
“Freedom is the space in which we discover who we truly are, not the place where we escape from ourselves.”
– Anonymous
Freedom = gift + burden.
This paradox sits at the heart of Karl Jaspers’ existential philosophy, where freedom and divinity intertwine in a way that invites us to explore the very nature of selfhood.
The quote from Way to Wisdom — “Freedom and God are inseparable” — poses an essential question: What does it mean to be free, and how is freedom tied to the concept of God?
In Jasper’s view, freedom is not simply the absence of restraint; rather, it is a condition that reveals the very essence of who we are.
But this freedom is not something you take for granted or exercise at will.
It is something “given” to you.
To understand this, we need to unpack the complex relationship Jaspers presents between freedom, the self, and the divine.

Freedom as a Gift
When Jaspers says, “I am not through myself but am given to myself,” he points to the idea that true freedom is not self-made; it is bestowed.
You may think of yourself as autonomous, able to make choices and shape your own destiny.
But according to Jaspers, real freedom involves recognizing that you cannot “force” your freedom into existence — it is a fundamental gift.
Freedom becomes something you must receive and acknowledge, not something you dominate or control.
This subtle difference challenges the common idea that freedom is simply about “doing what you want.”
What does it mean, then, to be “given” to yourself?
Think of it like a blank canvas — a gift that arrives with the potential for infinite creation, but also a reminder that this canvas exists within a particular context.
In this view, you are not entirely self-made; your freedom is bound up with the conditions of your existence, and these conditions involve something greater than your individual will.

Freedom and God: The Inseparable Bond
Jaspers’ idea that “freedom and God are inseparable” is not just about religious faith or the divine as we usually think of it.
Instead, it’s about how freedom and divinity are intertwined in the existential condition.
For Jaspers, freedom cannot be fully realized without the presence of God — but not in a traditional theological sense.
God, in his thinking, is not a distant, all-controlling figure. Instead, God is a force that shapes and guides our freedom from within.
This understanding of God is closer to what Kierkegaard and Nietzsche explored: a divine presence that allows you to recognize and choose your freedom, even if the outcome is uncertain and ambiguous.
To understand Jaspers’ view of God and freedom, imagine you’re standing at a crossroads, facing a major life decision.
You could make any choice, and in doing so, you assert your freedom. But as you choose, there’s a deeper awareness that your decision-making process is not entirely independent of a greater source — an inner guidance, a divine spark that gives you the strength and courage to act.
That guidance is not always clear, nor is it a direct command; it is more like a quiet, persistent whisper that shapes the possibilities of what you can choose.
In this sense, freedom is both yours and not yours. The ability to choose, to define who you are, exists within the tension of being both “through” yourself and “given” to yourself.

The Will and the Choice Between Good and Evil
Jaspers takes his exploration even further when he says, “The will does not choose between good and evil; it is its choice, rather, that makes it good or evil.”
Here, he seems to challenge the traditional notion that moral decisions come down to choosing between right and wrong.
Instead, Jaspers suggests that our will itself — the act of choosing — is what determines whether a choice is moral.
This flips the conventional thinking on its head. It’s not about making the “right” choice, but about how your will, grounded in freedom and shaped by divine guidance, turns your decisions into acts of good or evil.
The act of choosing is itself a moral act, one that reveals your deeper understanding of who you are and what you stand for.
Being “Through” or “Given” to Oneself
The tension between being “through” and being “given” to oneself is at the heart of the mystery Jaspers explores.
If you are “through” yourself, you are fully in control of your existence — every decision and action is a product of your will.
But being “given” to oneself acknowledges that there is something outside of yourself shaping your choices, guiding your path, even as you walk it.
The phrase “miss being myself” captures this tension perfectly. It suggests that freedom is not just about action, but about being in alignment with your true self.
The risk of missing yourself — of failing to recognize the deeper forces shaping your will — is to live inauthentically, to stray from your divine guidance.
A Table of Key Concepts
Concept | Explanation |
---|---|
Freedom | A gift, not fully self-created; shaped by divine presence and context. |
God | Not a distant force but an internal presence that guides our freedom. |
Will and Choice | The act of choosing shapes the moral quality of our decisions. |
Being “Through” vs. “Given” | The tension between self-autonomy and receiving one’s freedom as a gift. |
Missing the Self | The risk of living without aligning with the deeper forces shaping our will. |

Cultural and Historical Reflections
This theme of freedom, divine guidance, and selfhood has been explored in various forms throughout history, influencing not only philosophical discourse but also shaping cultural and artistic expressions.
Fight Club explores the tension between freedom and self-destruction.
The narrator, searching for meaning in his life, creates an alter ego, Tyler Durden, who represents his desire to escape the materialism and emptiness of modern society.
But as the story unfolds, it becomes clear that Tyler is not the liberator the narrator thought he was, but rather a manifestation of the narrator’s internal conflict.
This journey echoes Jaspers’ assertion that freedom must come from within and that the struggle to understand one’s self is fraught with confusion, false choices, and the sometimes painful confrontation with one’s own limitations.
In the realm of music, songs like The Rolling Stones’ “Sympathy for the Devil” offer an exploration of the complexities of good, evil, and the choices that define us. Through the persona of the devil, the song wrestles with the duality of human nature, questioning how our actions and choices shape not only our freedom but our morality.
This aligns with Jaspers’ view that the will itself does not inherently choose good or evil but is rather defined by the choices it makes. The song suggests that our freedom comes with a deep moral responsibility, and it is through our actions that we define who we are.
Another song, Queen’s “Bohemian Rhapsody,” captures the internal conflict between fate and self-determination. The narrator is caught between acknowledging his past mistakes and seeking redemption, a metaphor for the spiritual and existential quest for freedom.
The operatic breakdown, full of emotional turmoil, reflects the tension between a divine or moral calling and personal agency.
Much like Jaspers’ exploration of the human will and the divine, Bohemian Rhapsody suggests that freedom is not just about the ability to choose but about the responsibility of those choices in relation to a greater moral or spiritual framework.
Historically, philosophers like Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche addressed similar concerns, laying the groundwork for Jaspers’ thoughts on freedom and the divine.
Kierkegaard, in works like Fear and Trembling, explored the concept of the “leap of faith,” arguing that true freedom requires a surrender to something greater than oneself, whether through religious faith or a personal commitment to a higher purpose.
Kierkegaard’s view aligns closely with Jaspers’ understanding that freedom is not something to be grasped, but a response to the divine or existential conditions of our lives.

Conclusion: Personal Reflection on Freedom
When I think about freedom, I often find myself caught between the feeling of boundless possibility and the humbling recognition that my freedom is always shaped by something greater than me.
There have been times in my life when I’ve made choices that I thought were purely my own, only to realize that those decisions were influenced by my upbringing, my relationships, and even my spiritual experiences.
It’s as if my freedom is not fully my own — it is a gift that has been handed to me, and I must navigate it carefully.
Final Quote:
“Freedom is the will to be responsible to ourselves.”
— Friedrich Nietzsche
This quote encapsulates the idea that true freedom is not the absence of constraint, but the ability to take responsibility for the choices we make — a responsibility that is never fully ours alone, but is always intertwined with the divine.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.