RESPOND TO THE FOLLOWING: According to Joseph Heller, “The only freedom we really have is the freedom to say no.” Explain what you think he means by this statement; then debate its philosophical merits. Do you agree or disagree with him? Support your opinion with examples from historical and personal experience. For example, how does the above statement compare with the “just say no” catchphrase from the war against drugs?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My interpretation of Heller's comment is that over basically all aspects of our life except internal decision-making, others have influence. In that sense, to say we have absolute freedom is, in most cases, not true.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with Heller as long as his statement was expanded to include "yes" as well as "no". Basically, I believe the only freedom we have is the freedom of choice.
The war on drugs slogan is misleading because by the time many people want to "just say no", there are extenuating circumstances which have robbed them of the presence of mind to do so. If someone is addicted to drugs, has been brainwashed by a gang or has no support in their decision to say no, it's a difficult decision to make. That said, at the very beginning, a decision served as the catalyst to start either a positive or negative chain of events.
You can choose to be proactive. You can say yes to studying and no to peer pressure. You can decide to go out partying rather than doing your homework. You can prepare for your future rather than allowing others to do everything for you.
When I was in fifth grade, my dad wanted me to play basketball. I tried out, made the team, and then chose to quit. I knew I was disappointing my dad and that I may regret it later, but I made that decision.
This was not a life-or-death decision. I still had to make it, and regardless of what anyone else had said, it was mine to make.
Regardless of outside forces, peer pressure, hardship or any other factor which blurs decisions, we are all blessed with the same freedom. The freedom to weigh pros and cons, evaluate in the short and the long-term, and choose to say yes or choose to say no.
When Heller says that we only have the power to say no, I think he's saying that saying "no" is a liberty we have, and saying "yes" is taking away our liberties. When given a choice, an answer of "yes" is usually assumed. When you just say "yes", you're really only giving up your own freedom to choose in order to go along with whatever you're agreeing to. For example, the "just say no" situation with drugs: if a friend walks up to you and offers you drugs, is saying "yes" really a freedom? I believe that in scenarios like this, saying yes is really just giving in to the pressures around you and going along with what others have suggested. However, when one says "no", he is exercising his freedom to CHOOSE to do what he wants instead. Saying no is really the only freedom people have, as it gives them the opportunity to do what they choose to, instead of what others want them to.
ReplyDeleteI agree with John in the fact that "no" is more of an exercise of freedom than "yes". I do not agree entirely with his interpretation of Heller's quote. Yes, the simplest way to apply this quote is to view "yes" and "no" as responses to a given question. However, the word "no" certainly applies to countless other situations. Life is full of examples to display this. They may seem simple, but they cannot be overlooked when studying this quote. If a student is watching a friend be bullied, nobody asked if it was okay. The student has a responsibility to "say no" to the bullying, and stand up for his/her friend. In this case, "no" can be just as important as a tool for a bystander or witness as it may be for the person directly within the conflict. Alternately, if an adult is witnessing a debate at a dinner party, saying "no" provides him/her the chance to both disagree and provide a new opinion. In this way, the quote is just as much about freedom of speech as it is about freedom of choice.
ReplyDeleteIn the context of the war against drugs, I agree more with Michael. In a basic sense, if choosing not to do drugs presents a freedom, then oppositely, saying yes would also present that same freedom of choice (regardless of the negative implications).
For me, and maybe for most teenagers, the ability to say "no" is more important than that to say "yes". It is seemingly a more straightforward, clear-cut, and safe response to most of the questions we are asked- whether it is about joining a new club, or going to that party. However, the safe response is not the only response. Negative influences do not always lead to bad choices, and cannot take away from the simple fact that when asked a question, there are still two choices, "yes" and "no", and they can only be made by you. In that way, the freedom to say "yes" is just as important.
... my bad. That last one was from me- not sure why it had to be so anonymous.
ReplyDeleteEveryone makes a great point in that we have the freedom to say no, but the funny part about Heller's portrayal of this freedom in Catch-22 is, well, Catch-22. As he portrays in the book, even though it is against the law to say "no" and quit, there are other ways of showing that a person is done with a situation. To an extreme, a person can fake their death, leave in the middle of the night or maybe even kill themselves. Catch-22 may limit their voice, but you still have the freedom to express yourself through actions.
ReplyDeleteI think that Heller's statement that "the only freedom we really have is the freedom to say no" is extremely accurate. If you were taken away the right to say yes, there are not as many ways to get around the ability of speech and into the realm of expressing your consent. A person has more power over the word "no" and Heller really shows the readers that in Catch-22 with the multiple escapes from the war.
