Are we really free, though? (Copy)

Escape from Freedom: Erich Fromm
(1940)
Fromm distinguishes between 'freedom from' (negative freedom) and 'freedom to' (positive freedom). The former refers to emancipation from restrictions such as social conventions placed on individuals by other people or institutions. This is the kind of freedom typified by the existentialism of Sartre, and has often been fought for historically but, according to Fromm, on its own it can be a destructive force unless accompanied by a creative element - 'freedom to' - the use of freedom to employ the total integrated personality in creative acts. This, he argues, necessarily implies a true connectedness with others that goes beyond the superficial bonds of conventional social intercourse: "...in the spontaneous realization of the self, man unites himself anew with the world..."
In the process of becoming freed from authority, we are often left with feelings of hopelessness (he likens this process to the individuation of infants in the normal course of child development) that will not abate until we use our 'freedom to' and develop some form of replacement of the old order. However, a common substitute for exercising "freedom to" or authenticity is to submit to an authoritarian system that replaces the old order with another of different external appearance but identical function for the individual: to eliminate uncertainty by prescribing what to think and how to act. Fromm characterizes this as a dialectic historical process whereby the original situation is the thesis and the emancipation from it the antithesis. The synthesis is only reached when something has replaced the original order and provided humans with a new security. Fromm does not indicate that the new system will necessarily be an improvement. In fact, Fromm indicates this will only break the never-ending cycle of negative freedom that society submits to.

Fromm analyzes the character of Nazi ideology and suggests that the psychological conditions of Germany after the first world war fed into a desire for some form of new order to restore the nation's pride. This came in the form of National Socialism and Fromm's interpretation of Mein Kampf suggests that Hitler had an authoritarian personality structure that not only made him want to rule over Germany in the name of a higher authority (the idea of a natural master race) but also made him an appealing prospect for an insecure middle class that needed some sense of pride and certainty. Fromm suggests there is a propensity to submit to authoritarian regimes when nations experience negative freedom but he sounds a positive note when he claims that the work of cultural evolution hitherto cannot be undone and Nazism does not provide a genuine union with the world.
Fromm examines democracy and freedom. Modern democracy and the industrialised nation are models he praises but it is stressed that the kind of external freedom provided by this kind of society can never be utilised to the full without an equivalent inner freedom. Fromm suggests that though we are free from totalitarian influence of any sorts in this kind of society, we are still dominated by the advice of experts and the influence of advertising. The way to become free as an individual is to be spontaneous in our self-expression and in the way we behave. This is crystallised in his existential statement "there is only one meaning of life: the act of living it". Fromm counters suggestions that this might lead to social chaos by claiming that being truly in touch with our humanity is to be truly in touch with the needs of those with whom we share the world.

A New Concept of Freedom: Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks (2018)
Rabbi Sacks: Does everyone agree? Cherut is the Hebrew word for freedom. And what’s the name we give to Pesach? “Zman Cheruteinu”! The festival of our freedom! And how do we begin? “Ha lachma anya: This is the bread of affliction, today we are slaves but next year we will be free.” Okay? The Hebrew for freedom is cherut. Wrong. The word cherut does not appear even once in the whole of Tanach. In the whole of the Hebrew Bible, it doesn’t appear. This is what I want us to understand. How come post-Biblical Judaism invented a new word for freedom that doesn’t exist in the whole of the Biblical literature? Anyone know what the word “charut” means? It’s the only time this root [chet-raish-taf] appears in the whole of Tanach. Do you remember? Does anyone know where charut appears in the Bible?
Audience Member: Charut al ha’luchot?
Rabbi Sacks: Charut al ha’luchot: The first set of tablets that Moses gave US, Moses was as good with tablets as I am with washing up. As you know, he dropped it, [laughter] never upgraded to the dishwasher. The Torah says about these first luchot, [Hebrew] the tablets were the word of God, the writing of God, engraved on the tablets. The word charut is used and this is the only time this word appears in the whole of the Tenach and it’s engraved. Right? There is the word chered with a det instead of a taf. Does anyone know where that appears in the Bible? Anyone? In chet ha’egel [the story of the Golden Calf]. Aaron took the gold and carved it using a chered, an engraving tool. It is possible, you remember when Moses started bringing the plagues and all the Egyptian magicians started trying to do the same. (What schlimeels!) Oh you can turn water into blood? So can we! If they can turn the blood back into water, then that would have been sensible. What is the Hebrew word for those magicians? Chartumei Mitzrayim! And it very well may be that the word chartumeicomes from the same Hebrew root. They were the people who could engrave hieroglyphics and read those engravings.
