Are we ‘free’ to think?
|
|||||||||
Rachana Sharma | Jan 03, 2009
The idea of freedom of thought and expression is as old as thinking itself. In contemporary age it is generally discussed under the shadow of democracy. This new version has two new features. First, the notions freedom of thought and freedom of expression are entwined conceptually. Secondly, it appears more as a struggle against others who hamper its exercise. The subject of the present article is to discuss these two points and suggest that to achieve freedom of thought, first we need to separate it from freedom of expression and work on it and secondly freedom of expression might be a fight against others but freedom of thought is an endeavour in one’s own ‘self’.
Democracy treats freedom of expression and thought as a unified concept but in this unification the freedom of expression becomes prominent because the freedom of thought inheres in the freedom of expression. If one is free to express, one has already received the freedom of thought. But, in fact, thinking and its expression are two separate processes. One thinks and then expresses. The expression is only an exposure of something which has already been shaped by a mind. If that mind is not free, the freedom of expression loses all significance. Freedom of expression has its own importance but freedom of thought is the prerequisite.
The question arises as to what is the freedom of thought. Our mind is our thinking machine. If one is ‘thinking’, one is thinking freely only; that is the general opinion. But the situation is not as simple. Our thinking has so many inner and outer influences that our thoughts emerge more as anticipated output of a complex system than free choice of a conscious mind. We are so ‘bound’ by our inner and outer environments that we even lose the ‘feel’ of freedom. To restitute it, first we need to understand the bondage and then find the key to freedom.
The mind is a unified structure of myriad aspects, phases, layers; visible and invisible. It is present and at the same time constantly changing. It is an outward exposition; it is an inward process as well. The mind is conscious but it also works at unconscious, sub-conscious, half-conscious levels. It would be interesting to know that Indian philosophy has counted as many as eight levels. There is no end. The depth of the consciousness is ever unfolding. The idea is that when we consider the freedom of thought we need to define exactly what a free mind is in the light of all these aspects to the best of our knowledge.  Do we want it to be free from outer influences or we also want an alert, conscious and decisive mind against the inner disturbances as well? Before concluding, think of the decisions taken under the pangs of emotions or those temporary flows aroused by inner or outer influences. Can we consider them as originated from a truly free mind?
It would be surprising to know that emotions have exactly the same effect on functioning of brain as drugs. In experiments neuroscientists scanned the brains of some persons who were ‘feeling’ deep love for somebody. Here by love I mean the love in which the picture of the person remains before one’s eyes and one feels unable to stop thinking of him or her. The scientists found that the scans of their brains were same as those of the persons who had consumed high doses of drugs. The brain function is equally overpowered by emotions and chemicals. The only difference is that the chemical is injected externally into the body and emotions cause the body to generate internal hormones which affect the brain’s function. Love is one among a long list of emotions which humans experience. Every emotion works in the same way if it is allowed to bloom.
Apart from emotions we also have habits and experiences which switch the brain into auto mode. The brain is designed to function in auto mode when the pilot can sit back and relax. This system consists of nature, genes, structure of brain, influences during growth and development etc. All these forces are capable of taking charge and dismissing the conscious power of mind. And, acquiesced in these forces, we have no trace of the real conscious power left out in us which, when it so desires, can visualize, realize and transform the whole system.
During most of normal human life, the brain functions in auto mode in the absence of a conscious guide. We are born and brought up by an environment. Our thoughts are shaped by that given environment. We never question our own personality rather take it as our individuality. We never question our own likings and disliking Р‘I am what I am’. Sometimes we change and improve ourselves for betterment but mostly we live an automated half-conscious life guided by our ego which is nothing but a collective address for all impressions and prejudices. For example; Do we ever think why, relations especially close relations, generally seem disharmonized?  The conflict of interests may be one reason but could we ever ‘see’ the interest of the other and try to conciliate? If we leave our interest aside for a moment and try to think ‘freely’ we can at least understand why a person reacts in a certain way and things will become easier to resolve.
The key to the freedom of thought lies in our own consciousness because, as most of metaphysics recognizes, thinking is the fundamental feature of consciousness. This consciousness looks like a unity but its structure is such that it is designed to function at multi levels, many of them are unrevealed as in the case of mind. The best we can do is to search for a point where one is free from all this jargon of inner-outer influences known to us. We should aspire and strive for a conscious life.
All political and social thinking has always targeted the freedom of expression mainly. Freedom of thought is eclipsed by the freedom of expression. We forget that the freedom of thought is different and much deeper than the freedom of expression. For our freedom of thought we not only need free outer environment but also an inner base and awakening. The free expression has no significance if one does not learn to think freely first and free thinking starts within our own self.
–
Rachana Sharma has Doctorate in Philosophy and Masters in Philosophy and Sanskrit. She has published articles in various philosophical journals such as Paramarsh (Pune University), Journal of Philosophical Research (New Delhi), and The Philosopher’s Index (Ohio University, USA).
