If freedom is the power to determine action without restraint and commitment is the state of being dedicated to a cause, there is an inherent conflict in those concepts. That might be obvious, but to me it's still an interesting observation because I feel that I grew up in an environment that highly values both concepts.

It's seen as something positive to be committed to a worthy cause. At the workplace it's often even expected to be committed to a way of action. At the same time the culture I grew up in says it's important to value and preserve freedom (a big word with many meanings in itself). But being committed to something means that I restrict my freedom because I can't just walk away and do something else.

Looking at my life so far I feel that I was very good at enjoying freedom. I was very good at keeping options on the table, only commit vaguely to a certain direction without restricting myself in the ability to divert if a better opportunity comes along. Professionally, it's still hard for me to fully commit to one industry, function, or company, because so many things out there are very interesting and I could spend years learning all about it.

I guess the question is whether that is a problem at all? But then again, can I really make a difference without being focussed and committed to a cause?

Clay Christensen argues in his book "How will you measure your life?" that sacrifice deepens commitment. Hence, the question really is: Am I willing to sacrifice myself to help someone or something else succeed?

Commitment requires us to sacrifice part of our freedom. But commitment to the people we love and the values we stand for is probably one of the most important pillars of a happy life. Making conscious decisions and being careful what we commit to is the hard part.