Arjun Yadav's Webpage

Critique of Luke Smith's Freedom


in his recent work Luke smith, while explaining freedom, writes:
"Christians stated the classical view of freedom very clearly. Paul writes that all men are either "slaves to Christ" or "slaves to sin." The modern man wants to retort that he does't want to be a slave to anything, but wants to be his own master, but there is really no such thing.

One can be guided by Christ, or more generally, by consistent moral principles, restraint and forethought. Or one can abandon the pretense of morality and by definition follow his impulses to fornication, substance-abuse, and general reckless living. "

it is clear from his work that, what Luke is trying to say here is: man is either first,a slave of god or second, a slave of impulses. and there is no middle ground i.e man is not free. man can't think for himself. man needs a master to tell him what to do.

in first case, god tells man what good things man has to do to get emancipation from the evil.(the problem here is that there is not only one god in this world, but multiple. who have mostly contradictory rules of do's and don't's) for example a Hindu will listen to his god and will not harm the weak, don't act cowardly, perform his responsibilities and so on.

in the second case, instead of listing to god. man becomes rebellious, denies the existence of god. and sets the belief of listing to himself. but according to Luke, man is slave to his impulses hence he only listens to his impulses. for example doing drugs, checking social media every 5 minutes, being watching movies and so on. the point here is that man thinks he is free but he is slave to his impulses.

unfortunately Luke the unaboomer is wrong.

man is not just impulses

i say Luke only finds fault in man only to give himself reason to do slavery of god. when Luke says man is slave to his impulses, he only sees the animal part of the man. man is more than just impulses. man is a conscious being. who can think. who can decide. who can act rationally. animal on the other hand are the real slaves of impulses. eat, sleep, reproduce is what all they think but man is different from them. man is an animal who can think. but according to Luke man is only an animal i.e a slave to impulses.

as karl marx wrote:
"The animal is immediately one with its life activity. It does not distinguish itself from it. It is its life activity. Man makes his life activity itself the object of his will and of his consciousness. He has conscious life activity. It is not a determination with which he directly merges. Conscious life activity distinguishes man immediately from animal life activity. It is just because of this that he is a species-being. Or it is only because he is a species-being that he is a conscious being, i.e., that his own life is an object for him. Only because of that is his activity free activity."

if man is just a slave to impulses then why not all people watch t.v. 10 hours a day? there are always some addict who do watch t.v. 10 hours a day but most of us don't. because we can think. we can think it's unhealthy and there are other responsibilities which are need to be fulfilled. but if we follow Luke's idea and see man as just a slave of impulses everyone should be watching t.v. 10 hours a day. which is wrong.

does religion gives all the answers?

multiple religions with different philosophies. often contradictory. then how do you decide which one to follow? or which one is right? the debate on these questions are continuing from the dawn of the time but no one has found a compelling answer.

can Luke smith's bible tell how much hours of internet consumption is good and how much is evil? can Luke smith's bible tell how much McDonald consumption is good and how much is evil?

yes the exact answers to these questions can not be found in religious books. that's where human thinking comes. man thinks how much consumption is good and how much is does not need religion to answer these and other question. it's common sense.

the why even bother doing slavery of god when man can take control of his impulses by just thinking?

perhaps Luke smith answer this question by saying "going to church is cool" or "all the cool kids are religious" and so on. Luke smith is the kind of guy who would do slavery just to look cool on internet.

the real solution to get freedom: take responsibility and be free

a kid is a slave to his parents. in the sense that he has to eat and do what his parents decide. because he is not mature enough to think for himself. but as he grows, he starts to think, makes decisions, and he is also held accountable for his actions. his parents gives him more freedom to decide what's better for him. for example giving him the freedom to decide his course in college etc. and that kid gets complete freedom when he starts to earn money. now his parents no more tell him what to eat and what not to. if he in his adult age eat chocolate all the time it's he who is responsible for his ill health. but now as he is adult and knows all the ill effects of eating too much chocolate he no more eats them. he is free to decide. but taking right decisions is his responsibility. if he can not take right decisions. his freedom must be taken back. doctors will force him to stick to healthy diet. the moment he fails to take responsibility he looses his freedom.

hence taking responsibility is the only way to get freedom.

when stuck in problem, take responsibility and find solution. and if the solution does't work, take responsibility of your failure. only in this way freedom can be achieved.


1- a man who is slave to his impulses is not a man but animal and should be called one.
2- being slave to god is better than being slave to impulses. but still not free yet.
3- thinking,making decisions, taking responsibility of your actions is true freedom. this is what distinguishes us from animals who are slave of impulses.