Another component of the American Amalgamation Social Theory; popular sovereignty, comes from this excerpt put forth by Hobbes. Is this where we originally derive this political notion from?

I can't help but think it is a line of logic similar to this that allowed for the peaceful transfer of power in the United States, hitherto rare and practically unseen

Interesting notion that if a "sovereign" grants something that makes them unable to keep their citizens safe, that granted thing is void... We should apply that logic to recent immigration policy

This page seems to be an elaboration on precepts that we can now see in American laws and how, under the social contract proposed by Hobbes, eg liberty of self-defense and liberty to the right to property

Yes, because that would go against the idea of the "sovereign"'s responsibility to protect the people

I think this paragraph can pretty well summarize Hobbes' social contract in that citizenry gives up some liberty; taking up some obligations under the "sovereign" with the explicit understanding that said power will protect them

Like Plato taught, we should teach children virtues young and this is why. When we teach that crime/sin is an affront to God and/instead of man, I am willing to be that there would be a decrease in crime. Just an interesting notion connecting this reading to the Plato reading and Christianity

Could Locke and Jefferson have derived the notion of "liberty," in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness(property)" from this Hobbes excerpt?

Speaking from my own Christian bias, the lens of Christianity has allowed me to piece together how pre-destination, the religious iteration of determinism, and free will can work together. God knows what we'll do but still gives us the liberty to make those decisions out of a desire for our true love, not some forced upon affection. It is us who choose to stray from Him

This was briefly touched upon earlier, but this is another instance of the notion of following the pattern of life like was explained by Epictetus. Here, Hobbes seems to be arguing for a free will that is not inherently free, but dictated by said pattern and our past experiences and situations.

Again, we see here the notion of popular sovereignty, a staple of American politics and, having done a quick Internet search, Thomas Hobbes is where we originally get this notion from

Yes, but we should aim to lessen the "incommodity" of our fellow man, in this context, through as sound of a governance that we can in this imperfect world

Again, American governance has since modified this notion with the concept of checks and balances

It's cool getting to see where Jefferson's ideas might have come from; here we see a possible origin of the notion of "unalienable rights"

It's funny when people try to argue that America was not built on a Christian basis and morality when we have a slew of documents that carry over Christian ideas that eventually evolved into the structure of American governance

Again, we can see carry overs that end up in American political systems where the Constitution lays out a similar premise that the governing bodies of America have to adhere to and be held responsible for

Could this be a foreshadowing of the notion of American politics that America should always have a well-regulated and armed militia?

Yes..? We have the Pendleton Act that got rid the spoils system, but our president does get to award the Medal of Honor... so we still kind of have this notion presented by Hobbes

Yes, our president, ie the "sovereignty," has the power to pick their cabinet and appoint justices to the Supreme Court, but again we've instituted the notion of checks and balances

Again, a deviation of what eventually made its way into American politics as we now have the bodies of Congress to institute the declaration of war

Another notion eventually developed into American politics; Federalist 51's "ambition must counteract ambition," ie the need for controversies

Again, our judicial system does that now, which is inherently the weakest of the three branches of our government, again, so no one individual/group can dictate objective morality and what people can/can't do without reparation or a "check and balance"

This is where we can see what was edited out of Hobbes' social theory as the Supreme Court (court systems) being created so that no one people (person) can deem what "doctrines are averse," and said individual can't dictate religion and objective morality; there needs to be a another body to do that

Well... Robespierre might disagree

Good social predictor, as mentioned above, most if not all actual monarchs have ended poorly. Again, one can see what would eventually become the dominant amalgamation of American social theory of "if a governing body fails, it's our responsibility to destroy it"

Was this attribution of sovereignty not what caused the downfall of many monarchs? As the saying goes, "Absolute power corrupts, absolutely," and this giving of absolute power never turns out well

I can see why the Leviathan is such a powerful writing for US politics. While there are hints of what would eventually become the dominant social theory, ie Locke's, one can see the notion of a dominant social figure/government that would rule with absolute power as God's conduit

Very Catholic notion

Somewhat reminiscent of Epictetus' notion of following the pattern.

