I think you’re still missing the point: In other words, if the idea or concept of freedom did not precede man, what in the world was his frame of reference for such an idea or concept since it did not precede him? At what point in the history of man did one of us simply stand up and say to another, “Hey Joe, I’ve got this idea and I think I’m going to call it ‘Freedom’. I’m not sure why I’m gonna call it that or even what it even means, but it just might catch on. Whadaya think?”
Do you see where I’m going with this and why I think it’s important to see it?
I deny I exist at a collective level. Do you really believe you exist at a collective level, or is this just semantics? (I understand you said both individual and collective, but my question is to undertand the collective part.)
Now that I think about it, I belong to a lot of groups. I’m a Jew, an American, a Republican, an Atlantan, a minarchist, an agnostic…I mean I see myself as being a part of all these groups too.
I just wanted you to see where you were heading by maintaining your position.
Notice that in my original question to you whether you believed the idea or concept of freedom rose from a vacuum or is of human construct. You answered ‘human construct’ without considering other possibilities.
Look at the first example. It’s not even plausible to believe the idea rose from a vacuum. The 2nd example, which you chose, forces you into the position of having to present a clear, cogent and coherent argument as to how this is even possible or plausible. At first glance, it seems plausible but, when rigorously scrutinized, it fails; Why? Because there is NO OBJECTIVE WAY TO ASSIGN VALUE TO THE CONCEPT OF FREEDOM if it is of human construct. It is reduced down to the SUBJECTIVE, changing conventions of society and the culture. Thus, while one may balk at having to go along with those who are anti-freedom, you really don’t have any legitimate basis for complaining since the value of the idea is subject to those who are in the majority. At best, all one can hope for is that their view of freedom becomes the dominant view again and so it goes with the ebb and flow…
The third way, which I believe is the correct one, is that the idea of human freedom, the freedom to choose for oneself, rightly or wrongly, is the product of a rational mind that preceded man. The fact that this idea preceded man is the ONLY way to make sense of it and to know beyond a shadow of doubt that no matter which way the society or the culture goes, its value is not and cannot be subject to arbitration or taste or what have you; It is endowed to you by the One who conceived of it, thus making it transcendent and very valuable.
This also helps to understand why it is that if we take away a man’s ability to choose for himself, we are robbing him of his dignity. Dignity comes from being able to freely choose, hence the reason we read in Genesis 3 that although God banished man from the Garden of Eden, He never took away man’s ability to choose. He never intended to. This would also render the concept of love meaningless.
I think it satisfies the necessary criteria for being reasonable to believe. It is clear, cogent and coherent. I hope it makes sense to you.
Another way of looking at this is that those are all just adjectives or labels that you put on yourself. You consider yourself part of a collective only because other people have those same adjectives placed on them. Those commonalities are either a result of coincidence, or human action. As for the labels that classify me as a result of coincidence; I take no pride in them. I didn’t work for them, and have offered nothing to humanity by automatically being classified under any of those labels.
I guess it’s a matter of psychology, but I take more pride from what I have made myself into, rather than from what has been given to me. For instance, I’m tall, dark, and handsome. I think it’s nice, but I don’t take much pride in that. As for how I’ve acted, and what I’ve done with my life, I’m more proud and happy.
This is why I don’t like to think of myself so much as needing to be part of some collective. I have done nothing for it, it has done nothing for me, and it isn’t necessary and it doesn’t advance my life or liberties, or anyone else’s life or liberties.
I don’t find security in chaining myself to groups. I find my liberties restricted and my individuality eroding, and being able to give less to the world as a result.
Think about it… If there were no selfishness, would we need government? Maybe this is a bit more idealistic of an answer than you wanted, but it remains true.
Partially to confirm something I’d suspected (that it’s a good possibility that you’re somehow connected with Gene Cook), and partially to point out what I just did, viz. that it’s a variant of a refuted form.
Haha… Of course I’ve tested it! Ok… No I haven’t. But it seems to make logical sense to me at least.
If not for selfishness, would people need government? would there be crime, or any infringement on rights in the first place? If people were selfLESS there would be zero need for government.
See, you’ve made progress already. You acknowledege that you did not test your answer. Notice, you did not ask a question, you instead provided what you thought was an answer. In fact, you considered the answer to the question to be “simple”. Upon further review, it wasn’t so simple, was it?
I suggest not using the “quick reply”, use “reply” instead. Highlight the part of the text you want, then click on quote. Otherwise, it is difficult to determine who you are addressing.
But there is “selfishness” as you call it. Creating a fantasy world may be OK if you’re writing a novel, but there is a real world out there. I will have to say that I reject your answer. You’re welcome to try again, though. And, since you’re in the newbies section now, you might want to post your own questions.