So it turns out that the word charut / cherut doesn’t appear in Tanach at all! But a similar appears meaning to engrave. Okay? Now what does that have to do with freedom? Tell me, anyone know what the word is that the Bible uses for freedom? (The same word appears in Hatikva (Israel’s national anthem) liyot am…?
Audience: Chofshi!
Rabbi Sacks: Chofshi, right! So have a look in the source, where are we? Bottom of the page. When Moses comes to gives the detailed laws of the Ten Commandments., obviously the first thing he’s going to talk about is how do you treat slaves? We’ve been slaves, how do we treat slaves? And the Torah says [Hebrew source] if you have a slave then he should serve you for six years in the seventh he shall go out free. Alright? So the Biblical Hebrew word for freedom is not cherut it’s chofshi.
And that is exactly what Naftali Herz Imber wrote in the Hatikvah. “Liyot am chofshi be’artzenu”. Now tell me, why did the Rabbi’s not call Pesach, “zman chofshenu”? When a slave goes free, what does that freedom consist of? There’s no need to order him about, he can do what he likes. In fact, chafesh and chafetz probably mean similar. Lachafotz means to want to do something. So if you’re chofet, meaning you have chofesh, you have freedom to do whatever [Hebrew].
So, that is what a slave gets, there is no-one to order him about, and he can do whatever he likes. Let me ask you a question. Is a society in which everyone can do what they like a free society? What do you think?
Audience: [inaudible]
Rabbi Sacks: A balagan – a mess. Okay, so, you understand – when the Talmud uses the word chofesh, it’s talking about individual freedom. It’s talking about the freedom a slave gets when he goes out but it’s not talking about a free society. To have a free society there has to be some basic order. The Talmud describes at the end of the book of Judges “bayamim hahen…” In those days there was no king in Israel, there was no national government in Israel, everyone was free to do whatever they liked. That was a condition of chaos. And I’m convinced that Chaos Theory was to describe Jewish life actually. This is tohu ve’vohu But chofeshspeaks of individual freedom, not of collective freedom. So what do you need for collective freedom?
Audience: Laws?
Rabbi Sacks: Laws! That is exactly why Pesach is followed by Shavuot. As part of their freedom, there had to receive the law. Because without that, there’s going to be chaos instead of a free society. Now when you and I read the story of the giving of the law, I read that as a pretty free offer, yes? Look, before God reveals Himself, the Ten Commandments you’ll read in Exodus, Chapter 20. Exodus Chapter 19, God says to Moses “Go and tell the people, this is My offer. You have seen how I brought you out on eagles wings and drawn you close to Me, and now if you wish, and accept, you will be as to Me a segulah mikol ha’amim, a very special, treasured people to Me. You will be [Hebrew] a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” And he tells Moses, “See if they agree!” And the text says the people say (yachdav) all together, “Whatever God says, we will do.”
And again, after the revelation at Mount Sinai, the Ten Commandments and the detailed legislation, look at Exodus 24 “and again Moses repeats the laws and they say (b’kol echad) with one voice “Whatever God says, we’ll do.” and a third time, ‘Whatever God says, na’aseh v’nishma, “we will do, and we will obey.” So to me, that sounds like a pretty free acceptance of the law. Does anyone know the Rabbinical commentary on Mount Sinai? Do you remember the story? The Rabbi says (this is a gemara in Shabbat) that acceptance of the law by the Israelites was completely free. And this is how God proposed the deal. He lifted up Mount Sinai – suspended it over the Israelites and said “if you agree and accept the law, fine, if not whoops, there goes the mountain and this will be your burial place.” And even the Rabbi said “what kind of freedom is that?”
Now, to square the Biblical view of what happened and the Rabbinical view of what happened, you have to work out the following. God did not impose the law on the Israelites but were they really free to refuse? Where were they? They were in the middle of the desert and Waze had not yet been invented. No google maps, no homeland, no security, they’re entirely dependent on God and His pillar of cloud and pillar of fire and protecting them. How free were they at the time to say “Goodbye God, it’s been nice knowing you, thanks for getting us out of Egypt but from here on, we’re on our own.”
So the Rabbi says that was not a real free acceptance of the law. Moses renews the covenant. That’s what the book of Devarim is about. Forty years on, with the next generation, and he renews the covenant, were they free when they accepted it at Sinai? The answer is still not quite, because they hadn’t yet crossed the Jordan, they hadn’t yet entered the land, they hadn’t yet conquered the land. They didn’t really know it was theirs. They weren’t entirely free. They needed God’s help and they couldn’t really say no. What was the first moment that they could have accepted the covenant and been absolutely free, given the choice? What was the first moment? What has to happen first? They had to cross the Jordan, they had to enter the land, they have to win their battles. Are they there? When is the first moment they are free to actually say “Yea or nay?” The answer is after the conquest of the land. After the conclusion of Joshua’s career as a leader. And this text, that Rav quotes, is from the last chapter of the book of Joshua.
