The Definition of Liberty, and its Relationship with Structuralism, Realism, and Ideology

The Definition of Liberty, and its Relationship with Structuralism, Realism, and Ideology Defining Liberty: Relativizing Dualism and Redefining it as Preference under Constraint We often import the image of metaphysical "perfect freedom" into our physical (phenomenal) reality. This is the primary cause of confusion in discussions of liberty. As an operational definition, I will define liberty here as "the degree to which one can realize their preferences under constraints, incurring costs." Why "Perfect Freedom" is a Fallacy Metaphysical freedom is valid as an ideal, but the physical world has physical laws, institutions, and scarcity. Thermodynamics (free energy trends toward reduction under certain conditions), the finiteness of attentional resources, opportunity costs, and trade-offs—these define the "ceiling" of liberty. Liberty ≠ Choice (Choice Has a Cost) The idea that "more options are better" is only half-true. In reality, it increases cognitive costs and simultaneously inflates the opportunity cost of forgoing other options. Therefore, liberty should be measured not by quantity, but by efficacy (how well one can realize goal-congruent preferences under constraint). Clarifying Equality By distinguishing "normative equality" (equal legal/moral treatment), "descriptive difference" (factual variance), and "unjust discrimination" (imposing disadvantages based on difference), the tension between liberty and equality becomes visible. The expansion of liberty often exposes differences, but it simultaneously demands institutional designs that suppress unjust discrimination. The Intersection of Liberalism and Conservatism (i) When liberty expands, trust and relationships are more easily visualized and deepened as capital. (ii) In arenas of choice, proven orders and customs tend to become rational preferences from a risk-minimization perspective. On these two points, liberalism is often cooperative with conservatism. Conclusion While retaining the metaphysical ideal as a beacon, in the physical world, we must design liberty through "realizing preferences under constraint," "internalizing costs," and "suppressing discrimination via institutions." When we do so, liberty is reinterpreted not as the antonym of anarchy, but as the condition under which trust and order spontaneously emerge (autopoiesis). Confusion Arises from Dividing the World in Two Mainstream Western thought divides the world into two. Broadly speaking, one is the world of God or the Platonic "world of Ideas." The other is the actual, real world. We might call this the sacred and the secular, or the metaphysical (形而上) and the physical (形而下). The very idea that the same thing exists in both realms causes various mixed blessings and problems. Fundamentally, it causes confusion. This time, I will examine "liberty" (自由) from this philosophical perspective. A Rough Sketch of Philosophy and Religion Philosophy often means modern Western philosophy, but in truth, the core of Buddhism is also philosophy. From a philosophical view, it can be organized by how structuralism (構造主義) and realism (実在論) differentiate. Buddhism, from the very beginning, is structuralism and realism. The Buddha's Dependent Origination (縁起, Paticca-samuppāda), Nāgārjuna's Emptiness (空, Śūnyatā) and Middle Way (中観, Madhyamaka), and Tiantai Zhiyi's Three Truths (三諦論, Sandì) are synonymous with structuralism and post-structuralism—that is, modern philosophy. In traditional Western intellectual history, the lineage from late Ancient Greece (Platonism) and medieval European theology are typical examples of this thinking that separates the metaphysical from the physical. Plato's thought is "Idealism" (イデア論), but a direct translation of Idea becomes "ideology" (イデオロギー). It is a concept that divides the world into reality and the world of Ideas. Christian thought also splits the world in two. One is reality, the secular world. The other is where God exists, a vague, ethereal image of a world like Heaven, above the clouds, separate from reality. For now, let us call the Platonic world of Ideas or the realm of God "metaphysical," and the world, society, and secular realm we inhabit "physical." In Modern Philosophy, Metaphysical/Physical Dualism is Obsolete In modern philosophy—which is both the cutting edge and the terminus of modern Western philosophy—we do not divide the world in two like religion or Plato. Or rather, if we do, that viewpoint itself is "relativized" (相対化) as just "one possible way of seeing." This is organized through post-structuralism, structuralism, and realism. The Traditions of Real Society Run Deep No matter how non-dualistic the content of modern philosophy or Buddhist enlightenment (Satori) may be, dualistic concepts tend to dominate us, consciously or unconsciously. Modern philosophy and Buddhism are both too elite and distant from the common people. (This is true of all philosophy, ancient and medieval, and society