Is attempting to strategically limit opportunity of conflict truly the way to make the whole city happy? This sort of view, if not practiced carefully, can fall into the utopia pitfall and unintentionally create dystopia. Also, in trying to please everyone, at least one or more groups, like the guardians, will have to be systematically oppressed. I do not think this leads to a net increase in freedom or happiness, just dilutes it down and creates class struggles. That said, the idea has its merits in trying to make everyone happy. However, as many adages say, that is impossible. Overall, it is a nice theory but a difficult one to actually practice to reach the theorized end goal.

Again, major emphasis on collective freedom as opposed to individual.

Socrates is suggesting depriving a group of people, "the guardians" of the things Adeimantus believes make people happy. Socrates asserts that detachment from these goods would prevent them from becoming greedy, while Adeimantus asserts the opposite in the name of them being happy. I believe freedom is strongly tied to happiness in Adeimantus thought. His assertion aligns with the idea of freedom that relates to property. Meanwhile, one could say Socrates could have underlying messages of freedom, but instead he is suggesting freedom from property and thus freedom from greed. His ideas also relay stronger associations to public well-being over individuals. I think the greed that Socrates is trying to curb is an "ugly freedom" related to the freedom to own property as one pleases.

Note: foundation of objectivism

Brings back the idea of reality vs. feeling

The need for a judgement on one scale is what makes absolute freedom supposedly impossible because every individual has formed a different scale and their is no saying which one is the best.

Author reveals their opinion.

note: Brings up the competing interests

Note: Relates to Ugly Freedoms

Note: Simply states difference between the two schools of thought.

Brings back the discussion regarding being free vs. feeling free

Note: Importent statement. Brings back questioning authority. The discussion of freedom seems to run in circles.

Note: Summery of another definition or conditional to liberty.

Note: interesting but scary prospect.

this is a one man battle for everyone, making it highly unsustainable. In many ways, freedom is unsustainable in reality. It is a matter of settling somewhere on the spectrum that makes everyone feel the most free they can.

This challenges the foundations of modern democracies. I think this idea is very interesting. I seems to suggest that people are settling for an illusion of freedom instead of having it because the feeling of freedom hold value just as much as true freedom. It is not until someone FEELS oppressed in unfree that they seek more freedom.

Speaks to if absolute freedom is possible in human society.

I think this is relating too much positive freedom to anarchy? It comes back to the plane of freedom and the thin line which must be walked.

Note: Parallel to Ugly Freedoms

The use of believe really reminds me of the question regarding the value of the allusion of freedom. Do we need to be free or just feel free? Are those two things different?

Challenging the idea in Ugly Freedoms that suggests people seek freedom above all else. However, these other competitors are entangled with freedom too so the Ugly Freedoms assertion can still stand.

Brings back the idea of a spectrum.

the idea of "negative" freedom seems more paradoxical then "positive" freedom since it is more rooted in confinement and mastery.

This may be suggesting that self-superiority is placed above freedom. These two concepts are related however. I believe this brings back the argument of objectivism.

I think the idea that these things are separate yet intertwined truly speaks to the paradox of freedom. Some many things can be separated out of them but can never be fully detached from the center of the web that is freedom. At the end of the day, the idea of freedom is applicable and attached to nearly every aspect of life.

What a question. I good one for sure

The author is bringing up competing interests with freedom. Perhaps many of the things humans claim under the umbrella of freedom would be better situated under an umbrella of their own. The term freedom might be too loose, making it useless like the author proposes briefly.

Note: Relates to master point

I feel as though this can loosely relate to loose constructionalism ideologies surrounding the constitution. These sort of terms must be fluid in order to afford the changing state that makes up life and time.

Note: New definition of freedom again

Note: Direct statement of premise

Note: Good point of discussion

So, this idea relates freedom to thinking, saying and doing, and how those things relate to the public. Be seen doing these things, and acknowledged in some way, good or bad, is a part of freedom, not just being able to take those specific actions. I could be misunderstanding this point though.

Perhaps this is presenting the idea that perception of oneself by others and the labels in which they give are another anchor to being unfree.