And I want you to look at it very carefully because it’s a really, really extraordinary passage. When we go back to this, Source 5, yeah. Joshua reminds the people of this long journey they’ve taken since the days of Terach, the father of Abraham, and long ago your fathers worshipped other gods … until Abraham and so on and so forth. And now, can you see the next paragraph, “Now fear the Lord,” can you see that? Now fear the Lord, and serve Him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your forefathers worshiped beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites…”
In other words, you’re free to choose. Either follow Hashem or you can follow the that Terach worshipped, or the gods of the Amorites. Totally free choice. What did the people say? Do you see it in the next paragraph? Then the people answered “Far be it from us to forsake the Lord to serve other gods, It was the Lord our God who brought us out of Egypt from the land of slavery, etc. etc. We too will serve the Lord for He is our God.” What does Joshua say? Joshua says to the people, Forget it, you won’t be able to serve the Lord. “He’s a holy God, He’s a jealous God. He will not forgive your rebellion and your sins. If you forsake the Lord and serve foreign gods, He will turn and bring disaster on you and make an end of you, after He has been good to you.” It’s tough being a Jew. Forget it, you know, there are easier options out there. But the people said to Joshua, “No, we will serve the Lord.” Then Joshua said, ” You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen to serve the Lord.”
I never read anything more discouraging in my life. “Do you want to serve the Lord? No forget it. It’s a hard option. You do? No. Please, don’t.” And he tells them “You’re free to go.’ And they say “No we will serve the Lord.” And he tells them again, and again and again. And for Rav, this was the first moment of freedom. The first moment where they had the law but they accepted it voluntarily because they could have walked. They had the land, the won the victory, they didn’t need God anymore. They could have walked but they said no. That, for Rav, is when freedom begins. The story that began even before the birth of Abraham when idolatry was used to justify hierarchical societies in which some were rulers and others were slaves, that story only ends, not in the days of Moses but when the Israelites finally achieve their own land, and God has fulfilled every promise He gave them and now Joshua says, “Now, do you really want to serve the Lord?” And gave them every chance to walk and they say “No, we want to serve the Lord.” So that is why Rav is giving this vast perspective
But let me ask you a simple question when it comes to obeying the law, are we really free to obey the law? I mean, you know… do you see this issue? I mean … in the end, without freedom we have no law but we didn’t actually opt to make the law. So what does freedom exist in? Now, suppose that you really understand why the law is as it is. Because you took … how many people studying law this room? I cannot believe there is only one Jewish lawyer here [laughter] two Jewish lawyers?! … This is what call an all-time low! I only became a Rabbi, not to be included as a lawyer. [laughter] Now, if you understand the story behind the law, and if you understand the law itself because you are a lawyer, then there is an alignment between what the law is and what you know it has to be. It’s not something externally imposed on you, but it’s something that flows from your understanding of the history of what brought us here and why, given that history, the law has to be the way it is. Are you with me?
Now, I want you to just explain to me … let’s get back to this word charut, yes? Which means “engraved.” There are two ways you can make an inscription; you can write it with ink on paper or parchment or you can engrave it in stone. What’s the difference between those two things?
Audience member: One fades.
Rabbi Sacks: Pardon?
Audience: One fades away.
Rabbi Sacks: One of them fades, the ink is different to the parchment. It’s something added to it, it’s on the surface which means it can be rubbed out. Whereas an inscription that is engraved is not an additional imposition of a new material from the outside, it is of the stone itself and it’s engraved into the stone so it can’t be rubbed off. And engravings last much longer than any writing under normal circumstances. Engraving doesn’t add anything external, it becomes something internal to the stone. And that is what the Rabbis understood as the supreme metaphor for the Jewish relationship to freedom under the law. If we understand why the Torah is as it is, why it has those laws about releasing slaves, (don’t forget slavery wasn’t abolished, in America, until 1865 though a Civil War). It takes a lot of time to abolish slavery, but almost all the laws in the Torah for which a reason is given, the reason is “because I brought you out of Egypt”.