I've seen that we're reading Locke soon and this just reminded me of his social theory: citizens giving up some liberties for the greater good; a seeming theme from a lot of the readings thus far

Objective truth evidence, again

Humility mentioned again as a virtue

Almost another Christian ethic. If we abstain from something or perform something ritualistic like fasting, it should be for a greater cause. We shouldn't just debilitate ourselves for our own sake as this excerpt seems to attest to

Yes, one should take care of their body. This is a fine critic on the current "body positivity" movement. While yes, you have the freedom to gorge on food, it makes your life considerably worse as it becomes harder to breathe and move; hence, take care of your body

Just an aside but this notion again is Christian in nature

This is a very pleasant turn to self-control, as I discussed in a past annotation. Simply put, if this insinuating that stoicism requires a sense of self-control? Speaking from personal experience, I can see why the only stoics I've met in life are Christians. The two seem to go hand in hand as both this reading and the stoics I've met attest to the fact that stoicism begets good morals; rejecting mankind's natural inclinations being a good thing as because, as I've mentioned in the annotations in past articles, mankind is innately flawed

Despite the constant notion of giving up control of what isn't yours to have control over, these annotated ideas are very Christian in nature; they reject natural inclinations and what mankind would generally want. In that case, to abstain from these things would require a lot of self-control. So if one were to subscribe to these ideas, most if not all will fail, again demonstrating the need for the divine intervention I advocate for

Interesting that this pinnacle of stoicism, there is a mention of religion as when we typically consider stoics, their life style seems to be "I can do this" rather than putting their life in God's hands

At point 25, the notions hitherto seem to just be collections of "Don't worry be content" sayings. This seems to be a very warped view of freedom in that if you don't care about anything, no one can make you feel bad/constrained and lessen your freedom

Here on out seems to see a shift in philosophy away from "Nothing out of your control matters and we should live life not considering such things." Now, it seems like fortune cookie-esc sayings that might make life easier if one were to hold to them

Honestly one of the more pertinent philosophies but instead of just ignoring these onlookers, I would argue that we should attempt to invite others to join the fold, especially if we are convinced our worldview is correct

Interesting connection to the previous reading's notion that we should not fear death

If nothing matters that is out of our control, which like a previous annotation stated is up in the air, why should our behavior matter?

Yes, we should give everything not in our control up to, taking the precedence of Christian virtue, to God. But there is a limit; who decides what is truly in our control? What do we get to exercise our free will over?

Wow... this is incredibly void of emotion. Very "In the grand scheme of things," in the worst way possible because this takes away any sense of justification and permissiveness of what might be unjust, ie theft

Reminiscent of the previous reading's "Everything good is easy to obtain"

Testament to the recurring theme of objective truth in the readings

As mentioned in a previous annotation, yes, the state of stoicism is like perfect negative freedom, unachievable

That is a strange interpretation of the notion of objective truth that was mentioned in previous readings. While yes things remain unchanged, ie objective truth, things can have an aspect of change innate to them, like situations causing different emotions to rise out of us.

This is one of the basic principles of stoicism that I disagree with. As mentioned in previous writings, humans are innately social creatures who need to care about things and an indifference to the world can loosen life of its meanings; we should care what happens to us

I think it can actually be both; we can accept that this world has its intricacies but again, innately divine concepts like philosophy, freedom and everything else we've discussed, need to have some spiritual component that allows us to feel secure despite life's intricacies and not be overwhelmed by its grandeur.

What differentiates this from the previous reading's notion of analyzing everything from an observation/scientific sense?

So would one simply just be forcing this sense of peace? What happens when someone who subscribes to the philosophy of stoicism and they reach their breaking point. Alluding to my past framework of Christian faith, the notion and compulsion of stoicism will fail, a true Christian faith will not

Just a connection that came to mind in relation to the notion of stoicism and the previous reading: With the notion of the "Four Part Cure," one can easily make the connection to the conventional connotation to stoicism with the notion of not worrying about the gods or death being reminiscent of an almost apathy.

After reading this entire section, this seems to be a collection of saying that if applied to life, could be beneficial, with some of them delving into notions of freedom. It's main points, at least concerning our central topic of freedom, seem to convene around the notion of that desire for material possession is what can prevent true freedom, almost as if desire for materials can potentially prevent self-mastery/sufficiency or the ability to exist without coercion, both of which make sense when examined from a specific angle

The seeming entirety of the notion of positive freedom summed up in a sentence: freedom comes from self-mastery/sufficiency

Despite my previous annotations stating that this article argues more for negative freedom, there are still plenty of excerpts that one could use to argue that this reading actually espouses positive freedom, or some combination of both. This idea of getting what one wants for themself is a clear indication of mastery over one's life, ie positive freedom

This seems VERY Plato-esc; adhere to the role you are supposed to be/the one that best fit you and teach children/society vitrues

The central message of this reading seems to be centered around the previously made point that humans need a social component, which is weird that this reading also seems to say that there is a possibility for, at least according to class understanding, negative freedom

Nice support for the notion mentioned previously that humans are innately social creatures

Again relating this back to Plato, this article gives a good reason as to Plato's assertion that societies should teach their kids virtues at a young age or else, like this reading states, they will be made "distraught and baffled by fortune"