Note: Major inquiry and interest point

This is, in a way, how society works now, is it not? At least to some degree.

Relates back to my point about isolationism.

The focus on education brings about issues with inclusivity.

This is aligning with the idea that "irrational" people do not deserve freedom.

Note: Good point

But isn't reason now a contributor to lack of freedom in some regards? The paradox comes back.

This theory, in my opinion, is not realistic because it once again aligns with the idea the humans can be perfect. I do not think that is the case.

I, as I am sure many do, find this to be too black and white.

This seems to sway slightly toward the conformist side of the freedom spectrum/ plane.

But, without the structures of society, humans would be boundless and likely overwhelmed. I am not saying all structures of society are good or perfect, but I think that this theory ignores the significance society has in determining what someone develops as their ideologies and self. Additionally, it fails to justify if human rational is totally rational. I is rooted in human ideas that in and of themselves can be questioned.

I enjoy contemplating this reality, but I do not find it probable. I think without these structure, other problems would occur and their would still, to some degree, be a lack of freedom.

Note: Interesting view

He is assuming he has the authority to indicate something as incorrect. In this way, he is infringing on one of the ways of thinking about freedom.

Note: Another point of complexity. People change.

Is it possible to understand the world entirely? If not, then this freedom is unobtainable. All the different thoughts related to freedom have a degree of paradox, unobtainability, and imperfection. Again, I think this supports that the idealized state of freedom is not real. I will also relate this back to the feeling of freedom. Perhaps people find freedom in the feeling more so then the action.

Is it possible to be free from these things? It is nice to believe that it is possible, but these concepts are the foundation to society, order, and socialization. I think trying to get the purest form of freedom might instead lead to the loss of other things and, given the broadness of the term freedom, would probably lead to a net loss in freedom anyway.

This has a very strong relation to "Ugly Freedoms"

The author is pointing out the exact counterargument I proposed earlier. This once again enforces that freedom is paradoxical.

Note: Interesting thought

I think the distinction of feeling free and bring free are very different yet related ideas. In my reading, I have come to view freedom as a whole unobtainable. That said, I wonder if the feeling of being free is just as valuable as actually being free? If thinking in the lens of freedom as an individual, feelings often instigate thought. Thus, if you feel free, are you not in some sense of the word, free?

This is an idea in direct opposition to the form of freedom discussed earlier that suggests tat coercion is ok so long as it is as the hand of someone who is perceived as enlightened. This idea opposes that in stating man can not want something it doesn't understand and thus it is none of their concern.

This creed seems as though it could be quite destructive, but the idea itself is interesting to contemplate.

I hope to discuss this empirical form in more detail. I believe I understand what it is referring to in someways, but I question if I am fully grasping the concept.

So this idea of freedom plays into objectivism a good bit and really emphasis individuality as the force of freedom. Collective effort seem to be viewed with in a lens of coercion unless the person participating did so without any exterior influence. Considering people live in societies, I once again question if this sort of freedom is entirely possible.

I think this note proposes the question of whether passion is yet another form of being unfree. There are so many things that are both freedom and not at the same time.

So, much of freedom is founded in the human ideology that humans are not to be put into the collective of nature, but instead something entirely separate and, in some schools of thought, better. Some ideas of freedom are founded on human exceptionalism which possess questions regarding nature's right to freedom and what truly assert that humans are superior.

I think people can in fact enslave themselves. This comes back to arguments related to coercion and incentives.

"Negative" is a good way of expressing this type of freedom because this type of freedom is only gained by someone at the expense of something else, like someone else's freedom.

This idea ties to my idea regarding isolationism. However, even that isolationist definition falls short because then one is not free to explore the things beyond their own individual. The paradox comes back into play.

Ideas of freedom can be born from situations of lack of freedom. Suggests that rebellion and freedom are a part of human nature.

The idea the author is highlighting here has serious implications in socialization practices within society. Overarching moral codes can be used to manipulate people and cause internal struggle. They can be good in the eye of the teacher, but harm the person they are trying to "guide" Society is formed on the principles of guiding new people to conclusion, conclusions that have already been established. This idea plays into conformism and nonconformism/anarchy and the thin line that runs in between balancing the two.