In many situations, there are two options: to go through with something, or have nothing to do with it. The power of not doing something has a greater impact on the situation than giving in. with the "just say no" campaign, the power of saying no can save a person's life and can be a harder decision that makes a greater impact. Heller's idea that no is the only freedom a person can claim for their own is powerful. to say no is much more powerful than saying yes.
Heller is stating that saying no is a right every person has. But in the instance of Catch 22 their right to say yes or no to a mission is revoked by the twisted logic that the commanding officers put down. According to Wintergreen, Catch 22 states that officers must obey their commanding officer. Wintergreen tells Yossarian that he must fly five more missions, and if he says no, they would “probably shoot” him. So now his options are flying the mission and possibly dying while carrying out the commanding officers orders or they could get shot for not completing the mission. Yossarian still has the right to say no but he would have to suffer the penalty that comes with disobeying Wintergreen.
ReplyDeleteEvery time I go to the Doctor’s office I am presented with the opportunity to get shots that I don’t need right away but should get eventually. I am terrified of needles, so every time I put it off for later. By saying no, I am putting off this awful experience till later instead of just getting it over with. I know I should get them, and that by refusing I am risking getting sick and prolonging my fear of needles. But that is a choice I make based on a fear that I have. I am able to make that choice and accept the consequences that come with that decision.
Everything that happens to a person is dictated by all the decisions they make and the events that follow that decision. Basically a person can follow many paths: ignoring one path by saying no to that particular opportunity or taking the path that they said yes to and seeing what happens after you make that decision.
The first thing that came to mind when I read this prompt was the book 'Man's Search for Meaning'. This book is the personal account of a man who survived life in a Nazi concentration camp. Apart from detailing the man's struggles of physical survival, the book also details his struggle to find meaning in life, to find something that would make him feel like a person again after enduring such a brutal experience. The conclusion he came to regarding the 'search for meaning' was very similar to Heller's quote, specifically that, while a man can be stripped of his possessions, his family, his freedoms, his safety, and his general control over his own life, a man cannot be stripped of the ability to CHOOSE how he reacts to these circumstances. He can say ‘no’ in the face of his ‘puppeteers’. He can refuse to give them the light out of his eyes, the compassion in his heart, the human in his body. In that small way he has control.
ReplyDeleteIn a world as senseless and violent as that of catch 22, where it seems no one is really in charge of his own fate, this simple truth is a magnificent grain of hope in that it affords at least that little bit of control, at least a little bit of comfort, much like it did to the author of 'Man's Search for Meaning'.
In essence, the freedom to 'say no', as Heller puts it, is the ability to keep those who control your situation, people like Colonel Cathcart and General Peckem or the leaders of a concentration camp, from truly controlling you. It's the freedom to decide that being given everything you want by someone (like being allowed to leave the war if you're Yossarian), is still not reason enough to change YOU. The freedom to say ‘no’ is the freedom to refuse to be baited by your own desires if catching those desires means giving up the person you have become fighting for them or betraying the opinions you have formed about those who are baiting you. If we let the things we want, even the things we want most in the world, control who we are, we are really giving over control of ourselves to the people who have the authority to make it happen. In Catch 22 that’s a scary thought. Yossarian’s ability and final decision to say ‘no’ to that “odious” deal, even though it could give him what he wants, is a true testament to Heller’s belief that the power of ‘no’ is the only real power we have.
I am in complete agreement with what Lorenz and Bergam said about the initial meaning of the statement- that ‘”no” is a liberty we have, and saying “yes” is taking away out liberties”. If you are saying yes to a question as simple as, “Do you want to go for a walk?” or as complicated as, “Do you want to choose your own path in life?” then you’re following something already predestine versus removing yourself from that and picking your own future. And I can understand how this statement would pertain to Yossarian in Catch 22 since he is forced to do whatever the army tells him to do, and every time he complies with their orders he is saying yes to what is chosen for him. But in the end, after he sees what happens to people that have their freedom taken away by the army (they die), he exercises his most basic freedom, the freedom to say “no”, to refuse the predestined life and accept whatever else comes from that.