Weird to here this from a "Vatican Sayings"

Using the spiritual principles that I have been implementing throughout the readings, yes, there is no necessity of the things of this earth, but that only implies when we come to the realization that we need a thing in the spiritual, a Savior that relinquishes the grasp the wants of the world have on us

I made the point earlier, but this reading seems to lean more towards the principles of negative liberty. Might there be a practical implementation of this concept the class simply hasn't found? It seems like this reading is advocating that yes, there might be a way to seclude oneself from all negative freedom coercions

Is this true taking into account Plato's assessment that the objectively best thing for humanity to do is to fill the role that we're supposed to? Then there is an objective best thing, negativing circumstance

Does this inherently make the point from the first and second reading that there is some how some out group that might be lesser? Interesting/weird that these multiple articles make this similar stance

Taking the notion from the previous reading, this further affirms the point that when we fulfill the societal roles that we're supposed to, we can better ensure peace and a virtuous society

I think it was the first reading, Ugly Freedom, but this article reaffirms the point made in that we are inherently social creatures. There is some form of freedom that comes in being social and in connection with one another; some emotional sort of freedom

As I've discussed in the previous readings, there needs to be objective truth. This article simply adds the notion that we should inspect our surrounds to have the best shot at perceiving objective truth; not letting our feelings cloud our judgement

Was there not a point made earlier that time is valuable because it's limited?

With the class discussion of negative liberty, this seems to be what we might seem as the impractical goal of negative freedom to essentially void oneself of any interaction in order to rid an environment of coercion, ie this reading's example of "withdrawal from the world"

Again, in the ancient sense this might be credible, but I think in the present day, there is a precedent for the natural sciences to support religious claims

Still circling the notion of that earthly pleasures are fleeting

Advocating for negative freedom? The idea being the absence of coercion as a "protection from men" being a good thing

This is a very simple take on human emotional phenomena, what about bittersweetness? I think as a 21st Century society, we can look past this seemingly elementary emotional analysis

Is this an argument for positive freedom? This encapsulates that by being one's own master, they can relieve themselves from these anguishes

Does it? There's a famous saying which advocates for the notion that an easy life creates weak men and those weak men create bad times. Hence, I would challenge the argument that virtues arise from a pleasant life. I would say that a virtuous population gives rise to a good life

I have to fundamentally disagree with this claim. We should not seek a pure fleshly pleasure. Going with the same logic of a constant intersection of the natural and spiritual world, the natural world, and the pleasure it gives, will fail eventually, but the spiritual world and the joy it bring won't. Thus, I think we should seek that spiritual joy and fulfillment instead of the world's pleasure

Mmmm... I don't know about that, if we're not consumed by pain, I would argue it's because we are filled with joy, maybe not pleasure, but joy

Could this thought be used to argue that somewhere within each individual, is the inclination to be either a guardian, auxiliary or producer? We all have something we're supposed to do, we just need to find it.

Might not be an absolutely profound idea but it's still a nice thought that what makes time valuable is that it ends

As I have advocated in the past three readings, these notions which we denote good, even in ancient wisdom, have been denoted to have a necessary divine component

This seems almost futile? Why should we advocate for a constant pursuit of happiness when even the most wealthy and successful people in history have advocated that it's all empty?

Interesting connection to Plato's assertion that society should teach their citizens virtues when they're young

Again, more evidence for the claim that politicians should rule for their constituents, not themselves

Is this a battle between a supposed Locke's aforementioned social theory and the idea of positive freedom? This excerpt contains the notion that mankind can live in slavery to the law, with in this light, becomes a support for the philosophy of positive freedom as "only you can be your own master." However, if we look at the inverse of this, we can see that yes, we might not be our own master, but giving up some freedoms in a social contract with the government allows for more good than we could ever do as our own master

I DO know that King Cyrus was a respected king within Persian history

I'm getting a bit messed up on the notions presented within this discussion of Greek society. Could we elaborate more on it in class?

Not only is this idea reiterated throughout the passage, but this also affirms the need for objective truth. If you have subjective truth, you truly have no self-control because if truth can be whatever I want, there is no objective bad for one to control themself against

This brings up two previously discussed points as one, objective truth needs to exist as it allows to policy dictated on something concrete that isn't dictated by someone's selfish pursuits. As such and being the second point, there is an argument here that politicians should rule and vote based on what their constituents want, not what they want

Yes, we should not censor thoughts grounded in truth as per my previous comments, no matter how seemingly ridiculous because they can help a society see issues and/or solutions that one man could not

This reading seems rife with what would become modern politics theories. Here, this notion is similar to the thoughts supported by Max Weber and his push against pushing one's ideas from the front of the lecture hall. One should not meddle matters of personal plights with aforementioned divine topics like freedom and justice

Example just reminded me of the notion of negative freedom; being rife with with coercion

Again, this mentions the seemingly central idea that there are less freedoms afforded to those in political power as it is inherently a role of responsibility.