Note: Directly states that freedom is a paradox

Note: Moral dilemma discussed in this article and the first one.

Note: good point for discussion and central conflict in "positive" freedom contemplation. Telling others what to do by proxy is infringing on their freedom in some lights.

Society and institutions themselves are by proxy unfree. Brings back my note about freedom from the first article. The only way to be completely free is to be entirely isolated. I now add that to be free, someone must also be completely at peace with every thought they have. The idea of comprehensive freedom keeps getting less and less possible.

Introduces internal conflict as a form of being unfree.

Ties ideas of freedom and self-determination to ideas of self-worth, happiness, individuality.

Emphasizes peoples desire for self-determination and its relation to freedom.

Suggests that freedom can be found at the root of many conflicts do to its umbrella of applications.

Speaks to society's construct around order and disorder. Disorder, which is in a scientific sense normal, is seen as abnormal. This view has led to many flawed expectations.

Note: Clear expression of author's message

Conflict of ideas, including freedom, is what makes humans human. Without it, humans would have nothing to change or strive for. Difference is needed less people live a fruitless and boring life. These concepts are, of course, established constructs, but they are ones vital to our concepts of happiness and purpose.

To have freedom, people have to be blocked from achieving a greater level of freedom than others, making them by proxy unfree.

Offers that if conflict of ideas, like freedom, is to be avoided, people must be cemented into one type of thinking one very topic. This would involve institutional limitation and manipulation over generation, which offers a distinctly disturbing possibility. It eradicates freedom in the name of it. This is something that any Utopian book highlights. Utopian is by proxy dystopia.

Highlights difference between the ideal of freedom and the reality of it.

This author brings up a slightly new idea. Freedom is a currency for other ideals, like equality and so forth. The idea of different forms of freedom is also progressed here as well. This article still suggests that freedom is an umbrella term with many sub-ideas/topics.

The author suggests that if freedom must be given in one regard to get freedom in another, there is no net increase in freedom. This brings back the idea of trade-offs and their impact on freedom.

This is an idea that was brought up in the first article. However, it is something the first article established as a largely unachievable ideal. My ideas on that are included in the first article.

Challenges the pedestal freedom is often placed on.

This brings me back to the claim that complete freedom is impossible in a non isolationist society. As long as there are even two people on the earth that hold one difference in opinion alone that they fight for, there will likely never be freedom.

Issues regarding freedom arise when peoples' ideas of the limits and provisions of freedom differ and conflict. It is understood that limits are needed via law, but to what extent? Questions like these about freedom's many complexities create the need for discussion on this topic. The answer is always changing with time and situation, making it indefinite. That said, it is still important to explore the many answers and evaluate them on a personal and societal level.

Note: central point of discussion

Another school of thought of freedom discussed in the first article we read.

Jealousy?? Is jealousy a player in freedom debates?

These are two of those sub-ideas that have endless variations that propagate freedoms diverse meanings and complexity. Since people disagree on these topics and these topics influence the umbrella of freedom, people by proxy disagree on the meaning of freedom.

This idea relates to Langston Hughes Poem in many ways. It attaches freedom to the ability to have the physical things that other people have access to, like land in the poem.

Note: Definition

I like that this author explores freedom as a spectrum. The number of areas in which you are allowed to do as you please establish a spectrum of freedom. This spectrum is influenced by ones standing on the many sub-ideas of freedom. It also makes freedom a more fluid term than a definition would, in some ways. It is not a perfect representation but, as the last article established, a perfect representation is near impossible to devise.

1. Negative Freedom: explores the boundaries and acceptability of actions taken under the umbrella of freedom

2. Positive Freedom: explores what determines, controls, and grants freedom

Relates to one school of thought highlighted in the first piece we read.

Note: Important statement, sets up main topic - Introduces relation to freedom.

Understanding political theory involves understand human philosophy and thought because philosophy and thought often lay at the roots of political issues and being.

Note: Primary argument/ point

I believe this is saying that radical ideas are balanced by others with equally radical ideas of a different persuasion.