ReplyDeleteHowever I don’t feel this statement has true merit in a bigger sense in a different context of a more regular life. By exercises the right to say “no” a person may end up restricting themself more than freeing themself. Let’s say, for example, that a family is staying in a cabin for a week and there is a teenager who is experimenting with his most basic freedom of saying “no”. When asked if he wants to go kayaking, hiking, have a bond fire, and, lastly, just go outside, he could decline, confining him to the small space of the cabin. In the end, that doesn’t really feel like freedom to me. Sure in a war/army time situation saying “no” is a freedom, but in modern everyday life, saying “no” is much more restricting than freeing. The ability to say “yes” opens doors, makes exploring more possible, and helps many people move along in life toward what they really want. Maybe what helped me come to this conclusion was the fact that I finally saw the movie, “Yes Man” a couple weeks ago. Very fitting if you think about his life of “No” and new life of “Yes”.
I agree with just about everyone that Heller means that saying “‘no’ is more of an exercise of freedom than ‘yes’" because to defy something means to empower yourself above it. It is much easier to fall for something than to break yourself free of it; anyone can be influenced or manipulated by something, like drugs, or someone, like a parent, but it takes character and willpower to rebel against it. Saying “yes” means allowing things to control what we do and who we are, yet defying against them is what makes us stronger and gain power over our own lives. To Heller, saying “no” is a precious liberty because it is viewed as rejection against authority and empowerment of oneself.
ReplyDeleteI agree more with Michael and Hannah in that having the freedom to say “yes” is just as important as the freedom to say “no”. The difficulties and consequences of declaring either one differs in each situation, but the ability to choose between the two is the only real freedom we have, because having the free will to choose between “yes” and “no” creates the freedom to either break or strengthen our rules and morals, to change and evolve ourselves in which we define ourselves as individuals.
There are pros and cons to every decision and saying “yes” is just as much of a freedom as saying “no” because the power lies in not necessarily the decision of “yes” or “no” but the overall freedom to decide which to choose. If I had to choose whether or not to pay for a meal, for example, I both win and lose either way; if I pay for the food I will lose money but will have a full stomach; if I don’t, then I will go hungry but save money.
“Yes” and “no” are both equal in making decisions like Hanna stated, but what comes after the initial answer is what makes the two options different, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteWhen you come to a “yes” or “no” question you have two paths, each equally important, and whichever decision you make is an expression of your freedom of choice. The problem is “yes” only leads to one set path planed out by the creator of the question, while “no” leaves you free to do whatever you want. I believe this is what Heller means when he says the only freedom we have is to say “no”. When we say no and walk away our options are endless, we are free. When we say yes plans are set.
The idea of “no” is like the economic term opportunity cost, if we spend money, time, energy on one thing we will not have that money, time, energy to spend somewhere else. Saying “yes” to a dress means not buying anything else with that money, saying “no” on the other hand leaves you with endless opportunities.
Kids learn to say no at the age of approximately 18 - 30 months. This time is known as the terrible twos. When kids learn to say “no” they become so much harder to deal with because they are starting to form opinions for themselves and learn that they can have a say in their lives. “No” gives us the power to stop blindly fallowing others. In the “Just Say No” campaign kids are encouraged to look at their options and use their voice. If they don’t have control over anything else in life “no” is the only way for kids to take life into their own hands.
Heller’s idea of standing up and taking control of one’s destiny, like the “Just Say No” campaign encourages, can be seen all through our history. If no one had stood up and said England was bad the US would still be made up of colonies, and if no one had said “we will not stand for slavery” we would still have slavery. “No” gives us the option to continue being free.
I believe that Heller is being very truthful in what he is saying, in his book and in real life. I think that by saying this Heller is trying to point out that "the power of saying no" is the only real freedom in our world that we have that we can say without a harmful repurcution. I mean when a person says no to going to a party filled with drugs and alcohol they may be hazed and made fun of but that punishment that someone can choose to pay attention to unlike a punishment that could come with doing drugs or underaged drinking like jail or community service that we would have to take in. I think Heller is trying to make us realize that when we say "no", like Yossarian did to Catch -22 it sets an example for people to follow and find the right thing to do. heller is saying that we always have the freedom to choose but we also have the "power" that comes with saying no to create mental freedom for other people. If someone that is being ppressured into drinking and they see somone say no to the people pressuring them they could get the courage to say no as well, just like when people see Yossarian trying to escape they could get the courage to stand up to the authority in the camp like he did. Heller is pointing out the obvious "freedom" that a personhas with saying no ( the power to actually say yes or no) and the indirect power that a person has to create freedom ( creating an example for people to cleanse their minds from the pressure and bad things. Overall Heller is just trying to point out the amazing power that comes with saying no.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely responded to this weeks ago but my response seems to have gone missing so here it goes again..