This just made me think of the "Right to Education" discussion we had in class. While it's debatable whether or not there is a right to education, this discourse, and I agree, that we have the responsibility to educate the next generation and keep our posterity stable

Yes, as I have mentioned in both previous readings, rationality and truth needs to be objective. There needs to be an objective reality or else you open the door to unaccountability and as long as you can think something, it can be deemed valid, no matter how ridiculous. Society needs objective rationality and truth to survive.

Could this be more or less an allusion to a sense of spirituality being a seeming necessity to the existence of mankind? I would argue that yes, no matter how advanced a civilization becomes, there needs to be some form of spirituality. As I mentioned in the "Ugly Freedoms" reading, even Nietzsche mentions it is better for God to exist than not; mankind needs God

Would this not be answered by the philosophy discussed earlier? If you notice what a previous civilization that had militaristic success, then copy that. If they were not successful, then avoid those tactics. Moreover, innovate those ideas.

So interesting to see modern political theory mentioned in these ancient texts. This is a cool example of checks and balances

This is a surprisingly modern notion as they examine what historical mandates did and didn't indicate that a civilization would survive. It would, I feel, be more beneficial to see what civilizations might have done wrong that pushed them toward their demise. As I've hitherto mentioned, are we as a society possibly implementing too many well-intentioned social plans that could potentially do more harm than good?

This reminds me of the previous reads' allusions to Locke's social theory of having sound leaders and giving them power (freedom and dictation over justice) by the civilians giving up bits of their own powers. Both discuss a form of "justifiable...kingship"

This would be an interesting thing to discuss. Is there actually a higher rate of crime in low and high end neighborhoods rather than the middle income communities? If so, why?

Hundreds of years before it's classification, this is a nice example of Talcott Parsons' Modernization Theory. There is a nobility to tradition and conservation. As I've discussed in the past, I believe in the notion that there is such a thing as straying too far from tradition to where more harm can be done than any good was originally intended

Yes, but as I have mentioned in previous readings, issues such as justice and freedom I believe are unachievable in this imperfect world. We can however attempt to reach some variation of these noble ideals by listening more to goodness rather than evil, in the spiritual sense I have hitherto discussed

So if I understand correctly, they have just summarized that justice hinges on the three parts of an individual lining up in agreement. It is when someone acts rebelliously and these three parts are in disagreement that a sort of injustice arises, almost in the vein of positive freedom as both have to do with mastery and here, there is not mastery among the three parts? In that case, I could still argue for my spiritual warfare case and say that instead of these three parts, it is the inherent properties of good and evil being at constant odds instead of a disagreement between rationality, and sense of spirit and one's appetite, which seem to be what Plato is arguing

In the most basic sense, this is an interesting connection to the previous reading's notion of positive freedom.On the surface, this is a respect for positive freedom. I would still argue that there needs to be a consideration of the duality of spiritual good and evil in conjunction with one's actions but again, upon a very surface inspection, this is a connection to positive liberty

But what drives these impulses? I would argue these are byproducts. All of these can be good and bad. A life of pure artistic expression can lead to a life with one's head in the clouds, unable to face real world problems while someone entirely dedicated to the rational part of life can lose sight of the fun-ness of life. Thus, there needs to be a deeper level of dissection into the essential components of mankind

Rational and Appetitive, different than what I would have stated but this is the same idea that I have been noting in the article

As mentioned throughout this reading in my annotations, this is another example of the notion that there is a spiritual battle within the decisions of humans. It is the evil side of this inherently broken world that leads to ideas like justice and freedom being impossible

I feel like this is a bit of a leap. I would argue that there is actually a difference and this is a faulty comparison. There is some knowledge people don't want. the idea of thirst simply being thirst I think is a bit much. I, for example, want more knowledge concerning government proceedings and the intricacies of the American federal government and the being of a politician. At the same time, I don't necessarily need a plentiful amount of knowledge concerning neuroscience. I still thirst for knowledge, but certain kinds; unlike the thirst example

This seems to be a central point here. This idea of man being at odds with itself. As opposed to suggested notion here, I would argue, again, that we function in a divinely ordained sense with part of our being, and a selfish, human driver with another part. How balanced these two components are is dependent on the person

I agree that justice is settling into one's role, despite how counter to much of the philosophy of self realization and progress in today's society. However, when adhering to the imperfect nature of this world, many people don't end up in the role they were intended for

This excerpt further reveals the pertinence of Locke's social theory discussed in class. There needs to be a relief of some freedoms for the greater good with the citizens needing to work in conjunction with politicians, as was also discussed earlier in this reading

Going back to the class discussion concerning whether or not education is a right. This excerpt denotes the point I was attempting to take. Everyone is entitled to learning. Everyone is entitled to the chance of survival. As such and especially in this time and day, an education, not to the extent of a college or high school degree, but even a trade schooling, is the right to everyone as everyone needs to know some skill to survive, whether it be simply cooking or rocket science.

