The reason for protecting freedom is partly that it is related to the autonomy of citizens. Citizens have to be more autonomously thinking of their communities, for instance coronavirus pandemic questioned democracy as the world got more centralized without citizens’ autonomy. For example, not denying their request to public funding, it is not so much desirable to be dependent on government. Provided independency from government in domain of art should be maintained for some artists in the long run. Or when crisis comes, it is not the case that all the assistance is provided by government, instead autonomous cooperation of citizens should be cultivated. Asking for the government to provide support can take time and it is not sure if that is truly done, the alliance of the citizenry can be one of the polars that helps them. Having said that, making demands against government is also one option. When it comes to pandemic, the communities should think about governance, autonomy, and the like. This is not to waste a period of history in which the earliers have faced difficulty. On autonomy, it doesn’t make sense if people do not make action unless authorities give orders to them. The community they create which for example supports the businesses which is at stake when crisis comes, or provides, even if it is somewhat, support from the citizens of the same community helps the community to get through the difficult period. What is supposed here is that some businesses may not get affected than others, they help others. This kind of support among the citizenry can generate resilience and robustness.

Autonomy is essential to create the democratic culture. Citizens should think by themselves to accomplish the desirable society. Though some would be reluctant to make action, at least enough people need to participate in politics if society makes their politics participatory. While putting importance in the autonomy of citizens, some would feel more comfortable to be obedient towards their society, that means that they would not much prefer to make actions. And it is not always necessary to make it participatory or active as far as the ways through which some who are eager to claim their political opinions can have access to their politics are ensured. To put it different way, people who do not prefer to be active in politics are not denied access to politics, they just choose not to actively make action at the moment, but having their access in their hands. Securing the sphere in which one is autonomously live in their lives would counter against the moments at which authority excessively attempt to exercise their power into the lives of people. In order to prevent the abuse of power among the few, autonomous groups with their freedom protected need to freely act so that a few groups of power which want to hold their interests don’t abuse their powers for their private interests. As for the authority given to those who are in power, they have responsibility to the decisions they make, on social institutions, “even if rights and powers giving some people a measure of control over others must be a feature of any plausible system of social institutions, the way in which these rights and powers are distributed is one of the features of social institutions that is most subject to criticism and most in need of justification”(1). Benefit of freedom is not to impose coercive pressure on its citizens, and let them have space to practically behave in their wishful way. The sphere of free is wider, the sphere in which persons can act is secured.

While many believe that freedom is one of the fundamental domains that should be protected, we need to be aware of the aspect of freedom that it is not absolute. It is not what can always be prioritised over others.

Here, we take into consideration the contingent nature of freedom. This nature of contingency upon others is what I shed light on. This contingency of freedom upon others is closely tied with the fact that we live in society where other people also live. This fact of living together with other people have certain effect on the exercise of one’s freedom. Just because people recognise the importance of protection of freedom doesn’t mean that each of us can exercise their own rights and freedom in whatever manner they want. There are cases that one should care about others when they exercise their freedom, that is to say, freedom needs to be taken consideration in the relationship with others.

The following example concisely describes this type of situation. The contingency of freedom is described by Lawrence Lessing in the following example: “I may have a house on a farm. Imagine that every year, I have a large and loud birthday party. But imagine that, partly to pay for those parties, every year I sell off plots of land on my farm. And imagine that eventually all I have is my house, surrounded by lots of other houses”(2). He continues that “That change may have restricted the freedom that I formerly had”(3). Since selling off the parts of land makes closer the distance with neighbours, the landowner mentioned above needs more likely to care about neighbours in exercising one’s freedom. This example represents the contingent aspect of freedom.

This nature of freedom that it is contingent upon others is what triggers to look at the importance of thinking about others in society. The argument above informs us of the fact that our society is interrelated and the concept of freedom is no exception. And freedom is not what is absolutely prioritised over others. This leads to look at the development of sentiment within oneself in the later section where I focus on the concept.

There are different principles to think about freedom. One of them is the “principle of non-nuisance” which was in discussion(4). It has the element of the care about others when exercising their rights.

