I can see why you want to keep it simple. No worries.
If one goes strictly by the dictionary definition, then no country on the planet is free because they are all constrained. For example, your neighbor is constrained by law from blowing your head off for being a moron. Ergo, to simple-minds, the neighbor isn’t free.
"Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"
Certain religious associations might also diminish empathy. In a fascinating study, “The End of Empathy: Why White Protestants Stopped Loving Their Neighbors,” John Compton looked at the decline of mainline Protestant churches that played a role in critical social justice movements and the rise of congregations of self-selected, homogenous people more concerned with maintaining power in a changing world than with traditional values (e.g., attending to the poor).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...pathy-gap-fix/
Cypress (02-15-2023)
“The aggressive, disruptive, and unforgiving mindset that characterizes so much of our politics has found a home in many American churches,” wrote Peter Wehner, a former senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a Christian evangelical. “When the Christian faith is politicized, churches become repositories not of grace but of grievances, places where tribal identities are reinforced, where fears are nurtured, and where aggression and nastiness are sacralized.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...pathy-gap-fix/
Philosophers and theologians have been debating the nature of freedom for centuries, so I don't have brilliant answers of my own. I don't think the absence of restraint on action is an adequate definition.
But I Iike FDR's formulation of the four freedoms, and the formulations of freedom by The Buddha, Jesus, Utilitarianism, and German Romantics, aka freedom from the slavery of ignorance and sin, and freedom to create and participate something larger than oneself.
Doc Dutch (02-15-2023)
Is there anything in common among these examples that might be a good definition of "freedom"?
If we can't define terms at all then it seems fruitless to have terms for things. I like a solid definition that can be leverged for a wide array of things.
Say "Religious Freedom" is the right to practice one's faith without restraint imposed by someone or something else. Freedom of association, same thing. The right to associate with whomever you wish without restraint.
The list goes on and can easily be applied to the high minded philosophical concepts but also to the mundane physical concepts. Perhaps "freedom" is the word we should be talking about now. Perhaps there is some other philosophical term that is more apropos. I don't know what that would be, but clearly "freedom" is too difficult for anyone to truly define and as such no one can speak about it with any authority since clearly you and I both have radically different definitions of the term. I have a definition and you have an indicator that philosophers have been struggling for centuries over the nature of freedom. I don't know how they would do that if there is no definition of the term but it would certainly lead to centuries of difficulty with understanding it. I can certainly see that.
Not everyone will be willing to treat religion as you might wish. I clearly fell afoul of that when I insulted religion and it upset you very much. I see that religion is important to you, at least in terms of showing proper respect for it.
I get that. It's a difficult topic to broach, especially when someone has deeply held beliefs.
Plato wrote Departure from the Cave. We talked about this before. Only 5% of humans have freewill. The other 95% have slave instinct. They are codependent on their masters. The military and universities are a perfect example. They're not allow to think on their own. That's the way they like it. They're afraid to depart the cave.
Bookmarks