Brings up an interesting connection to authentic v inauthentic desires from the Liberty reading. Can we still argue that the desires of the "inferior" many are controlled by the "superior" few?

Interesting tie to positive liberty from the previous reading and the notion of a push to be the master of oneself

I disagree. Self-control is essential to society. While yes it is the same person that will indulge and control their mouth, it is two different "spirits" in a sense. As mentioned in both previous readings, there needs to be a sense of spirituality in the world of politics. Here, it is the spirit of man, who would indulge in the world, and a divinely inspired spirit fighting to preserve goodness. This spirit of man and evil is also what makes innately Heavenly ideals like justice and freedom impossible to acheive on this imperfect earth

No, moderation has to intertwine itself with the likes of justice. For example, it is objectively not just to allow people who don't care of themselves to abuse the abundance of food in a metropolitan area where not 20 minutes away, people are starving due to "lack" of resources.

Again, this continues the theme I touched on above and in the previous readings but objective truth has to exist. If not, then nothing has to be feared because nothing, if not objective, can be applied to all and no one can hold anyone accountable to any standard

Potentially another component of the notion ,mentioned earlier in the passage as to how those with more political power have less freedom. This would carry over here with there being more metal workers as less individuals might be inclined to pursue a career in politics due to the de jure responsibilities

So is there an argument that it is by these individuals who judge overall quality of the city that are somehow above the everyday man?

I think it's an interesting thing to bring up the practicalities of society. It might be nice to think that society could be this amazing thing where equality and resource is abundant, but is that practical? Are ideals practical? Can this imperfect world ever be perfect by the efforts of man?

In coming to the foot of justice however, is it possible that we can actually make another situation worse? As I've discussed in the other readings, if we take freedom and other virtuous ideals in this flawed world as limited, than by "coming to the rescue" of justice in some way, could we make another group's lives worse or all together make something else entirely worse?

I think this intertwines itself with the notion that we have been discussing with freedom having an intrinsically supernatural element.

This was briefly mentioned in both my annotations on the Liberty and Ugly Freedoms readings but this notion of leaders needing to hold strong within their political spheres of influence is, I think, especially pertinent in modern politics. However, when discussing the theme of freedom, this notion is topical as in Locke's social theory, and as described above, politicians have a different level of responsibility, giving them less negative freedom but allowing those they serve to have more security, again in accordance with Locke's social theory

Love this notion of people persecuting truth. I discussed this notion int he Liberty reading but with the modern push for a more subjective meaning to truth, I completely think this is more evidence that objective truth needs to be advocated for or else one loses themselves to a world without standard

I would again say this is a very astute observation. This is why I think the public schooling system is fundamentally flawed. As poorer communities funnel less money into their schools than more affluent communities do, those less fortunate children get a worse education, and those communities more often than not, end up far, far worse than the more economically well-off

I have actually agreed with this position for sometime, I didn't realize it was mentioned within ancient wisdom. I have worked with children for the better part of five years and I can confidently say that when you raise a child in the way of righteousness and goodness, then you don't get a society where crime rates are high, you get places that people want to move to from more run-down cities.

Something I mentioned in the Liberty reading is the notion that when society starts pushing too many seemingly progressive ideals, than it can end up doing more harm than good.

There's a quote that notes how the road to destruction (a typically evil-associate word) is paved with good intentions. I think this is an especially pertinent phrase today as again, as society pushes for more a progressive culture, it's again, been doing more harm than good whether it be with rising prices or massive influx of drugs entering this country illegally

This presented notion reminds me of the previous reading, using the notion of poverty as a form of coercion, opening the door to a societal pervasiveness of negative freedom

In the most stoic sense, sure, riches might implore someone to stop working. However, one could also make the case, especially in the modern age of heightened emotionalism, that some one would be able to work, especially artists, out of passion. As someone who firmly believes in the philosophy that one should work in a field they enjoy over one that may pay a little more, then I would disagree with this sentiment, but I do very much understand the opposing side

I could be misreading this, but is this arguing that while the elite of society have all the luxuries of life, the common man has freedom in its place? If I'm understanding this right, that is an interesting point! Politicians and higher ups have an obligation to society that ensures that they keep society running smoothly, but the everyday man can do whatever under the pretense of being under a governing body

Does this argue that freedom should be based on the person? Is this a subjective view of freedom?