So you understand why the law is as it is. And you understand that out of your own experience and therefore the law is not something alien to you. It is something that is engraved in you, within your heart, within your mind, and that was the metaphor that led the Rabbis to coin this new word for freedom. If you have a look at the Source 13. Ve’omar, says the Mishna in Mesechet Avot… [Hebrew] that’s the quote from Exodus. The tablets were the Word of God and the writing of God, engraved on the tablets. Don’t call it engraved, call it freedom. [Hebrew] Because the only real freed human being is one who studies Torah. Meaning, somebody who understands the law and has made the law part of his own or her own self. Because you’ve internalised it, because you can see the history behind it, because you can see the logic behind it. The people who experience slavery should never create a society in which those bad things can happen again.
Once that was engraved on you, and within you, then your will and the law are one and you’re obeying the law but you are obeying it freely.
Now there is a history in this. And I want you to just have a look here in Jeremiah chapter 31. If you look at Source 15, it’s a very, very interesting and important passage. The reason that Jews don’t read this passage very much is because it’s actually a key text in mainstream Christianity so Jews kind of kepaway from it. Anyone knows what the New Testament is in Hebrew? Brit Chadasha Exactly. This – There’s only one place in the whole of Tanach where that phrase occurs and it occurs here. So we’re going to read this. Can you see this, read it in Hebrew or in English. “I will make a new covenant with Israel.” What is it? “It won’t be like the covenant I made with them in Egypt when I had to schlep them out! I had to schlep them out, they didn’t want to leave and every time I gave them the law, they broke it. It won’t be like that… This will be the covenant that I will make with Israel…I will give my Torah within the law, in their minds, in their souls, And I will inscribe it on their hearts… and then I will be their God and they will be My people in total freedom.” etc. etc.
That is what Jeremiah is saying. That the whole time the Israelites kept the Torah because God gave it, and it’s outside, all that led to bad stuff. Led to rebellions, idolatry, falling by the wayside. People didn’t feel they were free within in the Jewish law. Jeremiah said the time will come when Jews will have a completely new relationship to their covenant with God, because they will study the law so much and so deeply that it will be inscribed on their hearts, engraved in their personalities and it will therefore fulfill the law because they’ll know this is going to create a free society. Are you with me? The end result was, Jeremiah of course was a prophet, when does he live? Yeah, a long time ago. He lived in the sixth century. He foresaw the Babylonian conquest, destruction of Jerusalem, Babylonian exile. Who renewed Jewish life after the Babylonian exile?
Audience: Ezra –
Rabbi Sacks: Ezra and Nehemiah, did pretty much like LSJS, UJS, and Limmud, a big education seminar, see Chapters 8 and 9 of Nehemiah, and that’s when Judaism evolved from being a religion based on kings and priests and power and became the religion we know it to be, based on synagogues and schools and shuls. An education-based religion, where the first thing we have to learn is “What is the law and why is the law?” And therefore it’s not something alien to us, it’s something inscribed within us. And it’s very interesting that in the first century, Josephus says the following: Can you see Source 16, he’s not referring to any of this Rabbinical stuff, but he says “Should any one of our nation, be asked about our laws, he can repeat them as readily as his own name. The result of our thorough education in our laws from the very dawn of intelligence instead they are as it were engraved on our soul.”
Now, look at this. This is an extraordinary concept that reaches its final fruition with the Rabbis in the third century, in other words sixteen centuries after the days of Moses, after this long historical experience of Jews, you know, semi-keeping, and then lapsing and then losing and being sent to exile and finally understanding what Moses was saying right at the beginning. Which is number one, every year, tell the story. So you never forget who you are, where you came from and what battles you had to fight along the way. Number two, (Veshinantam lefanecha) instruct your children. Whether they chacham, rasha, tam, me-shein yode’a lishol it doesn’t matter which of the four kids they are, educate the children so that those laws will be engraved on their souls and then you will have the law governed liberty. i.e the order that comes from law, but the freedom that comes from knowing this law, given who we are and where we’re coming from had to be like this because we had to create – not a society of slavery but a society of freedom. Are you with me?
Now this is the most radical concept of freedom I know. If you are to read the famous essay that was delivered in 1957, Isaiah Berlin’s … Two Concepts of Liberty. Negative liberty, positive liberty, the negative liberty you will understand is chofesh. You know, he said, Isiah, he asked me, four days before his death, to officiate at his funeral. I tried to call him, and say “cheer up!” [laughter] Four days later, he died. But I said at his levaya[funeral] I actually said, when he was buried at Oxford, at the funeral, Isaiah Berlin’s work was a sustained commentary to the book of Exodus. Which it is. But chofesh was what Isaiah Berlin calls negative liberty. But he never developed a theory of positive liberty. Because he didn’t like positive liberty which he associated with Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Rousseau’s famous remarks in the Social Contract… which was not the kind of liberty that Berlin was interested in.