I talked about a line in which conformists walk. This phrase reminds me of that analogy. Stepping too far into radical, new practices can cause destruction. There is a need for norms in some regards, but the importance of those norms should be evaluated on a situational basis, in my opinion.

I enjoy the inclusion of the earth within this topic.

Very interesting topic. It hold great literal meaning due to history but figurative meaning too. Keeps the author's challenge to concepts of "beauty" alive.

These time-exclusionary placements make it easier to disassociate the last effects of "freedom."

Note: Moral = Freedom is imperfect, complex, and paradoxical (in relation to the idealized version of itself).

The story of freedom is not one story, but many, that must be told equality to form a more holistic image of freedom and its broadness.

This brings back the idea of the thin line I mentioned earlier.

I see this as these unguided actions are human. They represent the life of a human.

In some ways, action without guides is freedom depending on the definition considered.

There is now a distrust of the "American Dream" The ideal has betrayed people's expectations too many times, so a new prospect must arise. Part of this relates to society's excessive hyper fixation on perfection based on expectations. When these expectations are not met perfectly practices and ideas are scorned and given up on. This is not necessarily bad or good. It makes society unstable but offers the explorations of a new stabilizer.

I think this is suggesting that people are losing their common desire as its imperfections become more known over time. Now, people are once again searching for a united cause to drive society as a collective.

Idolization has played into limitations on "freedom' and has propagated conformist delusions.

I am understanding this as those sorts of actions open pockets on nonconformism and give people a chance to "breath." They open little, yet valuable chances for change, even if it is not lasting.

Note: Another one of the author's major points stated clearly.

Note: One of author's major claims simply put

Very interesting relation. The system the USA uses to claim economic "independence" also chains people within a class system that is increasingly more rigid.

Illustrates the paradox of freedom and its place as a scapegoat/justification for actions due to its idealized state.

Illustrates that placing boundaries on freedom is what makes the concept idealized. A boundless, holistic examination and school of thought could cause change.

This view of freedom seems to be radically different from the class's and even my own view of freedom. I have never really associated freedom with the idea of civic duty. That said, in the USA, a lot of emphasis is placed on preforming a civic duty because it is a "privilege" of freedom.

Speaks to how disassociation of consequences can lead to idolization.

The inability to define topics and morals that function in the realm of philosophy play into the inability to define freedom because essential parts to "defining" freedom themselves are indefinable.

I am understanding that all attempts of defining freedom have flaws, misgivings, and assumptions that make them imperfect. Freedom may just be to broad to give a traditional definition. It may be beneficial to view freedom less as a term and more of subject that includes a lifetime's worth of intricacies to study.

This goes back to the umbrella term reality of freedom that makes it so complex.

This is where people find commonality in their practices of freedom, which contributes to the idea that freedom is open way or another instead of a fluid term.

This too makes a uniform practice of freedom nearly if not totally impossible.

This is another thing that makes freedom so complicated. Its different for everyone and changes for everyone all the time. It is fluid which makes it hard to contain and express in thought or study.

I think that the changing state of freedom is what makes it so interesting and also paradoxical. The changes can contradict each other for good or for bad. It is also why I think this subject can never reach a definite conclusion but instead different schools of thought that develop though time.

I believe this is an interesting way of expressing individualism.

So, the author is suggesting society challenge their views of and perceptions of other actions. Just because other's action do not seem "beautiful" to one group, they are for another. One group's freedom can look different from another. Freedom is chained by concepts of "beautiful" and "ugly" and so forth. This is not to say that the undesired reality that people, especially minorities, are subject to is acceptable, but they have found ways to be free within the limitations placed on them that stand on equal footing as traditional views. These limitations aren't acceptable, but the freedoms they allow people to brew can still be appreciated. That is my developing understanding.

It is not about relabeling but more about appreciating and viewing the old label in a new way.

Another aspect of paradox related to freedom.

Note: I am unsure of the meaning of this.

Note: Primary ideas of nonconformism and conformism's relationship.

