I Will Choose Freewill... (except when I cannot or should not)

Permanent Waves was a significant turning point in the music of Rush. It represented new sounds and styles the band was exploring, and it introduced shorter songs with lyrics that communicated more “literally” than previous more metaphorical or symbolic songs that had come before. Although it would be the next record, Moving Pictures, that significantly broadened their appeal and their audience, another thing Permanent Waves did was to get the band on the radio a little bit more. Let’s face it, The Spirit of Radio is a lot more radio friendly than Cygnus X-1, Book Two: Hemispheres. 

The Spirit of Radio and Freewill, the first two cuts of the album, are readily recognizable and still make it occasionally on classic rock stations. But it is a verse from another song on Permanent Waves that I want to focus on. And considering Freewill is a well-known and celebrated song among Rush fans for its insistence on determining one’s own path in life rather than let it be determined by external forces, this song on the same album might seem, at first glance, to contradict the message of Freewill. Consider this verse from Entre Nous, the opening track from the record’s second side: 

“We are islands to each other 

Building hopeful bridges

On a troubled sea 

Some are burned or swept away 

Some we would not choose 

But we’re not always free” 

We go from “I will choose freewill” to some things I would not choose, because I am not always free to make the choice I would like. Of course, it is not difficult to understand why these two passages on the same record are not contradictory. Only if one takes what I will call an “absolutist” view of the message of Freewill does it present certain problems. Rather than seeing these two songs as presenting a contradiction, it might be more helpful as understanding them as presenting a tension. 

The truth of the matter is that in some things in life, you and I have freedom of choice while in other things we simply do not. In some cases, we can do something (that is, we can exercise our will to do a particular thing), but for ethical or other reasons we should not do something. There are three different things going on here: 1) The ability to exercise freewill in some things; 2) The inability to exercise freewill in other things; 3) The ability to exercise freewill in a particular thing but choosing to act otherwise for some more important or higher good or value. Understanding these three things is what we philosophers (and others) like to call wisdom. This juxtaposition on the subject of freedom of will between these two songs on the same album suggests that Neil Peart (who penned the lyrics to both songs) understood this tension and was wise about it. 

There are different ways to approach this in philosophy. In his early work, philosopher Paul Ricoeur explored the nature of the “voluntary and the involuntary,” especially as these are manifest in the body. We live in our bodies, and it is within the body that this tension between the voluntary and the involuntary are experienced and made manifest. It is in my body that I can exercise my will to move it in ways that I want. However, also in my body I am acted upon. For example, I cannot prevent my body from experiencing hunger, but I can choose what I put into it to alleviate my hunger. 

The Stoic philosopher, Epictetus, in the Enchiridion, framed it simply by saying that in life some things are “up to us” and some things are “not up to us.” Things that are up to us are things we should concern ourselves with and things that are not up to us (things we cannot control) we should not get so caught up with them lest our lives be constantly miserable. 

In Aristotle, there is what is often referred to as the principle of non-contradiction. Simply stated: a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time or in the same respect. In terms of freedom, I cannot both be free and not free at the same time. It can be that I can be free at one time, but not free another time. So, I am free to go where I will at vacation time, but when it is not vacation time, my freedom is constrained and I have to go to work. In terms of different respects, I can be free and not free at the same time, but only in different respects. So, for instance, I may be free with respect to what I choose to do, but not free with respect to where I do it. 

In terms of the ethical life, Aristotle also said in his Nicomachean Ethics, Book 2, Chapter 9: “It is no easy task to be good. For in everything it is no easy task to find the middle…anyone can get angry—that is easy—or give and spend money; but to do this to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, with the right motive, and in the right way, that is not for everyone, nor is it easy; wherefore goodness is both rare and laudable and noble.” This speaks to that third observation above where we can do something, but knowing whether we should or how we should or to whom we should is where wisdom lies. 

Yes, we should choose freewill. It is best to determine our own lives to the extent that we can and to take responsibility for ourselves. Yet, as Neil’s words in Entre Nous suggest, whether it is in terms of human relationships and interactions (the context of the verse) or any other vast number of things, we are not always free. So much of the talk of freedom and liberty that goes on today in the United States, I fear, does not possess the wisdom of understanding the difference.