Fri. Jul 3rd, 2020

The Nature of Freedom: Modern and Traditional by
Amin Zaamin Baloch

4 min read

The Nature of Freedom: Modern and Tradition
An Analytical Approach

Amin Zaamin Baloch

In a society, where person to person relations work, and a person freely knows the other as such the other exposes itself. It is a fundamental hint of individualization. The individualistic society is hierarchical, and a man exposes himself, as the stage of hierarchy whatever exposition requires. Basically, his every exposed self is particular, and he wants to represent the particular self, as he thinks that particular self would be appreciated, but he wants to examine others on his actual ground, basically he or she abides beyond this exposed self. Conclusively, this preamble makes a theory; the practical meaning of above mentioned lines is that it would be impossible for the man to get quantitative freedom in a society which is not hierarchical.
Whereas, the notion of individual’s authority arises from the discourse of self and the theory of self is associated with the theoretical ground of authority. This theory shows that self is private. Following the possible routes of this theory when one exposes itself, he would be known. Self exposes itself in a particular stage of the existing hierarchy, here man’s progress is conditioned to add concept of good and approach the next stage.
But his every exposed version would not be counted as his actual existence. However, the freedom of self can be traced that what nature of freedom he exercises. Here, the self is free only to choose the particular conception of good. This freedom is called quantitative freedom that is subjected to maximization, and its maximization would be known as the practicality of freedom. The maximizations of the possible routes of freedom eventually will be created, as man would add new conception of good. Here, the original nature of private self is freedom, which can be easily observed, but the original behavior of the man can’t be objectively traced, which makes it difficult to identify him. As a result, in a society, neither the man would go with a commitment, nor would he be a reliable agent, because, this particular notion of freedom comes from contradiction. While, whatever nature of freedom is observable in a particular time, even though, the same freedom can’t be the source of his identification. In short, the freedom is the source of hierarchy. Whereas, freedom is the stuff that makes the individuality survival possible. Conclusively, creation of stages in hierarchy will consistently makes the augmentation of freedom possible in human life.
On the second hand, in a particular society, every individual represents a collective thought process. Here, maximization of individual freedom means to compromise his ground. Whereas, the modern individual does not have social ground, but society has individualistic basis. However, in a society, the freedom gets values unless it negates conducted freedom. Evenly, the concerning freedom becomes the source of collective freedom, and every individual keeps a social ground, because his endearment actions represents his collective life. Even though, he accommodates the religion on cultural basis. Basically, the culture remains a characteristic of actual collective life; moreover, it abides to negate conducted grounds. However, the reoccurrence of tradition (the actual collective life) does not seem to be possible, because the tradition is a flow.
When a self has reciprocity with the other one, ultimately, the familiarity occurs. Intrinsically, this process develops a commitment between them and the concerning familiarity gets more strengthened on the ground of harmonized concepts of good. If a man espouses the concerning concept of good, and shapes his responsibilities, eventually he becomes part of the actual tradition. Thoroughly, the prop of the conception of good comes from human selected actions, which makes it clear what action supports the concerning ‘good’. As we know that the concerning concept of good is not individualistic, and its nature of freedom is qualitative. The members of an actual collection consistently negate every conducted good and ultimately will reach at the coequal ground. This notion becomes the systematic ground, in which every member measures other’s every action. Perpetually, the nature of above mentioned notion not only produces the collective commitment, but it also yields reliability.
As I think, the traditional nature of freedom is qualitative, and if a person is an actual member of the traditional flow, ultimately, the flow would remain the ground of his conception of good that is not static. That is why, in the flow of tradition, anyone identifies the conducted mode (alienation), but the tradition cannot produce alienation, because of its nature of flow, although, quantitative freedom creates the alienation and customizes it.
As we know that the quantitative freedom is hierarchical, its every stage captivates the individual and fetters him with numerous notions of negation. But, this process is remained sustained to claim ‘consistency of freedom’. Although, in every stage of available hierarchy, the augmentation of conceptions of good intensify the freedom, which conceptualizes that every new stage will be a more sufficient ground than previous one. Even though, the way of selection comes to emerge from the new stages, aftermath, it would contradict with previous one on elements of freedom. Conclusively, the same contradiction causes the birth of the freedom. While, the elements of every stage essentially are selective, then the process of selection occurs into the selected elements. But the later ones would remain more selective, and previously selected elements are free to be negated, because the cluster of them causes to strengthen the hierarchy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Copy link
Powered by Social Snap