This essay comes together from several shorter notes that I jotted down during the month of February on philosophy, free speech, politics, and how an individual should live his life. They reflect the ideas of several great thinkers as applied to an individual trying to find a balance between his desire to be more political and to live a more reserved life, free from the coercision created through politics.

Public or Private?

Years ago, Hannah Arendt argued that whoever entered the political realm had first to be ready to risk his life, and too great of love for life obstructed freedom, was a sure sign of slavishness (Human Condition, 36). Marcuse later on concurred, noting that the love for life made modern man view political freedom [as..] liberation of the individual[..] from politics over which they have no effective control. (Marcuse ODM Ch. 1). These great thinkers were essentially suggesting that people don't want to fight, they want to be cows and avoid all risk. They enjoy what mass society provides for them, even if it only creates a decent life and not a good one.

Many people like the author want to live this life. It is fun to carefully analyze the world by reading, studying, and probing. Arendt's notion life of the household is all about this life, hiding from the public eye. Such a life would be desirable, except for it's lonely and meaningless. This drives us to write, debate, and attempt to influence in the public realm. When you step in the public realm you do it as great cost to yourself. Arendt once said: Whoever entered the political realm had first to be ready to risk his life, and too great a love for life obstructed freedom, was a sure sign of slavishness (36, Human Condition).

You could say that being both a private and public individual leads to a two-sided personality. Maybe. It seems that both characteristics are neccessary for a true individual. You must be reserved and willing to get away from the public to find truth, but you must also be willing to go out and fight the good fight Arendt looks at this conflict further in the Human Condition on Pg. 51:

Since our feeling for reality depends utterly upon the appearance and therefore upon the existence of a public realm into which things can appear out of the darkness of sheltered existence, even the twilight which illuminates our private and intimate lives is ultimately derived from the much harsher light of public realm. Yet there a great many things which cannot withstand the implacable, bright light of the constant presence of others on the public scene; there, only what is considered to be relevant, worthy of being seen or heard, can be tolerated, so that the irrelevant becomes automatically a private matter. This, to be sure does not mean that private concerns are generally irrelevant; on the contrary, we shall see that there are very relevant matters which can survive only the realm of the private.

Arendt is the polar opposite to a theorist Thoreau. Arendt is the model of the flourishing city, and Thoreau is the isolated cabin in the woods. One derives their ability to be free from freely being able to influence and persuade, while the other from having autonomy generated by self-reliance. Neither model is correct, and both can coexist. We can be autonomous through political debate and influencing others, and we can be automous through living a life in solitude without others inflicting the tight rules of civilibation.

Micheal Foucault had some valuable insights into our public life and freedom. He suggested we stop thinking of ourselves as slaves to the system, and remember that we are all inheritably autonomous and able to make our own choices. This is our inherit freedom. The state nor your car doesn't make you drive at 55 MPH. Instead, you choose to drive at that speed to avoid the displeasure of a speeding ticket. When you realize you control your whole life then you are free.

The Role of the Public Thinker

Writing is a thought provoking process, it makes you think and allows you to express. Expression is a powerful thing. Words make you feel good as when you write you finally let everybody know how you feel and how you think. Your ideas are out there for everybody to chew on. Writing also allows you to explore a process, without the limitations of speaking. When you write, you discard and change at a later point. At the same time public expression can bedangerous, as when you start moderating your thoughts, you are becoming untrue to yourself. Then again, immediate fear of the public when speaking, forces your ego to moderate.

Is writing freedom, assuming that the free speech doctrine really applies? It's the realm where you can express your opinions on anything. Maybe one is free by thinking he is—an argument not far off from Foucault. The imagination is a powerful thing...

Arendt also said in Greek self-understanding, to force people by violence, to command rather than persuade, were pre-political ways to deal with people characteristic of life outside the polis, of home and family life, where the household head ruled with uncontested, despotic power, or of life in the barbarian empires of Asia, whose despotism was frequently likened to the organization of the household.

I don't know how to emphasis how much that I agree with Arendt.that the use of coercion to gain political goals is a pre-political force: it is the anti-thesis of the modern autonomous individual that our society tries to cultivate. Society should be about influencing people to go along with it's goals, not through commanding but through persuasion.

Persuasion is a powerful tool, a person who believes in your position is far more likely to be compliant then one who is only going along with you through some form of coercion. Of course what is persuasion and what is coercion is subject to significant debate. Foucault and other's look into the microphysics of power, show that gaining compliance with various policies is more then just using raw violence. Most cases the force used in modern society is far more specific, far more tuned.