From so much going back and forth through the commercial circuits, the concept of freedom is taking a use of quantifiable meaning where "more" is confused with "better": more likes = more success, more trips = more happiness, more sex = more pleasure, more purchases = higher standard of living… in short: more “acquisitions” of objects or people, more likes, more mobility, greater supposed freedom.

But if we leave the context of the last decades, if we take a cultural-historical perspective, does this idea of ​​freedom have something to do with the recurring concept of freedom analyzed by so many thinkers, whether they were artists, philosophers or doctors?

The difficulty of freedom, precisely, was rooted and lies, although today we want to make up, in that hole of the human being, a hole impossible to sift quantitatively, and it is there where individuality is played, where desire is put to the test.

What is most typical of each subject has nothing to do with the ready-to-wear of the objects offered on the market, it has to do with a core of anguish that, properly channeled, allows creativity to design a way to cope well with life itself and that when it is intended to cover, it only grows until it overflows and channels itself into flight, as in drugs and other addictions (hard or soft), flight from oneself.

From psychoanalysis, we bet on being able to get out of the action-reaction that we see paradigmatically in the likes and other instantaneous modalities of filling the desire. We take care of opening a space of uncertainty, of valuing individual desire, we make a commitment to freedom, because freedom is something other than ready-made satisfaction.

Cristina Andrés