The harm principle includes the standard whether it causes harm to others or not and it cares the relationship of one’s act with others. It is described that “the principle of harm: I am at liberty to move my hands until I hit my neighbour’s nose, at which point I cause her harm and therefore am not at liberty to proceed”(5).

The more civilised, the rules are piled up in the societies which narrows the actions of the people. Although human beings don’t have to try to forget the lessons that they learned from the past history, we don’t have to comply with all the rules that are continuously established, beyond necessity. It could lose flexibility, agility, and capacity of innovation from ourselves.

A progress originates in the sphere in which one can expand the conventional norms and cultures, and one should focus on the progress which brings about the happiness of persons, rather than the one which brings, for example, wealth to certain groups of people in the same community.

Besides, to preserve the free sphere in which the rigid conformity doesn’t affect, it lets people to develop individuality. It contributes in the way that “In proportion to the development of his individuality, each person becomes more valuable to himself, and is therefore capable of being more valuable to others”(6).

It is when one accomplishes their target, they gain freedom, by which they can decide what they are going to do. In that case, they have a variety of possible choices. Trying to be free is still not being free, as it is bound by the forces of desire to get free. In this respect, being free gives one a hope. Freedom would be realized at least partly, when society as a whole provides diverse range of options. Not putting the same societal structure over the world, but coexisting multiple styles of society in the world.

(1) T. M. Scanlon, The Difficulty of Tolerance (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 43.

(2) Lawrence Lessig, Fidelity & Constraint: How the Supreme Court Has Read the American Constitution (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), pp. 97-98.

(3) Lawrence Lessig, Fidelity & Constraint: How the Supreme Court Has Read the American Constitution (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), p. 98.

(4) François Héran, Lettre aux professeurs sur la liberté d’expression (Paris: La Découverte, 2021), pp. 102-103.

(5) Amnon Reichman, ‘Criminalizing Religiously Offensive Satire: Free Speech, Human Dignity, and Comparative Law’, in Extreme Speech and Democracy, edited by Ivan Hare and James Weinstein (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 331-354. This is explained by Amnon Reichman in p.333.

(6) John Stuart Mill, On Liberty and The Subjection of Women (London: Penguin, 2006), p. 72.

Since this work puts more focus on the originality, the summaries of previous studies or other authors are less focused. In many academic papers, it often is seen that they make the summaries of other articles in most part and having less originality in it. The articles that are written as explanatory ones to map the theories of different authors or explain different theories in a skilful manner is helpful for readers and stimulate curiosity, but there are other articles often not much skilful. Just making summaries of other papers is less important because it is what can be understood by reading them. What I care about more in my work is the ideas based on how I look at the world and what I think about it. Since this is not what takes the form of a textbook which explains chronologically what were argued by the previous intellectuals, this writing will put more emphasis on the robustness of the ideas rather than who talked what in the past. The ideas posed are pulled into the texts by being processed in my way of thinking as how I look at the world influences the connections of ideas presented in this writing.

When it comes to the style of this work, I care about philosophy which is practical to the public and has wisdom of the previous generations. Philosophy is not merely to go into the narrower expertise, but also expanding into other domains and ages which enable to find the similar patterns. Detailed expertise in one age or one author is also helpful for reader to understand well on them, however not necessarily one has to persist in studying them. Also, using difficult words or academic words is not what can be spread to the mass. Dialogues between people which is much easier for them to understand in this sense may have helped the works to sustain.

This work is not limited to a discipline, it is related to philosophy, politics, information theory, studies on mind, linguistics, and others if any further development. It is not written to be limited to one domain but written to expand to different domains if possible. This is what this work asserts that it is not necessarily limited to one discipline which many authors do. This doesn’t mean that any work should not be written with the limitation on one discipline. Some of the works maintain its worth by that refinement and provide the insights, however all works don’t have to be limited to one discipline and it sometimes hinder the progress by that restriction. This also insists that writing freely is one of the essential goods that author can bear in oneself. The way that this work is written is to get closer to the anti-disciplinary work(1). In explaining that concept, a better example is that “drunk people look for their keys under the street lights because that’s where the lights are, but there are a lot of keys in the dark areas between the lamps”(2). Learning often makes one become disciplined, but in the meantime one needs to be anti-disciplinary to bring an invention to the world. Even the style of a work can be varied depending on author, and the kinds of format in writing is too limited at least at the beginning of 2020s, particularly in academic papers. I don’t think that I have to follow the frequently used format of academic papers to write this work, that is why I didn’t have that kind of restriction in my mind when writing.

