How far does human freedom go? Is it as radical as Sartre claims it is? I would say we are not so free, yet I agree with many of Sartre's points, even those from his earlier years. Independent of socioeconomic conditions, humans are as free as their physical bodies let them. Something such as alcoholism is a choice; the disease started with the victim, in full awareness, choosing to take the first drink and then every subsequent drink, though with less judgement and self-awareness. Between periods of drinking, the victim will be sober and can make more rational decisions, though our endorphins might make the alcoholic feel inclined to drink again. I also believe that humans could change themselves so that they wouldn't feel sad at a person's death, but I think that would make us emotionally dead, and that is not a life worth living.
In the real world, people are limited by their needs. To acquire those needs, they need money, but with a lopsided spread of money, some people can not meet or fulfill their needs. So people must focus themselves to making ends meet, and not to being his/her authentic self. Some people are freer to pursue what they want than others. Of course someone can decide that s/he is no longer going to work and is instead going to practice philosophy, art, and literature, but it's possible that s/he could die if they have no means to support themselves as s/he pursues his/her craft.
No comments:
Post a Comment