Filed Under: Miscellaneous
|
|||||||||
I really enjoyed this article. I am an American, and one of the reasons I appreciate this website is because it offers a variety of viewpoints beyond an American-Centric paradigm.
When I saw the title and subject of this article, my interest was piqued. Freedom of expression is one of our dearest held beliefs. So, to read a thoughtful and well-written essay on the subject is eye opening and provocative. From the U.S. perspective, freedom of expression is a G-d given right. In other words, it is respected as a right that only G-d has the authority to revoke (as long as such expression does not cause irreparable damage to others). Yet, how often do we stop think of the source of our expression and whether or not IT is free?
Dr. Sharma is absolutely correct. Our consciousness is shaped by a multitude of inner and outer stimuli. We may have freedom of expression but it is still a servant to our environment and culture. Thank you, Dr. Sharma, for an excellent commentary on this subject.
Hi Dr. Sharma,
I really like this point you make.
“During most of normal human life, the brain functions in auto mode in the absence of a conscious guide. We are born and brought up by an environment. Our thoughts are shaped by that given environment. We never question our own personality rather take it as our individuality. We never question our own likings and disliking – ‘I am what I am’. Sometimes we change and improve ourselves for betterment but mostly we live an automated half-conscious life guided by our ego which is nothing but a collective address for all impressions and prejudices. For example; Do we ever think why, relations especially close relations, generally seem disharmonized? The conflict of interests may be one reason but could we ever ‘see’ the interest of the other and try to conciliate? If we leave our interest aside for a moment and try to think ‘freely’ we can at least understand why a person reacts in a certain way and things will become easier to resolve.”
It’s so true what you’re saying.
You’ve definitely given me some food for thought.
Thanks
Celine
As a fan of George Orwell, I believe that free thought is necessary for free expression.
[see also work by linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf for similar ideas]
In his book 1984, Orwell introduced “DoubleSpeak”. The omnipresent oppressive government suppressed political action by suppressing language itself. The word “bad” didn’t exist; it was replaced by “ungood.” A word like “worst” was still expressed in positive terms: “Double-Plus-Ungood.”
Is there a real-world example if this? I believe the Brazilian Piraha tribe demonstrates this principle in action.
The tribe’s numbering system has only three integers; a word for “one”, a word for “two”, but the next highest integer means “many.”
In a number of experiments, the tribe members *could* differentiate between a single object and two objects, but could *not* differentiate between four objects and five objects; they were both perceived as “many”.
One interpretation is that language [or lack thereof] itself can determine thought.
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040816/full/news040816-10.html
Thank you for that brilliant essay! So many of us feel we have “no choice but to ____________”. But we always have a choice about what to think. Thinking leads to feelings. Feelings lead to words. Words lead to action and action leads to results. It all starts with the thought.
In fact, freedom of thought is the only irrevocable freedom we have as mortal beings. Even in the US, the land of the free, our personal liberties are being erroded. Our fear and helplessness guide our thoughts to accept this as necessary. But where does the fear and helplessness originate? Propaganda.
Children aren’t born believing in societial norms. They are learned. We grow up learning thinking patterns from our parents, extended relatives, school, friends, the news . . . . Once we have matured, we often fix our beliefs and evaluate the world through that filter. But we can change those beliefs.
Freedom of expression is certainly limited. In the name of order, society devises a range of acceptable activity. Unfortunately, there is a second set of rules for engagement that often directly opposes the established order.
Let’s use the business world as our example. In every corporation, there is a set of standards for operation. Then there is a shadow policy, written no where that circumvents the system. The people who follow the rules rarely benefit.
to continue . . .
But it doesn’t have to be that way. Here is where integrity kicks in. Are we, as business people expressing our beliefs in our actions? Or do we do what ever it takes to survive?
The world is joining together to remove fraud and deceptive tactics as the norm (finally). What each of us does in our own world to express our beliefs, makes a difference. I encourage everyone reading this to use our freedom of expression to create a better reality.
“Freedom of expression has its own importance but freedom of thought is the prerequisite.”
This is a very significant subject. I congratulate you for writing on this! Writing also helps one understand, organize and improvise upon one’s own thoughts. Free thinking and lots of free writing. In one’s own private blogs and on public blogs and forums.
I would suggest that freedom of expression is a prerequisite for freedom of thought. People generally view expression as constrained politically, thus the association with “democracy” or other “less free” forms of government.
The fact is that all societal constraints (religion, socially acceptable behavior, etc.) contribute to shape expression, and thus the environment that shapes our thoughts.
Breaking free from societal constraint is a necessity of truly “free thinking” but one must be careful to do so internally only while maintaining an outer shell that conforms to societies norms. To do otherwise results in being labeled as heretical or sociopathic and results in a stronger backlash to repress thinking than the limitations perpetuated by following “normal” expression.
What is really fascinating is that while reading the above paragraph, you find yourself feeling somewhat threatened, that somehow the separation from internal thought and outer expression is somehow dishonest…