Freedom does not keep you grounded
Does too much freedom threaten the society?
Does too much freedom threaten the society?
When casual birds, such as a raven, croak about freedom and apparently even seem to enjoy it, many people who feel they are good members of their society are more likely to disgust and rarely agree.
This stands in sharp contrast to the positive attitude to freedom increasingly declared privately and in public, which is so terribly threatened in authoritarian systems. Loneliness seems also to threaten modern societies. People are looking for cohesion, but they feel increasingly unsettled in their search and are reluctant to do alone something new. Traditions are upheld, and progress is suspiciously eyed. They point out how they have been brought up and that this is good for the cohesion of society. In principle, we can probably achieve together more than just alone. But where should one unite and with what goal?
Observation of the actual conditions shows clearly and quickly that there are great uncertainties on this point. The public media, local organizations, the circle of friends and acquaintances or one's own family give contradictory or even little orientation. If this is more or less completely lacking, one meets just with coffee and cake or at the non-binding regulars' table. In the best case, it is said that finding one's own way is important, but at once, perhaps even well-intentioned additional advice may come up without being wanted. That this can already be a massive influence, is often not clear.
Not to be influenced will rather be seen as a virtue. Often, not quite wrongly, many people refer to bad experiences that they have had during their life with this or that group or from which they have heard. But as a result, they all too often retreat into the silent majority. Even apparently neutral philosophy is considered skeptical and hardly considered suitable to find a favorable way or even something that could replace the former fragile goals. Established religions still take precedence. On top of that, all such new currents look so complicated that it does not seem to be a miracle to prefer simply knit populist offers.
The alternative philosophy presented on this website starts with exactly these points. Simplicity is required, but without gliding into pure statements. The starting points, called axiomatics, must already be simple and must not be obscured by a professional jargon. Furthermore, crucial additions must be clearly highlighted and made understandable.
The simplest formulation was the abstract short sentences which initially could appear indigestible: "Development exists (has a being)" and "Being (existence)) develops". Actions between the two form our reality. This means the transition from fixed (static) to flexible (dynamic) assumptions and procedures.
At this point, detailed explanations, interpretations and possible continuations of these brief principles should not be given. Generally for necessary axiomatics no proofs are possible. It is more important to point out their transparent nature not influenced by ideologies and to acknowledge the urgent need for dissemination of such simple and certainly harmless but forward-looking assumptions which might be useful for the future. As a small explanation, it should be noted that the first little sentence, "development exists," calls for initiative and flexibility, while the second sentence, "existence develops," involves tolerance and balance.
"Modern means dynamic" was already mentioned in previous texts as a slogan making sense. Dynamics, however, requires freedom. But every society demands a restriction of freedoms for the benefit of the community. This situation must therefore consciously be conceived, assessed and taken into account as well as possible in all its effects, in as many ways as possible - not only rationally but also emotionally, in terms of power assessments and regarding all our activities.
If we really do that, it will slowly or quickly, but in any case, become clear to which nonsensical or even roughly harmful groups not only a few people are attached and what the deeper reasons really are. In principle, however, more freedom means less society, what not always must be bad. Outsiders can do a lot of good for them, and every society should be able to strike a balance between equally useful sedentaries of all kinds and nomads, whether they are traveling with a camel or a notebook, and at the risk of being less controllable.
© Copyright and all rights reserved Hans J. Unsoeld, Berlin 2018