The Price of Freedom is Death

“Introduction”
What are the most fundamental aspects of Life?
Is Freedom one of them? How do we know that we have Freedom?
What will happen if someone does not have Freedom?
Will that someone’s life be meaningful? Or meaningless?
To be exact - What is Freedom for you?
“Freedom” is a concept that has been extensively debated by philosophers throughout history. It
also has unimaginable effects on every creature in the world.
Philosophically speaking, Existentialists believe that individuals have complete freedom to
choose their own values, beliefs, and goals and that they are responsible for the consequences
of their choices. This means that individuals must take responsibility for their own lives and the
direction they take and that they must also accept the consequences of their choices, both
positive and negative.
Everyone might see the similar concept as existentialists. However, some believe that freedom
is an inherent right while some believe it must be earned through struggle and sacrifice.
Here, I am going to set a philosophical basis for the postulation “The Price of Freedom is
Death.”
To start this off with, let me demonstrate this topic with a historical record that relates to it. “The
Price of Freedom is Death” is a statement said in an interview in 1964 by ‘Malcom X’ who was a
well-known black national leader and a human rights activist from America.
The ‘X’ in his name ‘Malcom X’ was replaced in his original surname ‘Little’ which was believed
to be a ‘slave name.’
Therefore, he set ‘X’ for the surname of his ancestors whom he had not had the chance to have
any acknowledgement of.
Malcom X was born on 19th of May 1925. He died of assassination by three shooters on 21st of
February 1965.
Malcom might not be familiar to us, but for America, he was a leader just as influential as Martin
Luther King Jr.
Malcom’s statement of “The Price of Freedom is Death” might be ‘too extreme’ when looking at
it through the eyes of Buddhists’ “The Middle Way.”
But my motive for writing this is to express that every single matter concerning “freedom” is
always this willingly extreme.

Objective

The objective of this essay is to describe that every matter of “freedom” always includes as a
necessity for a “human being” to make an incisive and strong extreme decision by using up all
the energy including his biological body.
To describe and emphasize this, I will use two ideas of philosophy.

(1) “Hegel’s - Master and Slave”

The first way is the dialectic of “Hegel’s - Master and Slave.”

The label of existential difference between the master and the slave is “freedom”.
“Freedom” is the symbol of a fundamental asymmetry between master and slave. (Something
which a master has a hold of but a slave lacks of)
The master has the slave fulfill his needs. However, he does not necessarily need to fulfill the
needs of the slave. In order to keep on existing as a slave, it is enough for the slave to still be
alive.
In this kind of asymmetric relation, the basis of the entire existence of the slave is merely
defined by death only.
The slave is just a living being that is still breathing.
His only requirement and quality to keep on existing as a slave is to not be dead - To still be
able to serve the master.
In this master-slave relation, every need and want of the slave is being defined by aiming at this
“living and keep on being able to serve for the master” situation only.
Hence, “Every slave can recant himself of slavery only by death (because in every other
situation, the only thing that makes the judgment is the master’s will. The one thing the slave
has control over is his own death)
Starting from now, I will be using “Being-for-Death” in this kind of enclosing “death/the end of
life” and the entire existence.
On the other hand, the existence of the master is not this “being-for-death.” The master’s
existence is not being enclosed by death. The master has already been endorsed by an
existence which is more than death/the limit of life.
The master is taken care of as if there were no limits on the natural sustenance of life. He does
not need to put effort into the natural requirements of life.
The master has the slave do the task by putting him as a medium between himself and nature.
And he consumes the food and utility that is brought up by this work done by the slave.
Hence, within the master’s existence and living, “Limit of life/the end/Death” is being nurtured
noticeably in life as if it were not one of the aspects of life as a living.
The master is the one who has the power over death. This includes that the master also has the
slave's life.
We will also look at the factors such as brutal living conditions, which force the slaves’ mind to
think about the desire for “Freedom.” The slave does not have control over his/her own
existence. So, in what way can the slave get “freedom” (freedom of slavery)? He can only be
free after deciding to give his own death as a price for his freedom. There is no other way.
The slave can see the pathway of being freed from slavery only when he decides to give his
death as a price for his existence “not being enclosed by death, that he is not a slave.”
The slave begins to be free from slavery only when he refuses his “Being-for-Death.” That is
why, in history, enslavement, colonization, any event that ends up being severely big enough.
(It would be such a joke to imagine the master and his slave sitting at a table, discussing
freedom).
We always have to keep in mind that every anti-colonial battle, however “peaceful” the method
used is, a “human” himself, will always need to be included as a mark in extremely resisting his
“Being-for-Death.”
Even Mahatma Gandhi needed to hold a “Hunger Strike.”
This is my first instance, first philosophical statement.
Every particular case for “freedom” necessarily needs an extreme decision of a human being -
“One can give the cost of not only death itself but anything even more!”

