Some may think that instead of debating and defining these words, we should assume that we already know, and spend our time working and fighting for the ideals that the words represent.
But it seems strange to me that armies die and civilian populations so often sacrifice for theese ideals, yet most people can't even give plain, simple definitions.
I open the discussion by roughly defining "liberty", as "freedom to do some good without doing disproportional harm in the process," defining "freedom" as simply "lack of restraint". Let somebody else tackle the job of defining "good" before or after supplying your own definitions of "liberty" and "freedom", which, of course, is the whole point of this proposed exercise.)
I think that in thinking on these things people would develop enhanced appreciation of Lincoln's comment, "The world has never arrived at a satisfactory definition of liberty."
2007-10-06
09:21:50
·
8 answers
·
asked by
John (Thurb) McVey
4
in
Arts & Humanities
➔ Philosophy