Insights and Reflections#
On the evening of January 19, 2025, I attended a debate with friends at the Lost Land Space in Guangzhou, where the topic was "Life Should Have a Track vs. Life Should Be a Wilderness." This topic itself is not in conflict but is a deliberately set opposition.
Life should be a wilderness means that life should be free, not overly constrained, even unrestrained. This sounds idealistic, a bit utopian, and has a flavor of communism. This is certainly not wrong. It must be mentioned that the pursuit of liberalism precedes many modern philosophical and political ideas—human society walks on a path of continuously seeking greater freedom. Modern human society is built on the recognition of freedom, free will, and their supreme value; denying freedom and free will means destroying the cornerstone of modern civilization, leading society into a brutal survival of the fittest, a social Darwinism that turns into a terrifying hell. Denying the legitimacy and justification of "wilderness" on a societal level is akin to committing crimes against humanity, negating the meaning of all people's existence in the world, and then "legally" depriving them of their property and even their lives.
Life should have a track means that people are in society and are actually limited, not completely free. This is also true. No one can enjoy the freedom of an individual outside of society; this kind of freedom is that of a savage, not of a social being. If life faces countless choices, or has the freedom to do whatever one wants or refuse what one does not want to do, then this person will inevitably fall into confusion, as they will face the interrogation of "the meaning of life." On a macro level, the advancement of human civilization also requires being on a certain track, and on a micro level, individual life development is also under the larger societal track. "Track" is a kind of relative freedom, a product of certain social conditions. People do not necessarily have to follow the mainstream track provided by society; they can completely switch to different tracks or even create new tracks for themselves, leading a different life. Ultimately, people cannot escape the macro track defined by social forces, just as ancient Egyptian slave owners could not step onto the track of British capitalists during the Industrial Revolution.
We are in the wilderness, and we are also on the track.
Follow-up Discussion#
After sharing my insights in the Lost Land Space group, a discussion ensued among the group members. It was great; I feel like I managed to spark some thoughts.
Yin XX Guang:
Actually, it can be said more deeply, because the earth has no wilderness anymore; all the land has owners. Therefore, a person is born into a framework.
Huang X Hua:
Freedom is a concept and a desire; whatever your demands are, there is corresponding freedom. If you have no demands, you have absolute freedom.
Adam XX Peng:
Can humans really bear the weight of freedom?
Yin XX Guang:
Freedom is freedom within order.
Di Ba XX Chan:
According to one of the ancient meanings of freedom, it is originally the "freedom" of citizens in city-states; this freedom comes with responsibility, which is different from savagery.
Yin XX Guang:
Yes.
Ka X:
Although I didn't attend the debate last night, I think if life is a vast wilderness, with lush grass and a gentle breeze, then this track is a black river of the underworld. It stretches across, with hidden paths and veins for thousands of miles. And I am like a swimming fish, feeling the earth's breath, the pulse of flowing water, drifting towards the distance. I don't know where I came from, nor where I am going.
Ling XX Martin:
Thinking too much; first take care of your health before talking about freedom. If you can't even hold your breath, can't control your heartbeat, can't self-medicate when sick, and don't understand the rules of survival, how can you talk about freedom? Coming from your mother's womb, you won't even know when you die? Blowing hot air in a big meeting can kill people!
Yin XX Guang:
Death may not necessarily be a bad thing, so why fear it~
Me:
Di Ba XX Chan: According to one of the ancient meanings of freedom, it is originally the "freedom" of citizens in city-states; this freedom comes with responsibility, which is different from savagery.
(In response to the above viewpoint) I don't quite understand ancient Greek philosophy. But as I said, freedom is freedom under certain social conditions; contemporary freedom is already different from ancient freedom. In general contexts, one wouldn't think of the freedom of citizens in ancient Greek city-states.
Historically, humanity's pursuit of freedom has certainly been consistent, but in different historical stages and specific eras, people's consensus on freedom has special differences.
Ling XX Martin: Thinking too much; first take care of your health before talking about freedom. If you can't even hold your breath, can't control your heartbeat, can't self-medicate when sick, and don't understand the rules of survival, how can you talk about freedom? Coming from your mother's womb, you won't even know when you die? Blowing hot air in a big meeting can kill people!
(In response to the above viewpoint) The debate last night actually mentioned death: since life is born on a track from birth to death, with no possibility of transcending physiological death, then why live at all? Wouldn't it be better to die directly? I think this question itself is a response to your viewpoint.
Di Ba XX Chan:
It is not consistent; the understanding of the concept of freedom is still an imported idea. It is hard to hear about the concept of freedom in Hinduism or Confucianism; even if there is, it is a relative non-mainstream discussion in the East, such as Daoism, framed in Western terminology. In mainstream Eastern thought, freedom is not a core concept.
And the modern understanding of freedom, without considering the historical development of this concept in the West, will only give rise to a mix of wild man-style moralities applied to freedom.
This article 【https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/qKGyOu_EucZLrWqu5nnS-Q】 discusses the contradictions between the understanding and practice of freedom by the previous generation of intellectuals.
Yin XX Guang:
I believe that when we question, we are not asking what the consensus is, but what freedom itself is; otherwise, there is no need for discussion, just statistics.
Since the pursuit of freedom is consistent, then we should ask what freedom actually means, rather than what freedom is believed to be at any place or time.
Update Record#
- 25-01-19