"We're not free until we're bound to be free, until there's something that has a claim upon us other than ourself, our aspirations, our psychological and intellectual and sexual tics and yearnings and desires for community. When all of that is somehow brought into a constellation of obedience to something other than ourself, we start to become, to taste, what it means to be free." - John Richard Neuhaus, "A Place for Truth" p. 25.

Do you agree with Neuhaus? What is true freedom? Do we need to be "bound" to be free? Post back with your thoughts and comments!

This concept derives from what exactly was meant by a Greek when he said "I am a free citizen," or "I have free speech." It is essentially the wrong question to ask, "Do I really have free will?" or even "What gives me free will?" if you assume the answer is going to be based in theology or philosophical abstraction. When the Greek said ""I am free to do....." or "I am free to do...." these were not the questions he waqs answering or even posing. The question was "Free from what?" And the answer is, need, basic necessities, the struggle to provide food for myself and my immediate family; by saying "I have free speech," he meant that his speech acts, his various dialogues and discourse, be they political, social, or whatever, were not intrinsically motivated by only the ends of necessity. Now of course the Greeks gained this freedom at the cost of others, most frankly by slavery. This is a different discussion altogethe though. The importance is to realize that the whole condition to act as a free agent in the various ways in which we assume we have a right or even moral obligation to do so, are actually recognized only in asking the question "Free from what?" As Hegel explores this condition in the topic of master/slave morality, Nietzsche speaks of it as well. Nehaus seems to have decorated this simple fact with words like "aspirations, yearnings and desires" and "constellation of obedience" and distanced himself with the origin of the concept of "freedom" and the later arrival of "free will," which in origin necessarily had a poltical and social connotation and not all the existentialist and theological abstractions as it does today. You are free, free to act, free to speak, free indeed to "will" both as an atheist and a theist view and concieve of the "thought" and "act" combination that is implied by the word "will" or "to will," you are free to do any of these things only so far as you are not "bound" by finding drinking water, edible food, or a relatively safe (not even comfortable) place to sleep. Society today, "the herd," and even Nehaus himself seem to have lost this elemental conception of freedom. And so I at once disagree and agree with Nehaus. It is indeed a requirement to be bound first, but not by some "constellation of obedience," not something "other than ourself," but simply ourself itself, that damnable pain I get when I don't eat, or the dryness in my mouth from not drinking, or the delusional and neurotic ways I percieve the world when I do not get enough sleep. Any person holds the keys to there prison, it is only in which the lock and key find a solution or relationship to each other that implies all these moral vicissitudes and connundrums. As has been said, "Life is an exploitation." Even in the acts of basic necessity I am exploiting the resources around me. The cave was not "meant" was not intentioned to be shelter, I use it that way, I exploit it as shelter. Oysters are not meant to be eaten, but someone (and a very brave soul I might add) found out that they are good to eat, he exploited some tool to open it and consume it. We exploit fire to boil water and kill the bacteria. All of this exploitation is driven by bare necessity, yet it remains exploitation. People become free from this predicament only by exploiting an intermediary, either a tool or another person. I think I have made it somewhat clear... I could continue...