FREEDOM ACCORDING TO HOBBES

This is a fairly light-hearted take on the concept of freedom. I am using the definition offered by Hobbes, to further highlight my recurring point that the meaning of this word has been twisted by certain ideological demagogues to the extent of becoming obnoxious. Needless to say, my intent is not to provide a rigid Urtext definition, which would be a nonsensical endeavor, but to appeal to Hobbes’ formula in a broader figurative sense, thus exploring some previously unexplored alcoves of the kind which one may encounter only off the beaten path of customary understanding, which helpful sideroad this Hobbesian definition provides.

Talking about freedom, here is a peculiar reality check, as some people like to call such things. In this case I am appealing to the unimpeachable authority of Thomas Hobbes citing his definition of Freedom/Liberty in his magnum opus Leviathan. Here it is, in blue, with my comments in red:

Liberty, or freedom, signifies the absence of opposition (!) (meaning external impediments of motion), and may be applied no less to irrational and inanimate creatures than to rational. The first thing that catches the eye in this “Newtonian” physical definition of freedom is that, except for the outer space, it cannot exist anywhere, as long as there may be other objects close by, or in relative proximity, that are bound to create opposition by counteracting our action or just by altering our free course through the basic laws of gravity. The sheer beauty of the Hobbesian definition is that no one can ‘spin’ it by, say, bending the definition of opposition, as it is rather hard, even for an old pro, to play political games with the barebones of physics.

For whatever is so tied, or environed… Here Hobbes makes a perceptive distinction between two types of restrictions to the freedom of movement, the latter can be interpreted as restricted freedom of travel... …as it cannot move but within a certain space, which space is determined by the opposition of some external body, we say it has not liberty to go further. And so, of all living creatures, whilst they are imprisoned, or restrained… we say they are not at liberty to move in such manner as without those external impediments they would. But when the impediment of motion is in the constitution of the thing itself (!), we don’t say it lacks liberty, but the power to move, as when a stone lies still, or a man is fastened to his bed by sickness. (What should happen if, obsessed with spreading freedom, we invade the man’s home, snatch him out of his bed and proceed to throw him out of the window, to let him enjoy the freedom of a freefall? This is not too far-fetched, by the way, perhaps, the man wasn’t even sick, but only resting, how would we know?)

And according to this proper and generally received meaning of the word, a freeman is he who, in things which by his strength and wit he is able to do, is not hindered to do what he has a will to. (Once again, it is clear that in Hobbes’s definition of liberty, exporting freedom to others, imposing our will on the weaker nations, as well as on individuals, would qualify as the worst possible abuse of their own freedom, a crime against humanity. Let us not forget Kant’s monumental dictum about there being “no greater Evil than one man’s will controlled by another’s.” Who on earth is teaching philosophy to America’s political leaders?!) But when the words ‘free’ and ‘liberty’ are applied to anything but bodies, they are abused; for that, which is not subject to motion, is not subject to impediment, and therefore when we say: the way is free, no liberty of the way is signified, but of those that walk in it without stop. And when we say: a gift is free, we do not mean liberty of the gift, but of the giver, that was not bound by any law or covenant to give it. So, when we speak freely, it is not the liberty of voice, or of pronunciation, but of the man whom no law has obliged to speak, otherwise than he did. (I recommend this good passage to the politicians who are ‘obliged to speak’ according to political expedience, and therefore, do not have any ‘freedom of speech’ altogether! How can such hypocrites then turn around and start teaching other people the ‘meaning’ of Freedom? Physician, heal Thyself!) Lastly, from the use of the words “free will,” no liberty can be inferred of the will, inclination or desire, but the liberty of the man; which consists in that he finds no stop in doing what he has the will to do …” (The last sentence, consistently with everything said before it, emphasizes Hobbes’s clever point that free will does not mean the freedom of the will but only the freedom of the man. In my judgment, this is one of the most striking points ever made by any philosopher in the whole history of human thought, particularly because of its immense implications.)

A note to myself.

In the process of working on this passage further, I should diligently edit it, shorten it more than a bit, and comment on its other intricacies at length. By the same token I have to remember in this place Nietzsche’s instinct for freedom. We are talking in both instances about the law of nature, but only regarding freedom, whereas democracy, being a Commonwealth, is “an artificial animal,” to Hobbes!