As I mentioned in the "Ugly Freedom" reading and like we discussed in class, this passage also supports the potential that the nature of freedom is a zero sum game; exists on a scale to where when one group becomes more "free," then some other group has to become less so.

This is why it is so dangerous to consider a vast pluralism of view points and why theory, especially within the social sciences is so important: there needs to be objective truth and a consideration of too many facets can muddle truth, harming more than consideration ever intended to help

Is this necessarily true though? There is currently a need for trained individuals who have gone to trade school, not necessarily receiving a college-level education. I think the notion of pushing college can cripple a society when one considers the necessity for all vocations to exist in order for a society to run smoothly; while also respecting all facets/trades of society

Again, this is just the economist's evidence of freedom as a spectrum; I desire to be free but by how much? Should it be explicitly laissez-faire?

It is this weird sense of patrimony that is so disgusting in hindsight; when one invalidates old ties due simply to some cause that seems appealing but is in reality evil. In Orwell's 1984, you see that the children abandon family ties for the good of the Party, it goes to further exemplify an unhealthy patrimony that can quickly destroy old structures on the pride of one individual

That's why abuse of power is such a strange thing as it can go unnoticed while taking place, but in hind sight, be blatantly obvious. The worst politicians and leaders place an emphasis on seeming to liberate the working class while in actuality just abusing their own power-trips

I think this epitomizes much of modern politics, especially the concern over how much oversight and intervention the federal government should have; yes we should all have individual freedom, but how much?

Similarly to the point made in "Ugly Freedom," but these lofty notions like liberty and freedom are hard to define concisely as they encompass to much. Using the premise set in my annotations of that piece, these concepts are inherently flawed due to the world we live in being inherently imperfect and humans being inherently imperfect beings

Interesting point of how freedom and liberty must exist within the vacuum of certain, unremovable social structures that we operate within and to an extent, all enjoy

Cool point, being under some form of leadership is indeed a form of freedom and liberation. Especially in the religious sense, there is a relief that comes in the form of being under a divine authority. While we are subject to God, He takes the burden of attempting to make an ideal situation on an imperfect mortal world into something only manageable by Him

It is this, again, that pushes for the need of some social theory as a necessary component for liberty and freedom; this desire to be a part of some common whole and/or connection

Would we truly still be the people we are today if one aspect of our upbringing or environment was changed? If our place of birth, education, or even group of friends we were in, changed, than would we still have the same convictions we have now? It's a very inane hypothetical but still plays into the notion of freedom/free-will

We are inherently social beings and mortal concepts like freedom on this earth then have to, by nature, involve a social aspect. Thus furthering the intertwined, zero sum game that is the precedent for freedom established in class

It is this notion I think that can further the notion I discussed earlier that stoicism is the wrong way to go about achieving freedom from connection as we are inherently social beings. After all, there is the idea that we are all composites of the five people we are closest to

This feels like a streak of logic that would compel some of history's monsters to commit their atrocious acts, i.e. Hitler being convinced the Jews are "savages," or even leaders who persecute their people for resisting their regime as some how lesser than

Still not on board with this wise v. unwise dehumanization

But the nature of politics is very dissimilar from that of the natural sciences? There are less direct ways to prove the truths within social science so theory continually has to play a role until a truth is found. While both sciences have definitive, objective truths, they have inherently different means of discovering them

Again, when you dissect this type of thinking, it really is a nasty idea to place so much emphasis on humanity as being educated

Does this statement not prime itself to an ugly freedom that leads to dehumanization? Does this notion not relegate the "uneducated" to inferiority due to their lack of education? This seems like an awful thing to say. I would argue it is this kind of thinking that honestly lays out the party divide the US is currently experiencing with many on the Left claiming that the Right has become uneducated and are thus subject to be berated.

This reminded me of Locke's statement that without law, there cannot be freedom. Interesting how so many descriptors of these abstract concepts like liberty and freedom are so paradoxical in nature.

This tracks with his particular understanding of the social theory

This ties into a point I made earlier about objective truth, what if someone wants to do something that seems rational to them, but is obviously irrational to seemingly everyone else. Do we impede on this potentially self-destructive "rationality?" Does this limit someone's "freedom?" Is protecting our fellow man sometimes require impeding on freedom?

This explains one of my central ideas pretty well, we were made for a divine environment, and because of our sin, we try to reach Heavenly ideals, such as freedom and liberty, but will fail every time

are these truly illusions? Is there an example of a thriving and functioning society without thes "illusions?"

