Earlier this evening I was hanging out with my friend K. We went for supper, hit some bookstores, talked, caught up; the usual. As I was driving back to her place we got on to the topic about relationships and whatnot. Her friends are getting engaged and so is she. All of my friends are in a serious relationship except one. It makes me think what's wrong with me, that I choose to be single and why I've been single for so long. It has its perks. At the moment I don't feel like going there. K said she was "envious" because I was free. What is free? I may not have a deep emotional attachment to someone that is all consuming, but I have my attachments, so how free am I other than I don't need to have another person in mind when it comes to doing things? In a sense, I'm not much freer than most people. The only free people I can think of, especially when it comes to philosophy are the Greek Skeptics. Their lack of possessions makes them free from material attachments, and their nihilism of not committing to any one thought other than that basic one. There is no such thing as freedom other than the freedom of choice and even choices are limited. If I lived like a Skeptic, or even an aesthetic on a mission of moksha or nirvana, there is an attachment to that belief that we can be free of our judgements, free from the cycle or rebirth, but we're still attached to our thoughts, and beliefs, so there really is no concept of freedom. To be ultimately free is to not make choices and be unaware of the fact that there are choices. That you just be and only be without any contemplating or reflective thought. That doesn't make sense since that's contradictory of what freedom means. What kind of freedom is there really? It doesn't exist in the pure sense of the ideal we think of when we think of freedom. It's one of those tricky universals, that are abstract, which I consider to not really exist. Even when it comes to that eg. definitions of words, but even different words have the same meaning. A perfect example of this is a crossword puzzle. You get a clue, and space is so many letters, but there are so many words you can come up with for that one clue. At this rate, freedom must be purely subjective, and the universal stems from the objectivity of this one concept we all understand, but take it to have different meanings, depending on what someone may think freedom is. To bring the discussion of freedom to an end, there is no such thing as freedom. I have more free choices because I'm single, because my choices are not solely dependent on my attachment to a person, but in a sense I'm not really free. What's a few more attachments? It's not like they'll weigh me down anymore than the limitations I set for myself right now. A truly free person has no attachments. Or maybe their attachments don't rule their life or decisions. A person who doesn't let their attachments they choose to have have some sort of influence on them has no right to have those attachments, because attachments mean sacrifices in some way or another. To avoid all attachments, would thus mean that one would be attached to not having attachments. This argument is going nowhere. No matter what perspective I take, its impossible to prove that freedom exists in a pure state.
I rest my case on freedom. It barely exists. The only freedom is the freedom to choose. I'm not free, I just have free will. That is a whole different topic. I've been thinking about Kierkegaard lately, but I dont know if enough time has passed yet that I can read it again. I take prof. Hudson's advice seriously; take a break from Kierkegaard and don't read him for a long time. I should have asked her what she meant by a long time, but I'm sure I'll know when I know.
Have a great Friday night. It's getting late, but the day isn't over. I plan to make the most of what's left of the day.