Freedom And the Purpsoe of Life; O. Cooley

FREEDOM AND THE PURPOSE OF LIFE t, 06car W. Coole, "THE DECISIVE element in the predicament of Western man in our period is his loss of the dimension of depth," WTote Paul Tillich in the Saturday Evening Post of June 14. This means, said Tillich, "that man has lost an an swer to the questions: What is the meaning of life? Where do we come from; where do we go to? What shall we do; what should we become in the short stretch be tween birth and death?" Not only has modern man no answers to these ques tions but, said the Harvard divine, he does not even ask them! He is too busy trying to control nature. His life is in the horizontal dimension. Size and number, not depth, preoccupy him. This can be seen in the routine of people's lives. We all live by schedule, and it is a schedule of activity; there is no place in it for thought. Like water striders on the sur face of a pool, we skitter about in the horizontal plane.

Lacking a philosophy of life, we just exist from day to day. Life to us is a mere spending of time, and our ambi tion is to spend it comfortably. Mr. Cooley is Associate Professor of Economics at Ohio Northern University. 19 20 OSCAR W. COOLEY Now when people lack a theory of life-of why they are here, what they should strive to do, and what they should try to become-when the present is all, the future nothing, they have no reason to prize freedom, for free dom is simply an atmosphere in which it is possible for an individual to make his future better than his past. If he does not envision or believe in a better future-if he is not conscious of having a destination, freedom is of little importance to him. It is a matter of public knowledge, says Tillich, that "everyone in our social structure is managed." Even those who think they are managers know that they in turn are managed, he says. We live under a sort of regi mentation by consent.

It is reported that AmericanGI's, taken prisoner in Korea, knew so little about the philosophy of life in a free country that they could not explain to their captors what the American dream is or how it differs from communism. Well, what are we here for? This basic question-which Tillich calls the religious question-is seldom discussed. It is almost never raised in our schools. Only the unusual lad springs it on his philosophy professor, and is fortu nate if he gets a satisfying answer. Perhaps a final answer is not to be expected. The great ness of certain questions lies in the fact that they cannot be answered. Let us consider an exploratory answer and see what consequence it might have. The athlete seeks development of physique. He strives to build his muscles and to improve his coordination.

FREEDOM AND THE PURPOSE OF LIFE 21 His thought is always on the future. He wants to playa better game, to improve both his individual skill and his team-play, which he finds inseparable. Thus his life has an absorbing object, and it is a matter of observation that youths put forth enormous effort in pursuit of this object. Improvement in All Respects Now let this object be broadened from the merely physical to the intellectual and spiritual spheres. Let the youth take upon himself, making it his central aim of life, to improve himself in all respects-physical, intel lectual, moral, and spiritual-to the utmost of his ca pacity. Let him become a truly all-round "athlete," and for life. In short, let the answer to the religious question be simply this: We are here to grow, to develop, to live more worthily day by day, according to our best lights and insofar as our knowledge and ability make this possible.

Assuming that there is behind the universe a Creator with a plan, could it be the Creator's intent that men deteriorate and that human character retrogress? If so, the plan has gone awry. Not only the biological evolu tion of man but reason itself refutes the suggestion, for what object could even the inscrutable mind of the Cre ator have in making a being only to have him unmake himself? On the other hand, could it be the Creator's intent 22 OSCAR W. COOLEY that man remain changeless, neither progressing nor ret rogressing? Study of the world of nature reveals change going on everywhere and unceasingly, and at least some, perhaps all, of this change is from the lower to the higher. In a universe characterized by progress, would the Creator have made man, his only thinking creature, static? Again,both observation and reason answer no. This leaves but one alternative, namely, that the Cre ator intends that man shall change for the better. And since the Creator has made man, as well as all else that composes the universe, and hence is vastly more power ful than man and can unmake him at will, it follows that man does well to follow this intent of the Creator and to make it an aim of his life to become a better man.

This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that man is capable of development; he has demonstrated this. Men have become vastly better men. Others have become worse. Either result is possible. The fact that a man may either develop or deteriorate impresses upon us the need of constantly pushing forward if only to keep from going backward. If this answer is accepted, the desirability, not to say the necessity, of individual freedom becomes manifest, for a man cannot improve himself to the utmost unless he has the freedom to do so. Within the bounds of re spect for the private property of others, he must have the freedom to move to any point on the earth's surface, or indeed to other worlds, in order that he may make use of the most productive resources as well as the richest cul tural opportunities. He must be free to offer his own FREEDOM AND THE PURPOSE OF LIFE 23 services or any of his own property in exchange for the goods or services of others with whom mutually accepta ble prices can be negotiated. He must be free to search the universe for truth and to speak and publish as he sees fit. He must be free to worship his own God, or not to worship at all if that be his desire. He must be free to collaborate with his fellows in doing any or all of these things, or in doing anything at all which does not di rectly interfere with the exercise of the same freedoms by any other human being. Then and only then will he be able to pursue his accepted aim of life.

Indeed, is not freedom necessary to pursue any worthy aim of life? Regimented, a person can do little except obey. And is obedience-except to God-a worthy aim of life? Libertarians complain that modern men are blind to the precious nature of freedom. Perhaps their eyes would be opened if each could be led to ask and answer for him self the great question of life: "What am I here for?"