These ideas presented further go to show the idea that no matter what we as imperfect humans do to achieve a standard like freedom, will fall short. It is impossible to really qualify freedom with any reliability

Freedom being unattainable in this imperfect world. Backing up the point that when one attempts to achieve freedom through his own means, it can end up obstructing some other quintessential facet of life

I like this example of a cruel master when interpreted in the context of a search of freedom as, again taking the context of the zero sum game that is freedom

What kind of freedom do we seek? Freedom to help others, or serve selfish goals?

Taking this premise that to deceive someone to do something is to label them as sub-human, than that furthers the point I made in the last reading for the necessity of a divine authority as to that end, all of mankind works for something greater.

This mode of freedom I think is inherently antithetical. Yes you have freedom from material possession, but is that true freedom? Are you, by avoiding attachment, breeding the desire for attachment? There's a quote that states how many often face destiny on the road to avoiding it. Even the most stoic individuals still have the innate human need for connection, thus nullifying any of this supposed "freedom"

Yes, but objective truth I would argue, still exists. Just because someone construes the truth, doesn't make it any less true.

Interesting context to the notion of freedom that was briefly touched upon in class but is freedom subjective? Is the freedom I experience here in America the same in Canada? Just an interesting thought and one that I think ought to make one appreciate how good it is in America

This is one of the reasons I firmly agree with current Speaker of the House Mike Johnson's take that God and government need to be intertwined. This notion of who rules who can go all the way to the top, but then who controls the most powerful of mankind? Then, we need the accountability of God and the religious standing this country was founded on, that we are all endowed with rights by our Creator that no man can takeaway

I think this phrase alludes to a terrible problem in modern society and politics. What is truth? Is truth subjective or objective? If truth differs from one person to another, than how do we hold others accountable? How does politics take place that can benefit a society if that society emphasizes individuality that broad stroked policy ultimately can't do anything

Again, we can see here an allusion to Locke's social theory and the idea that freedom exists on a spectrum as we give up some freedom to receive practicalities

I feel in America, so many of us have become so comfortable in these good times that we've started to push towards extreme measures that are good in theory, but in practice actually do much more good than harm. It takes those who have gone through bad times, or the bad times that these progressive policies might beget, ie those who remember the "dictatorship" to talk sense into senselessness

Taking the precedence of freedom as a scale; a zero sum game, as discussed in class, I don't agree that this is immediately correct. The nature of our world is imperfect and anything humanity does, as imperfect beings, is subject to that imperfect world. An imperfect system being imperfect simply due to the nature of the imperfect world does not make it an awful system. It could be a fine system that's simply imperfect because perfection does not exist in this world

I would agree yes, in an ideal world, especially when you define freedom in the "mastery" sense, freedom might not be the most pressing necessity as selflessness will take precedence than selfish control

But can that truly ever be in this flawed world? I would argue not. There are very few, if not no, actions that don't obstruct others when it comes to things of politics. Especially in the modern age, expression, a seemingly simple thing, seems to always be shouted down in the name of some other cause

These are such dangerous questions to ask because it leaves humanity unchecked. We are flawed beings that need to be checked by a higher power. Even the mightiest of us will have to answer to God

A principled stance in politics, despite opposition, is a beautiful example of freedom as it shows that there is still that autonomy of thought; I can think and say whatever I want without immediately being shouted down by inane yelling; it's sad that this practice seems to diminish in today's world

Can't everything be boiled down to just ideas? Everything needs a leap of faith

I would argue not. Sociologist Max Weber argues that that sort of change has to come from within as professors and those with the access to knowledge should simply teach without inserting personal bias and trying to indoctrinate. Hence, their has to be a level of personal conviction to "disarm" these fatal powers

Just thinking aloud, but using the premise seemingly set by class discussion, if freedom is a zero sum game, if certain ideas in a society become overbearing towards a particular group, is there not a precedent for that minority to leave and go to an area that would support their ideals, potentially helping to mitigate the overall decrease of that central theme of freedom in the world?

