RoR: Forum

I first heard this idea from Janis Joplin, in "Bobby McGee": "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

Was Joplin first, or Solzhenitsyn?

Post 1

Monday, August 8, 2005 - 1:41am

Was Joplin first, or Solzhenitsyn?

Janis was the slave of her own addictions, she robbed herself, she thought she had nothing left to lose, so she let her life be lost - spoiled brat - though i believe the words she screaked to be those of Kris Kristoffersen.

Solzhenitsyn was the slave of an oppressive government, he apparently refused to lose, spend 8 years in a Siberian Gulag (a name he invented btw) for opposing the government of the country he loved. I read the statement as: "When you have achieved, or mentally accepted, freedom, you have nothing to lose" translated by chained people who ironically only got to know it by force.

In William E. Simons words: "Freedom is strangely ephemeral. It is something like breathing; one only becomes acutely aware of its importance when one is choking.", "...freedom is difficult to understand because it isn't a presence but an absence, an absence of governmental constraint. People who are unfamiliar with severe political constraints, severe enough to make them aware that they have lost their freedom, often don't know what freedom is and on what it depends."

I don't appreciate the nationalistic and religious orthodox aspects of Solzhenitsyns works, but whoever thought of it first, i would like to think Solzhenitsyn more deserving, if honor is involved.

Post 2

Monday, August 8, 2005 - 4:54am

This whole sentiment is bullshit, Joplin and Solzhenitsyn.

It's the old Christian aesthetic of "give up all your worldly goods" in order to reach spiritual enlightenment nonsense.

And now they are trying to smuggle it into the concept of "freedom" in the political or social sense.

It's anti-life and it's crap, don't be fooled!

Post 3

Monday, August 8, 2005 - 5:51am

The "Bobby McGee" line and Solzhenitsyn's comment are entirely different.

What Marcus wrote applies to "Bobby McGee". That line defines freedom as "nothing left to lose". It implies that having nothing is a desirable goal.

Solzhenitsyn, on the other hand, says to the oppressor "Do your worst. You'll never conquor me." Solzhenitsyn points out that oppression is ultimately self-defeating, that it contains the seeds of its own destruction.

"Bobby McGee" is nihilistic. Solzhenitsyn is life affirming.

Post 4

Monday, August 8, 2005 - 6:43am

Rick,

The quote by itself here IS anti-life. If it was originally presented or worded in another context, then the way it is stated here it is highly misleading.

When you have robbed a man of everything, he is no longer in your power. He is free again.

You "rob" him (that is to steal or take by force) of everything. He has no more possessions. Now he is no longer in your power because he has nothing more to take. Now he is "free" again (When was he free before? When he had no possessions). Meaning - he was not free when he owned possessions.

In this context - these two quotes do in fact mean the same thing!

They both embrace the Christian anti-life aesthetic!

Post 5

Monday, August 8, 2005 - 7:34am

Marcus,

This quote has more meaning than that (have you ever read Solshenitsyn?). You are a perfect example of how ideology, in your case "objectivist" ideology, makes people stupid.

Post 6

Monday, August 8, 2005 - 7:45am

Arguments about Christian ideals aside, what can an oppressor do to a man once he has destroyed everything that makes that man's life worth living?

Post 7

Monday, August 8, 2005 - 8:08am

The song was written by Kris Kristofferson after his apartment was robbed of everything of any value.

Post 8

Monday, August 8, 2005 - 8:19am

Mike Erickson said:

You are a perfect example of how ideology, in your case "objectivist" ideology, makes people stupid.

Mr. Erickson: if this was my website, you would have been gone a long time ago. But, it isn't, so I will exercise my other option: I will stop reading your posts. Be seeing you.

Post 9

Monday, August 8, 2005 - 10:26am

what can an oppressor do to a man once he has destroyed everything that makes that man's life worth living?

As long as a man is alive with his own mind, spirit, and hope, he has something in life that's worth living for.

Post 10

Monday, August 8, 2005 - 10:39am

As long as a man is alive with his own mind, spirit, and hope, he has something in life that's worth living for.

There's an old German song, ... (English translation follows...)

Die Gedanken sind frei,
Wer kann sie erraten,
Sie fliehen vorbei,
Wie nächtliche Schatten.
Kein Mensch kann sie wissen,
Kein Jäger erschießen
Mit Pulver und Blei.
Die Gedanken sind frei!

