Talking about freedom is a common way to establish boundaries and thus preserve sanity in a society. Where the current levels are insufficient, talking creates a framework for a revolution to create a new system that maximizes utility. In the books The Rebel and The Politics of Experience by Albert Camus and R.B. Liang, the theme of expression of freedom is an important part of the writing. Both writers create the impression that action is the best form of expression. Action accounts for differences between two members of the same society and tests the limits in a personalized level. Camus and Liang would think that revolt is a better way to talk about freedom than talking about freedom because revolt induces direction and action.
Rebellion is a spontaneous protest. The aim of the revolt is actualization of objectives from an individual capacity. Camus is secure that the spontaneous is an integral part of expression because there is no natural instinct; the subject simply expresses the perception of the ideal form of freedom in the moment . The expression is a much better way of talking about freedom because it demonstrates the ideal form of freedom as conceived by Camus. On the other hand, a debate would merely create room for deliberation, inhibiting the process of expressing freedom and introducing political and social constructions. For this reason, an outright and uncoordinated protest is the ultimate expression of freedom because it comes in the context of individual perceptions.
Doing an action without deliberating its outcome is in the spirit of rebellion; the ultimate expression of a rebellion. Camus shows that the process of considering the implications of the law inhibits the best forms of expression . For this reason, an act of rebellion is the best way for an individual to realize their full potential because it expresses personal desire and passion. For example, if a man wants something he can only get by killing another, he commits the murder without thinking of the outcomes. Liang follows a similar theme by suggesting that deliberation is inconsequential because it installs outside perceptions . Due to the individual uniqueness, it follows that Liang holds that the best form of talking about freedom is by simply being and accumulating experiences . The outright revolt in doing actions without deliberation comes from the essence of individuality . The ideal definition of freedom has to be in the context of zero restrain, hence the untamed expression of desire in the case.
Consider the context of talking about freedom. The most important element of the discussion are likely to come from the theoretical constructions of the ideal forms of freedom. Freedom is supposed to produce specific outcomes to the society. Talking about freedom suggests that the utility of freedom is in a collective context. For example, freedom that inhibits the functionality of a society is incomplete because it is a mere reflection of a new set of rules . Liang suggests that theories are not as important as the experiences on which the theories are built. Liang goes on to suggest that a fact may be refuted as fiction if there is no evidence to support the fact . For this reason, the most important aspect of freedom is accumulation of individual experiences. For this reason, from his writing, it is apparent that Liang would oppose talking about freedom in favor of open rebellion because of the supreme position of individual expression in his thinking.
All human experiences are personal. There is no way for an individual to understand the experiences of another, hence the futility of collecting evidence from experiences. Can one person use their personal experiences to influence others in the society? Accumulation of such experiences would be in the context of one individual as opposed to the collection of people that make a society . For this reason, Liang is proposing that talking about freedom ultimately fails to consider the significant variations from one individual to the other. The implication is that the best approach to freedom is by accumulation of individual experiences and application of the experiences as the ‘facts’ on an individual level . Camus supports the view. Towards the end of the reading, he suggests that limits are only present if an individual decides to have the limits . In other words, limits are am individual construction to maximize positive experiences. Talking about freedom would mean application of limits based on experiences from others. Therefore, both writers would advocate for revolt as an ideal way of talking about freedom.
Collective interests are a major theme in the consideration of the best form of freedom. Talking is likely to create a revolution. For example, the Marxist revolutions in the likes of China and the former USSR came from application of ideal economic systems to increase the utility of local living among the target group. Camus shows that revolution means creation of a new government, or system, in place of the old system . The new governments, in his opinion, tend to install worse tyrannical rules than the old governments. For this reason, the semblance of organization in expression of dissent defeats the purpose of the revolts because it illustrates a willingness to follow new rules put in place by an incoming system.
Liang suggests that construction of gender identities sometimes violates the ideal freedom for the children. In a controlled revolution, such as the feminist revolution, new rules emerge . For example, a woman who gives in to her husband, sacrifices her career for her children or dresses to please men is not a feminist. Note that the new institution violates the potential for an individual to find happiness in the traits excluded from feminism. The excluded woman is a better feminist than those adhering to the rules because she lives by her own laws, meaning she has a higher level of freedom than her critics do. Here, it is apparent that from the perception of both writers, talking merely creates new rules in place of the old order. For this reason, the best way to express freedom is by simply revolting against the rules and accumulating personal experiences.
The concept of deliberate freedom against rational tyranny is an interesting part of the freedom expression. What is better for an individual, living in complete and terrifying freedom or living under the rule of rational tyranny? Classical political theories hold that the state of nature, the condition of complete freedom, is so terrifying the people deliberately sacrifice their freedom to the state in return for protection of freedom of higher significance. The social contract is the manifestation of talking about freedom because it entails an element of sacrifice. In this case, the writers are about the personal expression of freedom. While Camus suggests that current revolts make the world better for future generations, the most significant aspect of the debate is the relevance of the expression to the individual. Rational tyranny, an ideal outcome from taking about freedom, would be unappealing to both writers simply because of the conception of worse conditions in the application.
Connection between passion and action is critical in installing an understanding of the thought process in the two writers. The connection between revolt and action is in the simple application. It is easy to see the sources of fear for deliberate freedom in a civilized society. The deliberate freedom would be so terrifying that individual, incapacitated by fear, experience strong resentments to the current system without having the necessary courage to express their views. The result is that while there are good deliberations, the concepts of freedom are unlikely to benefit the human society . For this reason, it is far more important to have passionate application that suffer permanent paralysis from fear than induces stagnation that would affect the future generations.
The sense of anarchy in the revolts is a core part of the themes by Liang and Camus. What are the limits in revolts? In any society, there are likely to be overindulgence in individuals. The overindulgence is likely to create a barrier against the potential utility of the approach to human freedom. At the same time, even in a structured society, such as the contemporary postmodern society, deviants exist. Specific individuals break the law, engage in unethical conduct and create mayhem in their communities. The implication is that in all people, an internal barrier is likely to create limits in individual application. Camus captures the essence of the internal passion towards the end of his book by stating that freedom is an expression of love and passion . On an individual capacity, freedom is supposed to maximize happiness. Liang suggests that rational individuals, with the ‘normal’ tag, are likely to set boundaries at the point where freedom stops producing happiness and instead created pain to the individual . For this reason, the fear of an anarchist state is ungrounded because construction of theoretical framework does not account for the internal human motivations, such as a desire to experience a sense of belonging and a desire to maximize happiness. For this reason, the model of expressing freedom by Camus has maximum utility because it sets the standards to define the future of the society.