Today, freedom is often glorified as a defining characteristic of modern society. Many, when putting forward an unpopular opinion, offensive or not, commonly cite their natural freedom of speech allows them to do so. However, society's obsession with freedom is based on a natural desire to be comfortable rather than to truly be free.
This concept, at first, appears to be false: America was based off the desire for freedom of religion and has carried the ideals of freedom of expression into present day. Though under closer inspection, Mencken's statement holds true. Upon arriving to the Americas, the pilgrims traded and respected the American Indians out of necessity. As time went on, however, and the new Americans became accustomed to their new surroundings, the American Indians quickly became a nuisance rather than an aid. Had the Americans themselves truly wanted to be free rather than simply safe, they would've respected the American Indians' own desire for freedom; rather, once the Americans viewed the American Indians as a threat to their relatively comfortable lifestyle, the Indians were altogether forced out of society and excluded from the Americans' "freedom".
The subconscious emphasis of comfort over freedom is even more evident in today's culture. Throughout history, education has been regarded by the most brilliant of minds as a prerequisite to freedom: "only the educated are free" (Epictetus), "Freedom can only exist in the society of knowledge. Without learning, men are incapable of knowing their own rights" (Benjamin Rush). As shown, without education, no man is free. However, today's youth largely rejects intense education. A short scroll down Twitter or Facebook on a Sunday night reflects this as true - the number of people posting "Why is there so much homework to do" or "Why school when I can be a stripper" is overwhelming considering the results of education. Many are simply unwilling to rigorously work towards freedom. Thus comfort reigns over freedom: today's society would rather be safe, comfortable, and restricted, than be stressed, worried, but free.
This concept, at first, appears to be false: America was based off the desire for freedom of religion and has carried the ideals of freedom of expression into present day. Though under closer inspection, Mencken's statement holds true. Upon arriving to the Americas, the pilgrims traded and respected the American Indians out of necessity. As time went on, however, and the new Americans became accustomed to their new surroundings, the American Indians quickly became a nuisance rather than an aid. Had the Americans themselves truly wanted to be free rather than simply safe, they would've respected the American Indians' own desire for freedom; rather, once the Americans viewed the American Indians as a threat to their relatively comfortable lifestyle, the Indians were altogether forced out of society and excluded from the Americans' "freedom".
The subconscious emphasis of comfort over freedom is even more evident in today's culture. Throughout history, education has been regarded by the most brilliant of minds as a prerequisite to freedom: "only the educated are free" (Epictetus), "Freedom can only exist in the society of knowledge. Without learning, men are incapable of knowing their own rights" (Benjamin Rush). As shown, without education, no man is free. However, today's youth largely rejects intense education. A short scroll down Twitter or Facebook on a Sunday night reflects this as true - the number of people posting "Why is there so much homework to do" or "Why school when I can be a stripper" is overwhelming considering the results of education. Many are simply unwilling to rigorously work towards freedom. Thus comfort reigns over freedom: today's society would rather be safe, comfortable, and restricted, than be stressed, worried, but free.
I agree that the statement of being safe rather than free is evident true today. I thought your incorporation of modern things such as "Twitter or Facebook" really enhanced your argument. Your interpretation of the quote was different mine though, as I thought Mencken believed you could only be in favor of one or the other rather than your actions will determine what you end up. However, despite the differences in our interpretations, I thought your piece was very well written and opened up some aspects of this argument that I had not thought of.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDickie Chen. You always know you can count on "It-Chen to Blog" to provide a masterful rhetorical analysis to read with a cup of tea in front of your crackling fireplace before bedtime on a Sunday night. In tonight's post, I thought it was totally awesome how Dickie Chen contrasted historic quotes from well-known philosophers (clearly educated) and the generic and thoughtless tweet of an ignorant teen. When it's with Dickie Chen, you know its always going to be strangely comical, yet insightful, but most importantly--blunt. Once again, the publication tonight certainly did not fail to deliver. I tip my hat off to you, Sir Dickie Chen.
ReplyDelete