Ich denke was ich will
Und was mich beglücket,
Doch alles in der Still',
Und wie es sich schicket.
Mein Wunsch, mein Begehren
Kann niemand verwehren,
Es bleibet dabei:
Die Gedanken sind frei!

Und sperrt man mich ein
In finsteren Kerker,
Ich spotte der Pein
Und menschlicher Werke.
Denn meine Gedanken
Zerreißen die Schranken
Und Mauern entzwei,
Die Gedanken sind frei!

Drum will ich auf immer
Den Sorgen entsagen
Und will dich auch nimmer
Mit Willen verklagen.
Man kann ja im Herzen
Stets lachen und scherzen
Und denken dabei:
Die Gedanken sind frei!

English translation...

Thoughts are free
who could guess what they might be?
They fly by as shadows in the night.
No human can know them,
no hunter could kill them
with his powder and lead;
The truth is that
thoughts are free.

I think what I will,
of what gives me happiness
quietly within my rightful silence.
There can never be anyone
who could argue with my wishes
and my desires -
it will always be true
that thoughts are free.

And if someone locks me up
in the dark dungeons,
their acts are in vain,
because my thoughts
tear down the barriers
and the stone walls - they are free.

That is why I will
abstain from sorrows
and will no longer harm myself with misery,
for in your heart you can always laugh
and as you do, you can think:
thoughts are free.

Post 11

Monday, August 8, 2005 - 1:46pm

....have you ever read Solshenitsyn?

No I haven't, That's why I spoke of context.

However, instead of being a smart ass, you could try to show how my interpretation is false.

I don't mind being mistaken.

Post 12

Monday, August 8, 2005 - 2:18pm

As if Mike isn't influenced by his 'ideology'.

I prefer psychiatrist and Holocaust Survivor, Victor Frankl's statement that even if they take everything you have, they can't take away your right to choose how to react to any situation. He credits that idea with his survival in the concentration camp.

Post 13

Monday, August 8, 2005 - 3:24pm

So far there has been at least three separate interpretations of the meaning of the quote here - so it is not clear in this context.

However, I think I get his meaning. He is saying that when those who wield power over us have nothing left to take, then we are free of the power they wield over us.

Although that may sound like a comforting thought to someone being oppressed, I still don't find it to be positive or life-affirming.

Post 14

Monday, August 8, 2005 - 5:36pm

I agree, Marcus. Your reading of it is the most objective of the takes - simply by taking the words to mean just what they say, nothing more nor less.

Post 15

Monday, August 8, 2005 - 6:57pm

Marcus,

Obviously I read a lot more than you do into these words. In the context of Solzhenitsyns' life and writings it refers to the unconquerable human spirit. In the context of the nature of man it reflects the fact than man is much more than his possessions. There is nothing in this quote that is remotely suggestive of altruism. The key word is "robbed", there is nothing about "giving". If you lose all of our possessions, even if the whole world turns its back on you, you are undiminished if your spirit is intact. It does NOT mean that you should GIVE AWAY all of your possessions. You are reading things into these words in your interpretation that are not there, sorry to contradict you Robert Malcom.

"This whole sentiment is bullshit"

This thoughtless dismissal I found extremely irritating and I do not apologize for irritating you in turn. I am sorry for the delay in my reply, I needed to get home from work.

Post 16

Monday, August 8, 2005 - 7:09pm

Coming from Solzhenitsyn, this is a heavy and loaded quote. I don’t think it is anti-life at all. Can you imagine what life would be like when a man is robbed of everything? (Try to think about the most desperate situation and darkest hours in your life. It probably still is not comparable to the situation referred to in the quote). That a man is still defiantly free in spirit and goes on living surely is most positive and life-affirming.

Post 17

Monday, August 8, 2005 - 8:18pm

Well said, Hong.

Monday, August 8, 2005 - 8:51pm

Marcus wrote:

When you have robbed a man of everything, he is no longer in your power. He is free again.

You "rob" him (that is to steal or take by force) of everything. He has no more possessions. Now he is no longer in your power because he has nothing more to take. Now he is "free" again (When was he free before? When he had no possessions). Meaning - he was not free when he owned possessions.

No, Marcus. He was free before he was being robbed.

You can't rob a man who has nothing.

Post 19

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 1:23am