Analytical Essay 1: Freedom Quotes

Lindsey Knight

Honors Government

Mr. Comer

12/9/14

Analytical Essay: Freedom Quotes

Freedom is a subject that is often hard to understand.  To different people, freedom means different things.  Tell a southern slave after the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 that he is now free, and the reaction would probably differ from someone’s perspective on freedom from North Korea.  Freedom is relative to the central governing authority, for freedom and law can coexist.  Therefore, it becomes necessary to evaluate what freedom is in the current world, and it is important to realize that freedom can be seen differently among people.  Within the three quotes that were given, H.L. Mencken’s assessment of freedom is the most true while Jean-Paul Sartre follows, and Albert Camus ranks last.  Mencken’s honesty about human nature is relevant today, while Jean-Paul Sartre looks at freedom as something only obtained through struggle.  Finally, Albert Camus’s quote is the least true because one cannot simply become free in a world bereft of freedom, and this would be no act of rebellion because to act against human nature in a way of revolt would be pointless.  

H.L. Mencken rightly believes that the “average man does not want to be free[;] he simply wants to be safe” (Mencken).  Safety and comfort are natural instincts of man.  In fact, one of the “first...principal causes of quarrel...[is] for safety (The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes).  Preservation of one’s self is one of man’s principal focuses.  In a state where there is no government, “men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal” (ibid.).  Therefore, if it is true that a man must fend for himself on his own ability, it follows that the existence of stability would cause men to feel comforted.  Take away his freedom, and he might get angry, but his preserved safety would instinctually matter first.  In addition, “when taking a journey, a [man will] lock his doors, and even in his house he locks his chests” (The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes).  The idea that men will give up their freedom by keeping their doors locked or keep large sums of money out of their house to be safe reflects Mencken’s argument.  Safety comes first before the idea of being able to freely act and live in society.  Finally, in America today, only 0.5 percent of Americans over the age of 18 “serve in the armed forces;” a testament to the fact that people would rather be safe at home than fighting for freedom (Karl W. Eikenberry, David M. Kennedy, New York Times).    Therefore, in the case of Mencken’s argument, society is based on man’s tendency to be comfortable whether it be in his physical, mental, or spiritual situation.  Chains can tamper the man, he will be in more distress if his own body, mind, or spirit is threatened.  Finally, the implication that Mencken ends with is that freedom is only a means, not an end.  Freedom is one way to achieve safety, but it is not the end-all factor for remaining stable and comfortable.   Safety comes first, then freedom according to Mencken.

Secondly, Jean Paul-Sartre’s idea that “freedom is what [one] do[es] with what’s been done to” the person is partly true (Sartre).  This would be second in truth behind Mencken because although it is true that freedom can be personally gained, there is a part of human nature that is already free.  Humans are able to reason, love, hate, and fear naturally.   Therefore, even if someone is not literally free in the sense that he can’t do whatever he wants, he still is able to reason, love, hate, and fear.  Only death can separate humans from the freedom of their own thoughts.  If this quote were completely true, then the end goal of humanity would be to progress for the sole purpose of progressing.  This would make freedom a means and and an end.  A person would use what has been done to obtain freedom, and once he were free he would continue to progress for the sake of obtaining more freedom.  If freedom can only be achieved after something harmful or beneficial has been done, then would freedom be the goal or would freedom be the way to get to the goal?  Because of this paradox between what one does and what has been done to someone, freedom isn’t even important.  It’s more of the journey between bondage and freedom.  However, this isn’t all true because people that have freedom don’t necessarily act off of historic events.  Freedom can exist as a result only when the previous circumstances have created a reason to need it, but many are born into circumstances where they are naturally free with the qualities of reason, love, hate, and fear.  For example, someone familiar with oppression might say, “I am where I am today because I have progressed with my freedom;” however, someone else might say “I am where I am today because I was born into it.”   The issue with this quote is that there is no clarification whether freedom is referring to the literal physical freedom or the personal mental freedom of an individual.  Freedom can even be interpreted differently by different people, so it is less relevant than Mencken's quote.  

Finally, Albert Camus’ quote that “the only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that [one’s] very existence” is an act of rebellion is the least true among the three (Camus).  This quote is impossible because one cannot just become free.  There have to be external forces that support this coming of freedom, and often these are limited.  For example, many people would believe that knowledge through education frees the mind.  However, if one wishes to become liberated from their ignorance but doesn’t have the books, teachers, school, or mental capacity to achieve this then there is no way that he or she can become free.  In addition, Albert Camus’s quote assumes that the world is unfree.  If this is how the world exists by nature, then rebelling against the natural “un-freeness” of the world would do nothing.   It would not help anyone else, and it would just be a revolt for the sake of revolting.  If this quote were true, then it would force people to consciously make themselves free at every given moment.  Society would be so focused on denying the captivated nature in order to “rebel,” but the rebellion would be selfish.  Only one’s “existence” would be the rebellious act which doesn’t connect with other people.  Morally, people’s life goal would be to make their own self a force against nature.  Using freedom as a means to achieve a free world is again a paradox, and it is impossible.

Between these three philosophers, Mencken’s idea is the most true, followed by Sartre and Camus.  Each of their ideas about freedom are pulled partly out of context, but they still serve to provide insight into the nature of freedom and its implication on society and morality.