disobey. This is also a matter of freedom; if there is a trumpet, such as hanging a certain image indoors, and parading outside, they must follow the crowd and shout long live, and must not disobey. This is also freedom. question.According to this habit, the scope of so-called non-freedom is narrowed, and the nature is simple. Generally, it refers to those who come from powerful superiors, which are coercive, and those who do not obey are dangerous, and obedience is quite unbearable.

Because it is unbearable, we must strive for freedom and drive out unfreedom.Why is it unbearable?I can’t remember if it was mentioned in Li Liweng’s book that a certain servant was punished by his master. He was bound and naked in the courtyard in Xiaye, covered in mosquitoes, and couldn’t move his hands even if he wanted to chase him away. The suffering can be imagined, and this suffering comes from the lack of freedom.Another example is that Shifeng restricts belief in a certain dogma, and requires words or even actions to express firm belief, but in fact one does not believe in it. This "expression in words or even actions" becomes a hardship, and this suffering also comes from the lack of freedom.Many of these personal experiences attest to one of the great truths of life, that freedom is a necessary condition of happiness. There is a difference between "necessary" and "sufficient".It is only necessary, the situation is: freedom does not necessarily lead to happiness, and without freedom one cannot be happy.According to this principle, freedom becomes the "necessity" of life, so it is not an exaggeration to say that its value is great.

I would also like to say a few words to avoid misunderstandings. The fact that the value is great does not mean that the more the better.In other words, people live in groups, and their freedom cannot be unlimited.For example, one should never raise one's hand to beat others on the grounds of freedom.To take a step back, it is not appropriate to use freedom as an excuse to run a red light.To take a step back, freedom should not be used as an argument. A young couple spends their days, and one of them buys prawns with the little money he has.Whether this kind of example is appropriate or not is based on the same principle, that is, there is a limit to freedom, and it is not allowed to infringe on the freedom of others, or to destroy the happiness of others.According to common sense, there is nothing to argue about.What will be debated is whether people have the freedom to endanger (also in the common sense sense) themselves?This is a big problem in theory.For example, some people want to commit suicide in order to end some great suffering.Do we admit that he has this freedom?At least in theory, it is difficult to define the white arm. If someone has sympathy in his heart, it is not easy to express it, right?Because the practice of most people does not recognize the existence of this kind of freedom, so a person can only be punished for taking drugs, and a person is sent to the hospital for emergency treatment after drinking dichlorvos.This means that we: Consciously or unconsciously, believe that life and happiness are greater truths than freedom.

When happiness is great, then freedom rises with the tide and becomes great, because it is a necessary condition for happiness, and it is difficult to be happy without it.Bigness should be valued, and value is knowledge; what is more important is practice, that is, to find ways to ensure everyone's freedom (of course, that does not exceed the limit) is guaranteed.What method?Morality through upbringing is very important; but when it comes to governance, it is more practical to guard against villains rather than gentlemen, so we must rely more on the express provisions of the law.We have done this in the past.There are a lot of unexplained things, such as the death of the murderer.There is also a small amount of clarification, that is, the several types of freedom that are routinely listed in the Constitution.Is this small amount enough?Appropriate or not?Here I want to only talk about the more urgent issue - how can the provisions on paper become reality.For example, if the articles on paper say that there is freedom of thought and speech, it is clear, but if the words of the superiors become a higher law, then some thoughts and speeches may become illegal, so the clear articles will become empty words. Freedom will naturally disappear with ashes.So it is extremely important, if you believe in the law and rely on the law, on the contrary, it must be clearly stipulated that those above have no freedom to infringe on the freedom of others, and there are methods (mainly systems) to ensure its implementation.In this regard, I have already said a lot when talking about authorization and restriction, so I won’t repeat it.

Speaking of the superior, we can have a further understanding of the freedom of the mantra, which is: in theory, freedom seems to be a thousand things, but in reality it refers to (at least habitually) the few things that have been taken back from the superior. Shaoxu.There is a reason for this.One is historical.In the past, the autocratic monarch was supreme, and even his little minions could give orders and have the final say.Xiaomin's hardship is unspeakable, and he dare not speak of it.People are always willing to turn suffering into pleasure, or at least turn unbearable into tolerable, so when the time is right, they fight for it, and what they fight for is called freedom.There is another reason that can be called the mentality of buying melons, taking the big and giving up the small, because without this kind of freedom, nothing can be discussed, so when it comes to freedom, it usually refers to those won from the superior.This is what is written in the constitutions of various countries, such as thoughts, speeches, assemblies and associations.Why put such activities on the table?I think it is because, if thought and speech are free, it is very likely that it will not suit the taste of those above, not to mention that it is often a prelude to action.As for gatherings and forming associations, it will become an action of many people. If it is unfortunate and it is not to the taste, it will be even more serious.

This touches on the issue of how to coordinate between those who govern others and those who govern others.The problem is not small, and the solution may be difficult or easy.Yi, relying on the law (of course, with the assistance of education, morality, etiquette, etc.), to ensure moderate freedom in all aspects.Under this "moderate" shroud, some problems that are often difficult to find are not difficult to follow.For example, thinking may be effective in preventing it from happening before it happens. This is what the ancients said "you can't make it known", a policy of ignoring the people.But even in ancient times, this method was not fully effective. For example, Mencius sighed, "If you don't flee to Yang, you will flee to Mo".It is even more impossible in modern times, because in addition to the ease of printing, there are also telex and so on.Even if the mind is polluted, it is like an infectious disease, and the polluted person himself has nothing to do.Take Montesquieu as an example. He didn’t believe in God and was dying. If he was forced to believe in God and said “Dili is great”, he was only forced to say “My strength is as small as it is”.In a word, thoughts are beyond the control of oneself, and the power of coercion can only make him not speak or speak falsehoods.Free speech is another matter because it has two sides.The good side is that the result of contention is easy to distinguish between the false and the true.But on the other hand, we should never allow the freedom of adultery and robbery.This brings us to the problem of distinguishing right from wrong, good from bad, so in order to avoid getting into another ecstasy, we have no choice but to leave it alone.As for assemblies and associations, whether it is feasible, feasible, and what are the benefits, all involve whether there is a legal system of authorization.Yes, the dispute will focus on votes; no, the dispute may slide to resort to violence.

It can be seen from this that, all in all, freedom is such an abstract and substantive weird thing that is difficult to explain clearly in theory, but has great relevance in practice.People, especially those who care about Zhiping or further governing Zhiping, should pay attention to and understand this strange thing, so as to work together to solve many problems related to it, so that it becomes a blessing instead of a curse.