ReplyDeleteWhile the degree to which yes and no comparatively play a role in decision making can be discussed the ultimate fact is that when dealing with freedom of choice both the option of yes and no must in fact be present in order for there to be any real choice at all. In this way I disagree with our beloved author.
The popular slogan “just say no” was fashioned with the best of intentions to support a campaign geared towards safeguarding the health of predominantly children and teens in the face of drugs and alcohol. The phrase is effective not only due to its concision but because it avoids the problematic gray area that often falls in between yes or no and sends a clear message. However the sad reality is that many people choose, often without the direct influence of others, to do drugs on their own accord for whatever reasons or justifications they may provide. In this way the power to say yes can impact an individual’s life just as much as saying no could have, while be it with a much more negative end result.
Heller’s statement also fails to include the opposite side of the coin; while I could choose to speak out and take a stand against world hunger and say no more I could just as easily say yes to feeding the millions of mouths that go hungry every day. If looked at this way, choice is merely a matter of perception rather than of one or the other.
In the context of the book, I believe Heller’s statement is significantly aided by his lack of indecision and consequently stands to help further portray the messages he wishes to stress in the novel. A strong, clear line of thinking is easier for most any reader to follow.
According to Joseph Heller, “The only freedom we really have is the freedom to say no.” Explain what you think he means by this statement; then debate its philosophical merits. Do you agree or disagree with him? Support your opinion with examples from historical and personal experience. For example, how does the above statement compare with the “just say no” catchphrase from the war against drugs?
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Joseph Heller on how the only freedom we really have is to say no. I agree with Alexis on how he doesn't include the other side of the story. Sometimes it is easier to say yes to something versus no. Or sometimes there isn't an option of no altogether. For example this summer I was given two different choices of camp but I had to go. There wasn't a no thanks option. So this one situation alone contradicts Heller completely because there wasn't a no option. My summer camp situation is only one of thousands because of parents wanting the child to do something beneficial or a boss gettting her workers to do something etc. While there is a truth to Heller's idea of you can say no is true. I could have at the beginning of the summer said no and refused but what good would that have done? I didn't want to cause more trouble so in turn I said yes. I believe that we all (in most circumstances) have the choice to decide for ourselves but it all depends on the consequences our actions will have that helps us decide as well.
"Just say no" was a simple, easy to remember slogan that was produced to help people choose No to drugs. The famous catchphrase that we all know was designed to be clear on what it stood for and also was very forward with how the organization felt about drugs and also agrees with Heller's statement you have only the freedom to say no. Also at the same time, Heller forget's that people can say yes. Although "Just say NO" is a popular well known phrase, people can decide for themselves and can choose to do drugs which is a sad choice but it is a reality. We have the freedom to decide for ourselves whether we are aided to say yes or no.
When Heller says “The only freedom we really have is the freedom to say no”, I believe he means that one cannot control the decisions of others in the world and that events that occur or do not occur because of those actions. One can only look at the outcomes of other decisions made, and lead their life according to what one thinks is right. This of course, includes the freedom to say no, and to go against others beliefs. However, just because someone holds up to their moral beliefs does not mean that others will, so really one cannot control the outcomes of their decisions, but really only the decisions themselves. These decisions, I believe, include the ability to say ‘yes’, as well as ‘no’. However Heller probably did not deem the decision of ‘yes’ as important, because it after all does not create the sense of defiance that ‘no’ does.
ReplyDeleteAs long as the ability to say no accompanies the ability to say yes, I agree with Heller’s statement. Like I said before, people do not and cannot have complete control over the decisions of others, however much power they seem to have over others. Even when in a position of little power, a person always has to power to say no, or to say yes. One always has the power over one’s thoughts, but the decisions that others make because of those thoughts cannot be controlled, so in fact no one can ever have complete control over all of the events that take place in one’s life.
The war on drugs is a real life example of Heller’s philosophy, because all people can really do when offered drugs is to “say no”. Now, this does not guarantee their safety, because in many instances the refusal of drugs and danger occur hand in hand, which makes the decision sometimes seem to not exist. However, it is always there, no matter the consequences of that said decision.
Joseph Heller states, "The only freedom we really have is the freedom to say no." The way that I interpret this is Heller's low-key way of making a slash at the government. As an American citizen, we are preomised many rights and freedoms. Unfortunately, many of these freedoms are contradicted by other laws, thus resulting in one ultimate freedom: the freedom to say no.
ReplyDeleteI agree with a lot of the responses above when they compare saying "yes" versus saying "no." Usually when a question is asked, the asker expects to hear "yes," showing that you are in agreeance with them, or with their idea. By responding "no," as Yossarian did, we bring our differences to the surface, and often suffer consequences.