is more or less hierarchical regardless.) ...Interestingly, "primitive communism" itself belongs to the metaphysical realm. We Live Under the Influence of Both Realms, but Fail to Separate Them In ordinary life, regardless of culture or ethnicity, we probably employ dualistic thinking and unconsciously use both metaphysical and physical thought. We mix them together rather than separating them as different things. We may do this because separating them is just a hassle that creates more work, and mixing them is more convenient; separating them may even be a disadvantage. But Dualism is a Source of Confusion While monism and pluralism can also cause problems, I will try to articulate the problems that are conspicuous in dualism, using "liberty" as an example. Dualism Assumes Certain Objects Exist in Both Worlds Dualism often assumes that the same things exist in both the metaphysical and physical realms. The metaphysical and physical are completely different places, so the things that exist in them could be separate... but we tend not to think that way. (Perhaps if we separate them completely, the metaphysical realm would be cut away by Ockham's Razor.) The problem is the problem, if you make it one. For example, if we treat God, angels, and demons as beings existing only in Heaven or Hell and unrelated to reality, things are simple. But the Western God influences the secular world, not just Heaven. In the modern era, there was Deism—the idea that God created the world's system and then left it to operate on its own laws. Many people from Abrahamic religious backgrounds might think this way today. In the sense that the real world operates automatically by the system, even if God isn't "on vacation," this concept puts distance between humanity and God. The confusion here arises from how we think about things that supposedly exist in both worlds. For Example: Liberty and Equality (and its inverse, Discrimination) The handling of "liberty" is difficult, and dualism is one reason why. What is "perfect freedom"? Perhaps if one becomes God, one is perfectly free. Or perhaps one can enjoy perfect freedom upon being called to Heaven. Heaven is a metaphysical world, so perhaps "perfect freedom" exists there. However, it becomes problematic when this image of freedom is imported into the physical realm. In our ordinary lives, there is no such thing as metaphysical, perfect freedom. What is physical freedom? "Ultimate freedom" cannot exist in the physical world. We often feel restrictions in our daily lives, or feel that such restrictions are structurally irremovable. I recall that Fichte, in German Idealism, called such constraints "obstacles" (Anstoss). Instead of an absolute concept of "Freedom," it's better to imagine it as a scale, as "degrees of freedom." In the real world, even if you want to fly, you cannot just fly at will, unlike perhaps in Heaven. The System God Created Has Limits There may be no limits in Heaven, where God resides. But the real world has limits. It has systems. Physical laws are one such system. Systems and limits are interdependent. A system exists because of limits, and limits exist because of the system. It is now common knowledge, both scientifically and philosophically, that human thought is not "free." Example of Physical Limits: Scientific Laws "Choice" or "options" are often used to define freedom. "Being able to choose is freedom," or "Having many options is freedom." Needless to say, choices and options are limited. Even if we were blessed with infinite options, our minds couldn't keep up. In that sense, our own cognitive capacity (our brain, our thoughts) robs us of freedom. And the real world has scientific laws that threaten freedom. In physics, there is the concept of "free energy"—energy that can be freely used. But if there is "free energy," there must also be "unfree energy." ...Changes and transformations of energy follow laws and limits. ...The direction of natural change only moves toward a decrease in free energy, and as "free energy" decreases, "unfree energy" must increase (Energy Conservation). Example of Physical Limits: Choice, Trade-offs, and Opportunity Costs Social sciences also have forces hostile to freedom. This is the economic concept of trade-offs and opportunity costs. This concept picks a fight with metaphysical freedom. Metaphysical freedom says you should be able to get whatever you want. But economics has a terrifying principle: "To get something, you must lose something else." Economics also has the concept of "scarcity." When you are doing one thing, you cannot do another. Time is finite and scarce. It's the same when buying something. If money is finite, buying one thing may mean you no longer have the money to buy something else, no matter how much you want it. Being able to do multiple things at once or get anything you want is metaphysical freedom. But in physical freedom, it doesn't work that way. Physical Liberty I suspect that "physical liberty" cannot actually be defined [as an