Especially, the academic ones of the beginning of 21^st century has their restriction of narrowness too much, the detailed knowledge on one specific subject, and using academic words. It may not be written in the intention that it is to be spread to the public, but the way they are written is not favourable to the general public limits the influence of a work. People often depends on technical words when having difficulty in explaining it in one perspective, and it is understandable to use it for avoiding prolonged sentences in another, it causes the limitation of their articles. Besides, it feels that what are argued in academic disciplines doesn’t feel close to the life of the general public.

As for academic world, the works by students have to refer to the academic debates, but the ideas presented by students who proposed their ideas not referring to the academic debates of their time and the past could be innovative ideas which progress the intellectual debates of the human beings. The intellectual debates do include the academic ones as well as the ones proposed by those who work outside the academic world. It actually feels that the intellectual progresses are hindered at least in some cases in the academic world by their narrowness and conditions. I don’t even believe that we have to cite others to propose good ideas, and even if one argues that it is their original ones and comes from their thinking it cannot be completely original as we are influenced by the past which have been structured by those who were born earlier than us. Given these conditions, I felt it decreases the possibility that the academic world of the beginning of 21st century can give birth the students like John Locke, John Stuart Mill, or Ludwig Wittgenstein even though their courses often require students to read their works and they often are referred to, the style of output allowed is restricted compared with those works. Writing a work in the style of Mill doesn’t lead to a high score, citing the works of academic ones are demanded which loses individuality.

In addition, whether I have read or cited a number of articles that is commonly read by the researchers should matter a tiny bit, or I would say that it doesn’t necessarily matter whether I have read one paper or not, what matters is what I write by myself and not citing others. The evaluation of certain criteria restricts the uniqueness of a work. Proposing a new paradigm makes sometimes difficult to show evidence as the people of the former generations haven’t said in the way the one is going to make arguments or fewer ones may have said but not found by the one. Even citing or explaining the previous works of others is really required is doubtful. I write in a way that I think, and the necessity to show the works of others makes unnecessary limitation on one’s work. Although I agree that citing others strengthens the theory that I propose, is it really necessary to require it to all cases? It is more difficult to write a new than citing others which is to pull the relevant works to one’s work. Proposing own paradigm to the world requires further efforts. Focusing on the original makes the existence of oneself in the world.

Although the works written by the intellectuals of the previous generations influenced my thoughts and I am grateful for them, the original concepts proposed by them may not totally be the same in my understanding of them, in the most precise degree. That is because to be in the completely same understanding of the concepts with the authors who proposed them is not possible so much as I cannot be in the completely same positions with them. That is to say that I do not study a person, but I do focus on my perspectives on problems that the world has while connecting to interesting ideas which were written by them in the past.

(1) The concept of antidisciplinary comes from the explanation by Joi Ito. He explained it many places, one of which is Ito, J., 2014. Antidisciplinary. [Online] Available at: https://joi.ito.com/weblog/2014/10/02/antidisciplinar.html [Accessed 27 May 2023].

(2) Joi Ito explained the concept by referring to what Ed Boyden often describes in MITLibraries, 2018. Grand Challenges Keynote: Joi Ito. [Online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5F__Jqx3Nk
[Accessed 28 June 2023]. Around 5:27-. According to p. 10 of Ito, J., 2018. The Practice of Change. [Online]
Available at: https://web.media.mit.edu/~joi/files/ito_phd_diss_v1.11.pdf
[Accessed 11 May 2023], Ed Boyden “often refers to the famous adage that the American philosopher, Abraham Kaplan, talks about as ‘the principle of the drunkard’s search'” and “Boyden talks about the need to create flashlights — metaphors for the tools he and his team are designing and building — to facilitate a search for keys that have fallen in the dark areas between street lamps”.