Today one of my professors handed back an exam I turned in last week. After class, she told me that, in 20 years as a professor, she's only encountered one other student who writes as well as I do. Maybe she hasn't had too many strong students, but it's still a great complement.

I've never really shared any of my academic writing, so I thought I'd post one of the essays from the exam so that, if you're interested, you can get a taste of the intellectual side of my writing. This essay is a reaction to a neurosurgeon named Delgado who argued that an individual's freedom is determined by his/her eduction and abilities, and it ends with a very biblical point. My essay is also pretty long, so I won't be offended if you don't read it.

Explore Delgado's concept of freedom and discuss its implications for freedom.

Peter Plump stands in front of the towering candy rack, indecisive. His eyes dart between boxes of Snickers and Three Musketeers bars. His chubby fingers twitch as he salivates and licks his red lips. Fluffy nougat or sweet caramel? He greedily takes one of each and waddles to the cashier.

According to Delgado (1983), Peter's ability to make a free choice is not a property inherent to his mind. It requires appropriate training and experiences, and it involves three important processes: reception of information, internal processing, and behavioral output. Free choice is restricted when information is limited or distorted, brain function is altered, or expression is limited by an outside source (e.g., punishment). This essay will argue that acceptance of these three points necessitates an ethnocentric, qualitative understanding of freedom that minimizes the importance of subjective experience.

In order to understand Delgado's conception of freedom, consider what happened to Peter Plump after he bought his candy.

Peter could hardly contain his excitement. As he exited the store and wandered aimlessly through the crosswalk, he fumbled with his wallet and his newfound booty. He looked up and was smashed by a bus.

In the best of worlds, Peter would have (a) remembered that the street outside the store is always busy, he would have (b) been paying attention to the noise that signaled a bus was approaching, and he would have (c) been able to jump out of the way of the bus. It cannot be ignored that similar limitations are present for everyone. No one has access to all the relevant information all the time. Whether due to ignorance, inattentiveness, or a fascist government, it is simply impossible to attend to all the information relevant to any choice. People never have access to their full capacity for brain function: there are always historical events (e.g., injury) and current circumstances (e.g., stress) that impede or alter brain function in some way. People never have full access to every possible behavioral option due to constraints in weather, location, health, skill, and other factors. So based on Delgado's understanding of freedom, the traditional, dichotomous notion of freedom is illusory. Consider the following syllogism.

(a) Delgado's freedom requires access to omniscience (all information) and
omnipotence (maximized brain power and behavioral options).
(b) Delgado is not omniscient or omnipotent.
(c) Therefore, Delgado is not free.

According to Delgado, then, the traditional dichotomy must be rejected in favor of a qualitative, or continuous, model of freedom. In such a model, people have varying degrees of freedom: most people have at least some freedom, but the freedom of all is limited by various circumstances to differing degrees. Those with the most information, brain function, and behavioral options are the most free. Those with the least are the least free. With enhancements (e.g., education) in any of the areas, an individual enjoys more freedom. With degradation in any area, an individual enjoys less.

This idea that freedom is limited by available information, brain power, and behavioral options is not an entirely new idea. In The Republic, Plato said that most people are sequestered in a cave, chained to a wall, and are deceived into believing that the shadows projected on a wall are representative of reality. If these people are to ever learn of true reality, the learned philosopher must free them from their bondage by educating them and showing them the truth about the world. Many years later, John Locke extended Plato's ideas with his doctrine of tabula rasa, which argued that people can only know (and therefore act) inasmuch as they have experienced. Freedom comes from the options that stem from increased knowledge. The parallels between Locke, Plato, and Delgado are strikingly similar, and ultimately, they all lead to the same place: the ethnocentric argument that the most educated members of society have the highest quality of freedom.