absolute]. Aren't most people just vaguely applying the feeling of metaphysical freedom to the physical realm and chanting "liberty, liberty"? If you overlay this with the definition "choice is freedom," the concepts of opportunity cost and trade-offs are bitterly ironic. Choosing what you like from several options may be freedom, but it simultaneously means you are losing a massive amount of other freedoms (the options you didn't choose). This is a paradox. Incidentally, Equality (and its inverse, Discrimination) "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" was the slogan of the French Revolution. Equality, like liberty, seems to suffer from a similar ambiguity. ...Physical equality and discrimination, just like physical liberty, are difficult to define. Liberty = Liberal? In politics, society, and economics, the word "liberal" has become almost meaningless. As noted earlier, freedom is always accompanied by "unfreedom." Something's, or someone's, freedom is something else's, or someone else's, unfreedom. Everyone just shines a spotlight on what is convenient for them and calls it "liberty." I went through a phase of being an extreme libertarian (small government, low taxes, free-market economics). I still view half-hearted liberals with skepticism. For example, the debate over separate surnames for married couples. From my perspective, I look at it tepidly, thinking, "Why not advocate for abolishing surnames entirely, or letting people choose any name they want?" ...I have since distanced myself from extreme economic liberalism for self-preservation. If absolutely everything became "free," I believe only a tiny fraction would remain at the top, and the rest would sink to the bottom. If you pursue freedom to its extreme, you end up in the situation Sartre called being "condemned to be free." How one views humanity becomes a fork in the road for social thought. If you assume "inherent evil" (性悪説, Xing'e lun), you impose external regulations and enforce them with rewards and punishments. On the other hand, if you assume "inherent goodness" (性善説, Xingshan lun), you can have a vision of society spontaneously generating order intrinsically, by trusting people. In the Eastern cultural sphere, the "inherent goodness" view won, so the Confucian system... became the state's foundation. This connects to the idea that humans, left alone, can create their own order and stable society (self-governance). This is the exact opposite of Hobbes' Leviathan. If you assume risk and "inherent evil," a game-theory-based risk-minimization strategy is best. If you trust in humanity and believe a peaceful utopia can be self-generated, a profit-maximization strategy (like the "three-way satisfaction" of the Ōmi merchants) is best. Liberty Does Not Necessarily Mean a Breakdown of Order It's a strange thing, but while there are ideas and historical events where freedom leads to a breakdown of order, there are also cases where granting freedom leads to the spontaneous emergence (autopoiesis) of self-governance, establishing order and stability. ...Furthermore, conservative thought (保守思想) holds a special meaning within liberty. Idealistic, revolutionary concepts for a new nation are one part of liberalism, but precisely because we are free, existing traditions and established facts—things that already have some guarantee of order and stability—become extremely valuable. ...Revolutions that seek a return to a past system tend to be more successful than those that chase a new, unrealized ideal. In Short: Liberalism is Compatible with Conservatism on Two Points Liberalism is often thought to be aligned with progressivism, but from another angle, it has aspects compatible with conservatism. To summarize: Human goodness, trust, and relationships can be surfaced or deepened by liberty. Precisely because one is free, existing things, traditions, and conservatism hold a special meaning when choosing, compared to abstract, unrealized ideals. Summary When we hear "freedom," we might imagine a Hobbesian Leviathan world like Fist of the North Star or Mad Max. In some historical contexts, that is plausible. ...In situations with external friction or war, external rule of law and regulation become crucial, like military law. On the other hand, in a state of freedom, it can be more advantageous to view others as allies rather than enemies, strengthening trust, relationships, and repeating altruistic actions. You could call this an intrinsic or endogenous ethic or morality. This is more advantageous for maximizing benefits, creating trust (credit creation), and generating compounded happiness, welfare, and technological progress in a peaceful environment. ...Today, our weapons are devastating; we have nuclear weapons. Prince Shōtoku said, "Harmony is to be valued" (和を以て貴しとなす). We have advanced... Perhaps from now on, we should design societies where humans can trust one another... especially since we now have new technologies like IT, AI, and quantum computers that surpass the human brain.