Again, bringing up the idea of a worldly freedom and flourishing needing to have a sense of "ugliness" to it

Further exemplifies my notion that freedom on this earth requires a sense of give and take

I would actually argue that the presidency of Joe Biden exemplifies my previous point of how society can stray too far from "ugliness" that can eventually turn society for the worse. The border, in the name of giving a path to American citizenship, has gone to the most ridiculous extremes as fentanyl and gangs have crossed the border unchecked. Inflation has reached insane rates with gas and groceries reaching higher prices, hurting the everyday American. Then, the foreign policy has resulted in a general disrespect of American society across the world

Would disagree, under the basis of Christian defined freedom, in personal life and political, does offer freedom without ambivalence. While there are compromises, like Christians are called not to sin according to the standards of God and the Bible, Christianity has freedom has adherence to God and being in line with His will in that we have no desire to do anything contrary to Him, ie sin. Other religions might have this same premise, I have not done that extensive research

The example of Marx brings back up my point of practicality; Marx's idea of pushing for the workers' rights apart from the bourgeoise sounds good, but when he relies on Engel to bail him out when communism doesn't fall on Europe, the real world takes its toll

Tangentially related, but when the systems of governance we see are under start to unfairly exploit society, do we turn and say, "the systems are broken and need to be fixed," or "the system is working how it should be and needs to be abolished?" Both are examples of freedom; "to 'alter of abolish'"

I agree, this notion also requires a destigmatization of what modern ethics consider evil. While subjugation is of course bad when done unjustly, with the right pretenses, being under a dominant authority is not necessarily bad; whether it be divine or concerning government

Further evidence to support the notion that freedom, and ethics in general, should be examined as products of their time; people are responsible for what they knew at the time; people back then were pretty atrocious, just like their practices.

Interesting example of a teacher's lounge. Taking it one step further, modern education I think is a good example of the freedom I support that entails an adherence to a greater power with us giving up certain liberties for the greater good with the teachers needing to teach to meet a certain standard, eg the AP test, but letting the teachers have the independence of exactly how they are going to teach the material, eg two biology teachers will teach the oxidation phosphorylation differently

I live by the notion that humility is the most powerful form of connection and leadership. However, is this condemnation of "ugly freedom's" reliance on robustness and boisterous subjugation practical? In an ideal world, this ideation toward the meek would be optimal, but in today's world that I denoted as broken, would it be practical?

While yes, there needs to be social progress driven on the ideas of justice and whatnot, is it possible society distances itself too much from the "ugly?" Regardless of one's political or religious stance, this is an imperfect world we live in. As such, there are a plethora of accounts throughout history of humanity's hubris leading to what we think are fixes but ultimately leave society worse off. I would maybe even go so far as to state that mortal society needs a bit of "ugliness" to function

As I mentioned earlier, I am a man of faith. However, there is ample evidence to support faith in the arena of politics from both religious and secular sources. Nietzsche argued that it was good for God to exist because it helped push good morals in society. People erroneously state that Nietzsche "killed god" but actually, he supported religion in so much that it helped structure and ensure society runs smoothly. Moreover, 2023 Speaker of the House of Representatives mike Johnson affirms how the separation of church and state is a misnomer in that the government shouldn't dictate religious doctrine. Thus, religion helps to combat "ugly freedom" so far as it promotes the idea that all human life is inherently valuable. Hence, God must be present to insure true freedom in governance.

While this might seem true in a vacuum, I think it's actually deeper than that. In Federalist No. 51, the point is made that ambition must counteract ambition, further supporting the point made earlier relating the notion of freedom having a give and take as defined by John Locke's social contract

This brings up a point I made earlier but does this example of "health freedom" further bring forth the notion that freedom must exist on a scale and have a degree of social agreement. When the "anti-maskers" exercise their bodily autonomy and their First Amendment right, "maskers" had the right to individually avoid those who they posed a risk; setting that scale of freedom right.

This notion of out-of-date practices has become surprisingly relevant in the modern political landscape. Do we analyze practices with modern sensibilities or through the cultural lenses of the time? While these practices might seem atrocious, people were also generally more atrocious back then

I honestly love this idea of de-idealizing freedom. Is oppression under a degree of overbearing power a bad thing? Religion, regardless of the sort, believes in a sort of higher power that must be adhered to for one reason or another. I am a Christian and one idea of Christianity is that we are slaves to our savior, Jesus Christ.

While it might be an uncomfortable truth, what is freedom exists on a scale? Where as one group's freedom and independence increases, there needs to be one group that takes the brunt of it. Moreover, I think this can intersect with the notion of John Locke's social contract discussed in class where as citizens need to give up certain social freedoms in order to allow the government to have a degree of reign over those that live in their territories

While the "Trail of Tears" and the violence forced upon indigenous people was abhorrent, this idea of America exacting violence on indigenous people has been called into question with other indigenous tribes forcing each other off lands and taking each others' land had been practiced for years before the invasion of Americans

Interesting point: Is freedom subjective? Does the instance of torture being a supposed facet of American freedom suggest that American freedom is inherently tied to nationalism?

I think this brings up an interesting notion concerning free will and conjunction with freedom. Is the culture that we are born into a much larger dictator of what we consider to be our own thoughts? What underlying forms of social conditioning have we been subject to that go completely unnoticed until this brutal act of "patriotism" occurs?