Nonconformism is often opposed and pressed down by those who are fearful of breaking down the comfortable walls that have long existed around them. Those who like the life they have within the walls do not try to break them down or see/help those on the other side of the wall. If anything, they try to stop those on the other side of the wall from taking it down because they do not want to see the reality outside of their structures. They are afraid of sharing because sharing their world means letting things from the other world in. It is all apart of maintaining a comfortable normality.

Note: Author's purpose summarized simply

Big question. it is morally challenging in many ways and is another part of the thin line.

1. The ugliness of current freedom
2. The parts of freedom that have been left out for being "ugly"

Another interesting thought that comes with walking the line. I have already written paragraphs on my thoughts on this, but this line definitely relates to those paragraphs.

An interesting theme of this school of thought is the place of strength and its propitiation of a need for dominance. Much of societal focus is placed on the ways in which people can gain traction over others: power. Challenging the idea of power is another complexity in the web that is freedom.

Once again, this speaks to the very thing line in which this school of thought walks.

Breaking down long established barriers is a form of exploration that can lead to many things describable by any number of adjectives. I think much of this discussion isn't just about freedom, but breaking down intellectual barriers to explore reality in a more comprehensive manner. in many ways it is about unlocking the mind and the practice itself could be consider a form of freedom. Freedom from established structures and much more. This type of freedom, like the other forms of freedom, holds both good and bad. It opens the world to change but also opens paths of anarchy and collapse. In a way, it opens a box of danger, danger of new, radical, and non-conforming ideas that make people uncomfortable. I am interested in how to walk this line, one side of the line is conformism and the other is anarchy. The line itself is complicated but, to me, is simply put as change.

See previous thoughts on holistic review and non-conformative review.

I believe this is the author's way of acknowledging even the lens of calling freedoms "ugly" is more complex then what can be expressed. Exploring the value of all labels will likely provide a more holistic view of freedom in all fields. It is all very complex and I wonder if the word freedom can really be defined without leaving the many intricacies out. Definitions themselves are social constructs and are thus unfree. <-- this sentence's claim too is unfree because it is founded on a constructed image of what is free. It's a never ending paradox, but such is life in my view.

Another good point. Society is confined to concepts of "impressive" and "unimpressive" Nearly every topic and discussion to ever occur cannot fully express the reality of the world. It is impossible to consider it all at once, but having conversation about all the things normally left out can reveal just how important these established "unimportant" practices are.

I enjoy this idea. One could probably think for hours on how removing just one adjective or sub-idea from freedom could change reality. Truly, the idea of freedom is so entrenched in what society has established as normal that even I find my own thoughts paradoxical. Slowly changing and adding to the sub-ideas of freedom could cause a lot of change. I do not know if freedom will ever stop being a paradox, but perhaps the reality of freedom can be improved.

Freedom is attached to a web of other concepts, like objectivism and what not, that make it both good and bad. The web is incredibly tangled to the point that trying to remove the bad parts of the web would inevitably harm the good parts. Freedom is a paradox, an idea so full of sub-ideas and complexities that the sub-ideas clash with each other, making the umbrella term they are held under paradoxical.

I think inequality plays another major part in the "ugly" part of freedom.For me it is not a debate on if should people should be equal, but how to get there given the number of deep rooted barriers and complexities cemented by years of unequal practices. People in which these inequalities empower are highly unlikely to let those who wish to have equality just take it openly, so how do we, as a society, achieve equality in a society founded on social structure. Power dynamics are foundation to society in so many ways and, although I do not agree with normative thinking nor power dynamics, I question how to disassemble a foundation that has so many things built on to of it.

I see the merits of this view, and can not claim it is wrong, but there are laws that establish what constitutes the acceptable practice of this right. Gun ownership does empower killing, but it doesn't condone it in every situation. Many see it as a way of protecting freedom, and condemn those who threaten that ability by using guns for other things like merciless murder. In this way, the trade-off element of freedom becomes apparent again. It is a case of protecting oneself or gambling that the bad things never happen. Now, this idea should not exclude that the right to a firearm is not practiced equally in many ways. i do not know enough to make full claims on this regard, but there is definitely room for improvement in regards to policy and what not. In many ways, this is another slippery slope of trade-offs, ideals, and complexities that are difficult to fully address without personal bias and holes of consideration. The what ifs related to the topics in this entire paper are endless.