To his credit, Delgado does attempt to defend the potential of the uneducated to create their own freedom. He suggests that the human mind can create a sort-of 'feedback loop,' whereby it begins to influence itself over and above the influence of the environment (education). This would perhaps offer some hope of freedom for the uneducated—if not for logical analysis. Delgado surprisingly fails to recognize that such a loop would only be as free as the brain that created it. So long as he continues to argue that humans are limited by their educations, he will have to recognize that the feedback loop is equally limited. Consider a syllogism.

(a) Delgado's brain created a feedback loop that influences Delgado's behavior.
(b) Delgado's education shaped Delgado's brain.
(c) Therefore, Delgado's education shaped Delgado's behavior.

A man who was raised under Franco's regime in fascist Spain and then educated in the Ivy League, Delgado is more than qualified to discuss the limitations that can be imposed on freedom. In his homeland, the government limited both information and behavioral options, and he could, undoubtedly, see what his comrades were missing while he was being educated at Yale. Compared with those in other parts of the world, his countrymen had a narrower range of behaviors and thoughts from which to choose, and Delgado interpreted this as a limitation. He is the philosopher. They are those who remain in the cave. He is Weiner. They are the limpets. But is this so?

If we are talking about well being, about adjustment, about mental health, even about free will, then there is no guarantee that any increase in the quantity of available behaviors and thoughts will mean a corresponding increase in wellness, in the perceived quality of freedom, or in the enjoyment of that freedom. Instead, the person's subjective perception of those options may actually be the more important factor. Consider another illustration.

The sweat dripped down Rotund Ronald's back as he impatiently tapped his foot and shifted his considerable bulk to his left haunch. He'd been waiting in the insufferable line at Fascist Fred's Candy Emporium for almost two hours for the opportunity to buy a Butterfinger bar. Rotund Ronald loved the way the crunchy toffee stuck to his teeth while the milk chocolate melted in his mouth. He was soaked with perspiration when his turn finally came, and he paid his $20.00 and left, happy as a lark.

The knowledgeable and 'objective' who shop at another store (Capitalist Karl's Candy Emporium) would suggest that Ronald was not truly free, that he was 'missing out' on the delight that could have been brought by a $1.00 Milky Way bar, but the fact remains that Ronald was still quite satisfied with his 'choice.' In this case, a better education (i.e., knowledge of cheap Milky Ways at Capitalist Karl's—where Ronald was person non grata) would have led to dissatisfaction (due to the superior taste and price of Milky Ways) with the Butterfinger that once made Ronald happy. And so the debate should not be about the quality of freedom. It should be about the satisfaction brought by it. In other words, are the freest among us those who believe their freedom is the best, or are they those who are satisfied with the freedom they have? Not surprisingly, this is not a new question. It has been discussed for thousands of years. Consider this passage from the Hebrew Bible.

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

In this Early Near-Eastern narrative, the man and the woman were only ashamed of their nakedness after they had gained knowledge of it. While freedom, diversity of experience, and wisdom are undoubtedly important to collective human progress, there is something to be said for ignorance. A simple, quotidian life can bring serenity, not suffering. Those in the cave are often happy there. The limpets feel safe on their rocks. The sight of babies peacefully sleeping does not often incite parents to sing dirges in the dark, to cry, "Oh, what tortured, trapped souls! Woe are they! We must educate them and tell them of the world!" The parents instead find a small part of them wishing they could spare their children from the troubles of the world and wishing that they themselves could once again be so carefree and serene.

Conclusion

Ultimately, Plato, Locke, and Delgado were right about the importance of education and knowledge for society, but they were wrong about their importance in life. Delgado argued that an individual's freedom hinges on her available knowledge, brain capacity, and behavioral options. Using his line of reasoning, I have sought to show that (a) all individuals are limited in some capacity, so freedom must be understood as qualitative; (b) freedom is qualitative, and so it is subject to the fickle perceptions of the individuals who evaluate it; and (c) freedom is a matter of perception, not education. Without education, freedom remains possible. Without contentment, freedom is illusory.