I agree that Heller was right on a large scale, but not when it comes to everyday life. In a bigger picture, in many wars, it was Switzerland's choice to stay neutral, and they had the freedom to say "no" and stay out of the bloodshed. On a smaller scale, when i was younger, when I responded to a question, rhetorical or not, with a "no," I had to do whatever was asked of me anyways. For example, I have always been paid to do chores around the house. More often than not, I do not want to do them anymore. When my mom found out she would tell me that if I didn't do my chores, I wouldn't get paid, then asked, "Are you going to do your chores now?" I would respond with a "no," and explain that I did not need the money. Long story short, I had to do the chores anyways, and saying "no" was not a freedom in my household.
I agree with Joseph Heller in his claim that "The only freedom we really have is the freedom to say no.", but as with all things human, it can take a while before people realize that they do have the ability to say no to anything. The freedom of choice, the freedom to agree or disagree, the freedom to think for oneself is the strongest, if not only, freedom that humans have. Throughout all of Catch-22, Yossarian is looking for a way to get out of the war, whether it's camping out in hospitals with a not-quite case of jaundice or telling Doc Daneeka that he should be grounded for his insanity. Even though the number of required missions is constantly being raised, Yossarian is attempting to refuse to participate just as frequently. But when he's doing this, it's not just saying no to the war. Yossarian is saying no to death as well. He plans to be immortal or die trying, and I would definitely argue that this is Yossarian using his freedom to say no. But here's what really gets interesting. Heller says that we have the freedom to say no, but he never says that just because we say no means that whatever we said no to won't happen. Amber touched on this idea when she was talking about her chores, and I automatically thought back to Catch-22 and things that I would see in my own life. But on the other hand, sometimes saying no can lead to a positive result.
ReplyDeleteIn Catch-22, when Yossarian asks what will happen if he refuses to fly these dangerous combat missions, he is told that he will most likely be shot. While this can seem very discouraging, Yossarian still has the chance and the choice to say no. He'll just die if he does. But the fact of the matter is, he still has that choice. Priviledges can be granted or taken away based on our choices. Your parents may ask you to do something, as Amber mentioned, but you can say no. You'll probably end up doing what they say anyway, but hey. You at least got to say no. A teacher can assign homework, but the student can say, "You know what? I'm busy tonight. I'm just not going to do this." and say "no" to the assignment. They'll get a bad grade, but they can say no. These have all obviously been negative examples of what can happen when you say no. But that's not always the case. If you look at current anti-drug campaigns (The "Just Say No" advertisements), it's easy to see that by saying no to something negative, like illegal drugs, leads to not only a sense of peace for the decider but generally leads them to success as well. Can you control if life presents you with hard choices? No. But can you control how you respond to those choices? Absolutely. I think that is what Joseph Heller meant by this statement.
I agree with Heller on a less literal level than most of my peers. I don't believe that the only word we can utter with authority is "no". I think that what Heller is saying is that the only thing an individual can really do is to stand against the common belief and fight for something they actually believe in. To challenge authority and to rebel is the most raw form of power. In that sense we are saying "no". The act of denying the expectations of society and refusing to conform embodies the word.
ReplyDeleteTo be able to say “no” means the ability to take a stand for what one believes in. If there is a wrong being done, “no” allows for the capacity of opposing the wrong and not going along with it. Heller in Catch-22 shows what it is like to be in want of the word “no”. In his military scenario the underlings must do as their commanders say, therefore they only have the power to say yes, and is therefore not a freedom because it is their only option. Whenever there is a single option, and no others to choose from, then there is no freedom. However, if a second option arises, for example the addition of “no,” then there is freedom. Choice allows picking “yes” or “no,” and therefore both are a freedom. Without one, the other loses its freedom, so logically, no and yes must both be freedoms. So hypothetically, if something prevented the choosing of “yes,” leaving “no” the only option, then it is really not a freedom at all because we have to follow that path. Therefore, it is nonsensical for “no” to be the only freedom because that means that “yes” has been removed, making “no” not a freedom at all.
ReplyDeleteBecause that reasoning probably doesn’t make any sense, I’ll simplify it by saying, “no” I don’t agree with Heller, which is a freedom of mine only because I can also say “yes,” if I wanted to.
Is anyone else getting really tired of putting quotes around “yes” and “no”? Cause I find it very tedious…
Anyway I agree with Michael that the main point is freedom of choice, not freedom of “no”. Good work.
bruh
ReplyDelete