philo 102. again.

our philo teacher asked us to write about freedom. whether man is actually free or not. the question is hard itself, and with my little or no knowledge at all of any teachings or ideas of any philosophers, i found it really really hard. my first line of thought was, if man is actually free then why is there a need for governance? man, in it's ideal sense, that is being civilized and proper, inevitably needs some sort of government for man to actually survive. because if there is none, imagine people running around doing what they want because no law or rule can hinder them from doing so. but if we consider the pre historic man as "man" then i this line of thought is wrong. but then i have to argue that the man i am talking about is the homo sapien, rational and all. but then this line of thought brings us to the question on whether man's nature is bad or good. and in this regard i have to say bad. an ungoverned world, a free world will eventually succumb to chaos and greed over power and superiority will take rule. just as what i have learned in one movie, man is one of the rare species that kills their own kind. and that is very much true, and not only man can kill another man physically, but emotionally and mentally as well. but that's another topic. but then this line of thought limits the question. this line of thought is not suited for a philosophizing student. i need a more abstract or a more philosophical line of reason to be able to get a higher grade. paksit. ok. this one philosopher, i forgot his weird name, says that man is absolutely free because one can be who he wants to be and do what he wants to do. he countered the argument that if a person cannot get across a huge rock and go through it even if he wanted to, that his freedom is not hindered by his incapacity to get across the rock, his freedom is not curtailed but it is just there. and another thing mentioned is that if a person wants to change his/her identity totally, he can and no one can stop him/her. yes it is possible, by changing ones identity and forgetting his/her past entirely, he can. but that would take a lot of effort and only a few has done it so completely. if man is actually free to do this so, then we should be able to do this naturally and effortlessly. a person would undergo extreme emotional and psychological pain if he tries to change identity completely. he/she will undergo painful withdrawal from oneself and that is unnatural and beyond our natural capabilities. if man is actually free then we should have the natural ability to do this so. and because this phenomenon is beyond our natural limitations, then i guess man's freedom is limited. we are not free also because we act in accordance to our environment. we act because our attitude and way of thinking tells us so. because our pasts influence us in many ways. our actions should be in line with our immediate surroundings and if we act otherwise, then we become deviant. and to be a deviant in a society is a taboo and is beyond our natural being as man. the argument that we are free because we can break any rule or law if only we wanted to brings me to the point that even if we break a law, that doesn't constitute that we are free, because we may have broken a law but that is only because our being and state of mind tells us so. maybe our past and our attitude is fit enough or have reason enough to do so. we are bounded by our own biases, where we live, how we think, our society, how we were brought up...etc. this factors determine who we are and we cannot do or think in a totally different way even if we wanted to. but then just as in any philosophy subject, maybe everything that i have just written is rubbish.