(2) The Prophet Abraham and the Authenticity

The second example I want to give is a common Christian story that can be seen a lot in
religious debates.
It is about the test made by God, Himself, to test the faith of Abraham in Him.
The story in short: God ordered Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac on the top of the mountain
in order to test his faith.
Right at the exact moment that Abraham was really going to kill his own son, God stopped him
and instead, told him to replace a sheep nearby.
The focus in this is not only the fact that Abraham was a true believer but also the “Authenticity.”
When Abraham was tested for the “Authenticity” of his faith in God, he did not have the chance
to think “God certainly will not let me sacrifice my own son, He would replace something.” but to
do it. God was genuinely asking him to sacrifice his son.
If Abraham had that thought and moved on, he would not have been qualified for this test ever
since the beginning of it.
And if Abraham was thinking that, he would not have the potential to sacrifice his son. (God will
not let me sacrifice my own son. I will not kill him at last. My son cannot die. God would not
really be asking me for this.)
If then, God will never have saved his son as he would not be recognized as a true believer. The
moment God replaced the ram with Issac was at the very last moment.
God only saved him and his son for his “Authenticity” only if he does not think about giving the
cost of “Authenticity” (his son’s life), “if it was worth it, or if it was necessary, or if it really was
possible,” and right on the brink of killing his own son. (He would have sacrificed himself if God
commanded him at that time).
“Freedom” exists as legitimacy in such a way. When an extreme decision (I will give whatever it
takes for this) for “Freedom” is made, the actual cost for it will be turned down and “Freedom”
would be gained in return.
As an example, a slave who runs away from his master, or the slaves that will revolt against
their master get the life of freedom only when they make the decision “We will give up ourselves
if we need to, if it is the last cost for this (Freedom)!”, even though they know for certain that
they will end up dying but continue doing it.
In Soren Kierkegaard’s (1813-1855) infamous book, “Fear and Trembling (1843)” a similar fact
is mentioned accompanied by - “One’s willingness to take responsibility for his/her own choices
is the essence of true freedom.”
In Abraham’s story, we can see as a metaphor that people are willing to sacrifice everything for
their beliefs such as Freedom. And Death is the most extreme cost for “Freedom.” “As long as it
is Freedom, even death will never be in vain.” This fortifies my second statement.

(3) “Writer’s perspective”