I think that this a very interesting point. Now that these ideals have become cemented as normal, with those the norm supports want to give it up in the name of the greater good. Society is often possessed by self-desire which works to ensure hat the norms which have been established by generations of structuring stay standing. This example really highlights how the ideas of freedom from those in power or of the majority block others from obtaining the same freedom out of fear of change or losing power. They use freedom to establish dominance. Their place in freedom must be kept form others otherwise they loss their dominance.

Did they "fantasize it away" or instead determine that the interconnections are less valuable than their ideal of freedom? Objectivism could be a subtle player here. I am not totally sure, but I think it's an interesting thought.

On a related note, I question if independence is truly possible. Freedom and independence are often seen as synonyms which is ironic considering they are both, equally unachievable on a personal level in today's world. There will always be at least some type of dependence, just as there will always be some level of boundaries. I would say freedom and independence are available to only a certain number of groups at any given time and, even then, neither will last long. People tend to form factions of thought. These factors start general and then split into more sub-factions until the faction can no longer get more specific. A faction reaches this point at a single person, who holds a combination of ideas and morals that are, in total, different from every other person's unique composite of ideas. The partiality of freedom affects everyone to differing degrees, depending on how many of their ideologies align with the normative version of each subject. Disclaimer: This is a personal opinion that is developing, so it still contains potential misgivings.

I think this example highlights the conflict that occurs not only between different ideas of freedom but also freedoms conflict with structures that exist for general public well-being. When exploring ideals of freedom, I think it is important to consider how freedom relates to ideals of objectivism. THe nuances of freedom can easily fit to the image of objectivism, which suggests that humans do and should only act for themselves. This relation gives aspects of freedom a questionable moral standing on many fronts. In a world where freedom is the greatest desire, where do generosity and empathy stand? All things considered, I believe that true freedom is only achievable in an isolationist world, a world that is simply not possible due to other factors of society. Reality connects freedom to boundaries, making freedom self-contradictory. Freedom is, by my logic, only possible for those who are happy with all of the boundaries and, given the sheer number of them, that seems to be no one.

See above comment regarding normative standards. Why do we need these boundaries, who set the boundaries, and how have those boundaries played a rule in oppression and many other issues? Most of all, how do the boundaries change toward progression? Its a very complicated thing for freedom to be involved with, making freedom inherently more complicated. After all, social norms seem to invoke the opposite of freedom, at least in my view. Perhaps that makes freedom a fraudulent idealism, perhaps not.

I have a hard time understanding how the "standard" was established when so much of it is extremely flawed. I am sure it comes from a place of generation compounding, but even so, I remain baffled. I think freedoms entanglements with social norms make this topic even more interesting.

The concept of ugliness and the parallel of what is considered acceptable and unacceptable has been a very big interest of mine for a while. It is interesting to explore how conformist and normative ideologies in society have contributed to the idea of freedom and issues in society in general.

If people knew the cost of their freedom, would they still want it? I think the author is suggesting that people hide the ugly side of freedom because they enjoy the good parts of freedom and do not want to tarnish the good with the fact that it harms others, something that could cause the happiness of freedom to fade. Essentially, people seek to preserve their own freedom and thus happiness while ignoring the suffering it causes because they prefer to keep their simple happiness.

People use freedom as a way of justifying getting rid of things that are unfamiliar to them. They associate the things that do not fit into their idealized images of freedom a threat to freedom itself. Instead, they are only as threat to the fragile mask of perfection veiling "freedom's" full form.

Highlights how society is able to construct "toxic" and regressive tendencies and ideologies. Generational acquisition and learning have serious implications in history and modern society.

Societal social determinations have propagated more barriers for minority groups in terms of freedom.People can connect freedom to other social establishments to manipulate freedoms power and prevalence.

Society has made its actions more acceptable by disassociation freedom from how it is optioned. I think that glorification makes freedom dangerous.

This reinforces my notes on freedoms glorified status due to disassociation from its ill effects.

This is interesting. I never thought of it, but this idea does still insinuate that a group of people (such as white people) have the power to take, lose, or give freedom (like emancipation).

