The Difference in Thoughts on Freedom of the Grand Inquisitor and Existentialists

From the book “The Giver”, I have noticed an important message that the author wanted to tell us – The importance of freedom.

A majority of people that chose to accept freedom believing it would give them better opportunities in life soon realised that life as a free person wasn’t as positive as they initially thought.

An American essayist, H.L. Mencken stated, “The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants be safe”. I disagree with this statement because an “average man” wants to live. In order to live you must have two necessities; freedom and safety. I believe neither is more important than one another because being free gives you the opportunity to a safe nation, and a safe nation allows you to be free. You cannot live a life without exploring and growing because that would not be considered living. On the other hand, you cannot expect to be free without safety around you.

“For what is freedom? That one has the will to assume responsibility for oneself.” (Nietzsche. Twilight of the Idols. Trans. Hollingdale. Sect. 38). Everyone desires freedom but everyone cannot handle the responsibilities of freedom. I will compare J.S. Mill’s views on the social function of freedom with that of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s characters from both, the novel Notes From Underground and the excerpt; The Grand Inquisitor, also drawing supplementary arguments from Friedrich Nietzsche, while expressing my views alongside.

The staple of societal thought, freedom, is the power to act, speak, or think as one wants without the concern of being oppressed (Webster). Freedom, is a unique element to the mixture of liberty across the United States. Martin Luther King Jr’s a “letter of Birmingham Jail,” and Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence both advocate the claim for freedom. Both of these historical figures make this apparent by arguing for the protest against tradition, a change across unjust laws, although they differ between the kinds of change to be enforced.

Foner emphasizes on the diverse interpretations of freedom, and based on people’s lived experiences within American society, it can represent different things. Since it has no fixed definition within the article, Foner views freedom as a concept and states “by its very nature is the subject of disagreement” (xiv). People’s worldview can help shape what freedom means to them and it may limit what freedom means to others. Although the Declaration of Independence promotes all humans having unalienable rights given by the creator, which are life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not all americans are able to enjoy those rights in American society. As American societal norms constantly change (eventually),

"Freedom is to society what health is to the individual." Lord Bolingbroke. A society without freedom ultimately jeopardizes the well being of its citizens and social prosperity. The selections “Harrison Bergeron”, “The Censors”, “Caged bird”, and “Speech at the United Nations” support the idea that to be free means that you can act and be seen, speak and be heard, or think and be understood as one want without restraint.

Compare and Contrast The essay “The Tyranny of Choice” by Berry Schwartz and “Dumpster Diving” by Lars Eighner talk about being confronted by choices. In the “The Tyranny of Choice” Schwartz says “increased choice means we have more happy people? Not at all.” The essay “Dumpster Diving” Eighner talks about people “scavenge the cable channels looking for they know not what.

People would not seek for freedom unless, they do not have enough freedom, or they are

ffffffHave you ever questioned your free will; your mind’s ability to make decisions? As you venture into the world of literature and writing, many great authors and personas are introduced which question the true meaning of free will. “Bartleby, the Scrivener” by Herman Melville, “Where I Lived and What I Lived For” by Henry David Thoreau, and “Wakefield” by Nathaniel Hawthorne are few of many works that reveal what freedom is and how liberal your life can be. As humans we have come to appreciate the power of free thought and free will, however is it truly good if we have no limitations or boundaries? Free will implies we are able to choose the majority of our actions.

Within a piece of his writing, american essayist and social critic H. L. Mencken stated “The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe.” I strongly agree with Mencken’s claim within this essay. He is saying while people may believe that they want safety, they are subconsciously desiring the safety that comes along with freedom. Mencken was born in 1880, and did not die until 1956; concluding, he lived within the times of the civil rights movement.

There are many different forms of governments throughout the world. Some are socialist, some democratic, and some of a different denomination. Some have rights and freedoms, and others do not. All of these governments, however, still have the same purpose of protecting their people. This causes many to think similarly to the statement made by H. L. Mencken, “The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe.” This statement can be applied not only to Mencken’s own time, but modern day contemporary society as well.

H.L. Mencken, a prominent American essayist and social critic, said that people are better off being safe than being free. People do not want to have their freedom if they are not safe. The validity of this quote is one of great debate between people of our time. It is clear that it is a fair tradeoff to live in a safe society with little freedom, and it is more fair than having to live in a society with no safety and many freedom.

Just as every plants and animal as evolved and changed throughout the course of its existence so has the definition of freedom while its’ meaning has stayed constant. Freedom has a perpetual meaning, however, humans have tried to change the definition based upon moral, ethical, social, and legal ideals that have through history been debated upon and never satisfied all. Freedoms’ perpetual meaning is that everyone, no matter race or gender, has the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. As time progresses and new ideas flourish the definition of freedom either flourishes along with society or takes a drastic spiral downward usually with the opinions of humanity. In this essay we will be

By contrast, “the ‘positive’ sense of the word ‘liberty’ derives from the [individual’s] wish … to be his own master” (178). Exponents of positive liberty focus on internal factors rather than external actors by painting the self as essentially divided, typically into a higher and lower self. The higher of these selves, distinguished perhaps by rationality or length of outlook, represents in some sense the true realization of an individual’s potential, nature, or entity. This being is marked by possessing full self-consciousness, bearing full responsibility for one’s choices, and not being a slave to one’s nature or “unbridled