The reading consisted of a chapter within John MacQuarrie’s book entitled In Search of Humanity. The chapter dealt with the topic of freedom, exploring what the concept is and how it could be understood, leading up to the conclusion that freedom is something which has creativity at its roots.
MacQuarrie throughout the first few pages presents examples relating to freedom, then defines the concept of freedom as something absent of constraints. He contrasts freedom to an open space not yet filled up, an empty horizon where nothing blocks the way. As such freedom is something which ends up being nothing and without constraints, and MacQuarrie reasons that freedom therefore has a negative character.
I personally felt that talking of freedom as something negative was being too exaggerative. The reading provoked thoughts that lead me to see freedom more as a potentiality, an emptiness waiting to be enacted upon. Freedom would not exist, if as Macquarrie defined, a person “who is rational, conscientious, discriminating, responsible, capable of choice, decision and creativity” did not exist. I see that freedom can only exist where there is space for someone to move or be creative. In this way I do not see freedom as having a negative characteristic, but more of a positive and exciting characteristic.
MacQuarrie made mention of Berdyaev who talks of freedom as a nothing rather than a something, a potentiality rather than an actuality. Here I am in agreement with Berdyaev, yet at the some time I believe such a view leaves the truth of freedom incomplete. This is because when freedom is exercised it ceases to be a potentiality and becomes an actuality, ceases to be a nothing and becomes a something. MacQuarrie tends to come back to this point towards the end of the reading saying that freedom “begins as nothing which becomes very real and precious.” Therefore it appears as though freedom has two states, a potential state where it is yet to be enacted upon, and an actualised state where it is enacted upon.
In addition, although exercising freedom might be liberating, MacQuarrie points out that it at the same time produces an overwhelming weight of anxiety and responsibility. As mentioned in Sartre’s aphorism: “To be free is to be condemned to be free.” So not only does freedom begin as a nothing with the potential to become something when actualised, as MacQuarrie notes, it is also “earnestly desired, and yet at the same time people shrink from it and avoid it.”
No wonder there have been many disputes as to the reality of freedom and MacQuarrie thinks it “mysterious”. It consists of two opposites, being earnestly desired and beginning as nothing, then ends up as something when actualised which can produce anxiety and make one cower. I believe MacQuarrie makes a valid observation on freedom when he says, “If there were nothing but rights, the result would be anarchy. If there were nothing but demands, the result would be slavery.” I would agree that it is in the midst of these opposites that the delicate value of freedom has to survive.
Finally, MacQuarrie highlights in his concluding paragraph what I thought to be an interesting insight on freedom. In relation to the Christian doctrine of man being created in the image of God he writes, “the image of God in man should be understood as the human share in the mystery of creativity.” This certainly seems like a nice insight from a Christian perspective.
© 2004 Scott Brisbane