I am not sure how "comforting" this is, I made this claim a few times. I think freedom is often used as a scapegoat, but at the same time it is also a trade-off based concept that isn't as perfect as people want to believe. So, I would say it is both a form of justification and a complex idea with good and bad sides.

It seems that the romanticized reality of freedom has given people a "justifiable" reason to get away with otherwise immortal action. Also, its another instance of the word freedom being an umbrella term. In this case, freedom was closer to safety in the USA; get rid of the "problem" and "protect" against it ever happening again.

I think this slightly romanticizes why the USA go involved in WW2.

I feel as though early American used labeling Africa American as property to justify their own infringements on freedom. Once again, freedom becomes a scapegoat, an idea so untouchable people do not question it right away.

A common issue is people enforcing what they believe freedom is with no consideration to others. That said, this statement alone is anti-freedom under the definition that freedom is to do as one pleases. It is a paradox.

Freedom, like many other things, is a product of trade-offs. It may be impossible for everyone to have freedom when the freedom of one person involves the destruction of another person's idea of freedom. It is not black and white in a way that instigates serious reflection and contemplation. I think freedom is very much dependent on the "eye of the beholder" ideology.

Highlights how society has come to purify freedom when, in reality, truths of "freedom", like its complexities and differences, lay behind many conflicts. That is not to say freedom is bad, at least not in most ideologies (torture would be an example of a part of "freedom" that I do not accept.), but it has a ripple affect that can be good or bad.

Interesting. I do not think I really thought about the differing meanings until recently. I think I always, like many, clumped the different ideas of freedom into the word itself, like an umbrella term. However, I can see now that freedom cannot be totally held under and umbrella, and the different ideas of freedom have important implication for policy and society in general.

Yet, it is so often taken and there are many who believe they have the power to grant it (like the soldiers). If liberty can not be taken, then why did the soldiers think they could give it. Wouldn't the Filipino's already have it?

Ironically, the USA's view of freedom cannot be concluded as a specific, overarching idea held by all citizens. Differing ideas of freedom had lead to many political conflicts. So, freedom drives American politics and thought, but its the idea of freedom held by the majority that prevails often (not all the time). This idea of freedom changes all the time and can be found at the root of many debates.

I think this is a really blunt message regarding the different meanings of freedom to people within different situations, and how the different ideas can conflict. It reveals that a differing idea of freedom can be seen as an attack on freedom accepted by someone else. In this case, the US soldiers see the Filipino's desire for independence as an infringement upon their ideas of freedom. It is up to society and each individual which side of the conflict they wish to be on. I think today, we can agree with the Filipinos side, but there may be some who think otherwise. Personally, I struggle to understand the soldiers, but their social development and ideologies are entirely different from my own. So, in that regard, historical circumstances play a big role in understanding the many complexities of freedom. It's very complex and quite hard to articulate.

Another fact toward the idea that freedom is used, in America, only in regard to the "majority" Anything that is not the "majority" is to be changed or gotten rid of, regardless of method. This extends to many societies, in my opinion, not just America.

Water is often associated with images of cleansing. In this case, the soldiers are reinforcing that image and projecting it as the water being able to cleanse the Filipinos for their non-America views. So, it is less about liberty and more the enforcement of what Americans believe people should believe and do. All the American ideologies are encompassed as liberty. The soldiers view anything that is not apart of the American ideology as something that must be cleansed.

In this instance, I believe that the concept of freedom is being used as a scapegoat to justify immoral actions. Even in today's world, I think the ideology of freedom is too often misconstrued in order to fit the mold created by those of power (on any level). Often people believe they can do anything as long as they bury their real goal in figurative good intent. In short, here, freedom is being used to justify action regardless of rationality.

This sentence reminds me of the ideologies expressed in Langston Hughes Freedom. In the poem, Langston expresses his belief that freedom cannot be founded on the premise of force, the method in which the soldiers and US are employing. The word "compel" insinuates acceptance under threat, which has historically led to rebellion.

Why? Freedom, at least in my view, must be taken willingly, for anything that is forced is inherently the opposite of free.