“The Price of Freedom is Death”- This statement has a particular effect on Philosophy itself.
Philosophy cannot grab this and make out an understanding at ease. This statement has heavy
effects upon Philosophy itself by making use of it for understanding because it highlights the
idea that freedom often comes at a great cost, and that individuals may need to be willing to
make the ultimate sacrifice to achieve it.
This idea raises important questions about the nature of freedom and the role of the individual in
society. It challenges us to consider whether freedom is an inherent right, or whether it must be
earned through struggle and sacrifice. It also asks us to consider the ethical implications of
fighting for one's freedom, and whether the ends justify the means.
Malcolm X's statement also raises important questions about the value of human life and the
meaning of death. It asks us to consider whether there are certain ideals or beliefs that are
worth dying for, and whether death can be seen as a form of freedom or liberation.
It has had a profound impact on philosophy because it challenges us to think deeply about
some of the most fundamental questions of human existence and the nature of freedom,
sacrifice, and morality.
In this, there are many possible pathways for Philosophy on “Freedom” - which is a separate
possibility for “human beings” - how to gain and make use of the understanding of it.
So, "Is freedom to live by death better than freedom from death by living?"
In fact, when we think logically and rationally, Freedom is one of the most fundamental rights
that cannot be limited by any means. The right to choose how one lives, even if it means
accepting the inevitability of death, is more valuable than living in fear of death and limiting
one's freedom as a result. Slave rebellion also happens in all cultures and traditions showing
that the fight for freedom from being enslaved is universal by risking their “Being-for-Death”
situation.
“Human” will get the best living life filled with the grace of “Freedom” only by an extreme act,
decision or thought upon “Being-for-Death” or letting go of it. “Being-for-Death” does not
necessarily mean “a life that is just barely living.” It means “the restriction of life, having
restriction as life, living life in the form of a piece of essence of oneself.”
In particular situations, I will use the term “Act of Freedom” for “a being extremely rejecting its
“Being-for-Death” for something as authentic as Freedom and acting extremely for it as well.
The meaning of “giving death as a cost for Freedom” is - a human being committing the “Act of
Freedom” dying in a way(conceptually) even if he survives biologically. "Act of Freedom” makes
the person performing the act itself dead in one way or another. For instance, the slaves who
accomplished in abolishing an enslavement had already been dead middle-way even if they
survived biologically. This is because they destroyed their basic existential image of “Slave” on
their own. After accomplishing this act, all the slaves were already dead (conceptually). The
result of “a free resident (neither a slave nor a master)” is only left.
And so, in the “Act of Freedom,” death (the abolishment of the whole of the basic being) is not
only included. The possibilities of rejuvenation (the construction of a new being) are also
included. This possibility is also the foundation of all the politics aiming for Freedom. “Act of
Freedom” not only contains “Death” as a necessity and a price to pay, but also involves a
“Rejuvenation” as a fee for “Death". "Human beings” are creatures that can carry out “Act of
Freedom” as a symbol of “Death” and “Rejuvenation” together as one in challenging situations.
Hence, in conclusion, I want to give a comment upon all these current situations. The trial of
condemnation of the Government’s Army Lobbyists “Your choices made you die” or “This is
nothing since you want to separate from us” upon the ethnic people dying in tribal areas are
quite the opposite for us since it is like a salute for the dead. This is all because we are
choosing with our full consciousness to give our lives as prices to pay for the same Dream
which is “Separation,” or “Freedom,” that there is no better honor than “Having our own option
for death.”
On the other hand, the parliamentary government on this day cannot achieve this honor. And
that is the reason the whole fate of it is in the hands of the War Bureaucracy. Things such as
“The Abolishment of War Bureaucracy, The Possibility of Real Freedom” will still be unthinkable
and unachievable for the parliamentary government. I will end this with a very noticeable fact.
Deaths that are of grief and sorrow are not really deaths that are not predicted. (People are
passing away everyday even if they do not want to.) The fact that people are willingly choosing
“Death” in exchange for a “Dream” and people deciding to give “Death” as a price is the true
grief and sorrow for everyone.

References
[1]. Check this link to know more about Malcolm X's historical information
http://m.amsterdamnews.com/news/2020/feb/21/malcolmx-assassination
https://www.malcolmx.com/biography

[2]. The version in the link of “Phenomenology of Spirit” is used as a reference from Hegel.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/arc
hive/hegel/works/ph/pinkard-translation-of-phenomenology.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjIkMXX-
fHoAhXg4zgGHWtqCyEQFjACegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw246H-
SbU5g_JLRNURc7bXM&cshid=1587212154552

This is how Hegel understands the asymmetry between master and slave -
"One is self-sufficient; for it, its essence is being-for-itself. The other is non-self-sufficient; for it,
life, that is, being for an other, is the essence. The former is the master, the latter is the
servant."(p.167)

This is understood as "Self-sufficiency/Being for itself" & "Non-self-sufficiency/Being for an

other".
The first is the “Free” master with the meaning of “Living for himself” and the latter is the slave
with the meaning of “Living for an other”. For Hegel, “life” or “bare life as such” is the essence of
the slave as “being for an other”.
And “bare life as such” is “self-sufficiency in the shape of thinghood" for Hegel. But for the
master, he already had proved himself that he has the power upon this being.
"...the master is the power over this being, for he has proved in the struggle that in his eyes it
merely counted as a negative."

[3]. The idea (Being-for-Death) was used by French Philosopher Alain Badiou’s understanding
of Martin Heidegger’s idea (Being-towards-Death). Click the link for more information.
https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/2176-badiou-down-with-death

[4] Prophet Abraham’s Story

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+22&version=NIV