Dr. Mortimer J. Adler (December 28, 1902- June 28, 2001). The Institute for Philosophical Research
Quotes:
Quotes:
- Complete freedom in a whole life would be possible only for an omnipotent being. Practical freedom is a matter of degree dependent both upon external circumstances and upon the nature of our desires. Bertrand Russell
- Some restraints are inevitable, some opportunities must be denied, simply because men have to live with one another and move differently to the attainment of antithetic desires. Harold J. Laski
- Although the necessity of some form of government and law must for the present be conceded, it is important to remember that all law and government is in itself in some degree an evil, only justifiable when it prevents other and greater evils. Hence, the problem we have to consider is not how to do without government, but how to secure its advantages with the smallest possible interference with freedom. Bertrand Russell
The Idea of Freedom
Freedom is an illusive concept and, like many other words we use, is often defined within the construct of those using it. Some have said that if the Constitution and its articles were abolished save the First Amendment, they could rebuild them. Others make a similar claim about the Second Amendment.
Are Liberty and Freedom the same? They are basic concepts like love knowledge, justice, and law. And, according to Mortimer J. Adler, “all make a substantial contribution toward the clarification of the central idea to which they are all related – the idea of man.”
Yet, men are existentially different, living and moving about in alternative realities. Though man is a communal animal, he is alone, occupying that space which no other animal or object occupies. Even so, his movements and decisions are often guided or coerced by external forces beyond his control. Thus his freedom is not absolute.
“The dialectic task is to remove the human element of diversity from the conversation, reporting from a purely objective, impartial, and neutral observation of the facts.” And while that is a noble undertaking, it is almost impossible to do. For example, is one’s freedom restricted or enlarged by the law? Does a socialist nation have more or less freedom than that of a Republic? Is freedom enhanced by more government or by less? The answers differ with perspective and diversity. Can we use language to dig beneath the surface of language to truly engage the thoughts of others?
Can man remove the bonds that tie him to his reality? If one is born and matures within a community, he seldom knows what lies beyond. His identity is tied to the rituals, the culture, and the sacred that reside there. He responds to the laws that tie his community together, those restrictions imposed on all in the community to provide security and reduce chaos to a minimum. And within the community, all else is directed by his freedom to choose within those restrictions. Does the introduction of outsiders marginalize his freedom or provide him with new, broader freedom enhanced by the addition of opportunities he had no knowledge of before?
If we do not agree on definition, we are discussing different subjects. Problematically, our alternative realities force us to define concepts differently. A small group of people were discovered on a Philippine island several years ago. They lived without shelter, simply huddling under trees during rain, spending the rest of their time foraging for food. They did not wear clothes or speak any intelligible language. The tribe had lived there in that manner for hundreds of years but had been reduced to just twelve members. They were the living example of in the introduction to Plato’s Cave. Yet, unlike what had happened so many times before, scientists, archeologists, anthropologists made the decision to leave them alone.
They were ungoverned, had no economy, no laws, and little knowledge beyond what it took to acquire food. They were restricted solely by their environment. Were they free? But, had they not been left alone and forced to be what we call civilized, they would be free from hunger, cold, heat, other animals, and insects. Yet they would be restricted by their inability to cope with a fast paced society that lived beyond their island and by laws they undoubtedly would not understand or see the value of. The list of restrictions on their freedom is almost limitless in our society. Who is freer?
One would believe that in America we do not have such alternative realities. Is it true? Diversity within our culture continues to grow, making it difficult to understand or agree with others who were, as well, introduced into our community. And that diversity is accompanied by the reduction of and imposition of our freedom. The atheist hopes to rid the American community of public faith, or better yet, faith period. The socialist hopes to rid the American community of capitalism, placing rigid guidelines on businessmen, giving his money to those with no penchant to earn their own. A revolutionary president hopes to “change America.” A growing liberal front hopes to deter individual responsibility with the assumption that freedom is enhanced by doing so. The First Amendment, a statement of freedom, is oft times adulterated in its absolution. And in doing so, allows acts that are abhorrent to most people. Whose freedom is being breached?
Though we hope for a peaceful and intellectual revolution, a turning point as it were, back to the community we knew, is it possible? Or is the chasm between our diverse natures too deep to overcome with reason, with dialectic, and with a return to the values of our past? Is America on the verge of violence and bloodshed once again?
The ruthlessness of absolutes is not part of a dynamic society. The Constitution was provided to assume that role. Moving outside its boundaries is leading us down a dangerous path in American History. Can anyone agree that America is freer with countless czars directing the efforts of private business enterprise? Can anyone say that the American Idea of Freedom is safeguarded by our new conciliatory foreign policy? Is debt, the likes of which we have never experienced before, a course or a stabilizing canon upon which America shouts of her freedom?
The Freedom that America holds dear is a standard bearer of the values of her citizens, their culture, their public faith, and their economic system. Those standards are eroding. Multiculturalism, the relativism of the far left, the growth of atheistic activism, the exponential growth of government, and the nationalization of industry are antithetical to freedom.
Statism is raising its ugly head. If one considers Freedom as “circumstantial freedom”; “acquired freedom”; and “natural freedom,” which does it affect? The last freedom might be defined as innate, by virtue of one’s human nature. The first defined as freedom as a result of favorable circumstances, while acquired freedom is a result of a certain state of mind. The move to socialistic doctrine denounces all aspects of man’s freedoms.
Has America become a misnomer? Does the wind lift our flag in the air and pronounce our liberty or our sacrifice?
If you find the promised land, don’t let go. Our fathers left it to us, how can we not hold on for dear life?
No comments:
Post a Comment