“We were never more free than during the German occupation. We had lost all our rights, beginning with the right to talk. Every day we were insulted to our faces and had to take it in silence…and because of all this we were free. Because the Nazi venom seeped into our thoughts, every accurate thought was a conquest. Because we were forced to hold our tongues, every word took on the value of a declaration of principles…”
Is he correct? Why or why not?
2007-12-13 00:05:03 · 2 answers · asked by Law & Society 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Sartre often spoke of ''awful freedom," adding that we are ''condemned to be free." He meant that freedom is part of what it is to be human even if we are in bondage. Sartre's notion of freedom:. "Freedom itself is not free. We are compelled to act freely; there is no way to avoid being free." In his view, much of human life is a struggle to avoid the burden of such awesome opportunity.
In a strange way, I can agree with him. We, being free, seek out groups, seek inclusion. Instead of exercising our freedom, we seek to trammel ourselves with the ideas, ideologies of others. When we become disillusioned with these, we feel guilty....we feel that something must be wrong with us, that we must be different, and so we seek out others who feel the same, and enter another group. Strange....compelling.
Thanks...really made me think.......
2007-12-13 00:59:29 · answer #1 · answered by aidan402 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
This is all about perspective.
Until any of us have been in that position, we don't have a right to say whether his conclusion was right or not. I think it is touching that he could take such a perspective. It takes a good deal of strength to have that kind of courage in the face of adversity.
2007-12-13 08:24:55 · answer #2 · answered by Yun 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