The land of the free. Fact or meaningless rhetoric?
Rhetoric is described as language that is not honest, sincere, or meaningful.
I am French. French has no word that equates to freedom or free will as understood by the English. This makes freedom and land of the free pure rhetorical statements and basically a dishonest statement. These terms are ideas or a reality that are impossible to have.
Freedom and free will then just becomes something that I would name as liberty. Liberty is described as permission especially to go freely within specified limits. That says to me that we are only free to follow the rules of society and those in power.
That being the case, is land of the free a true and meaningful expression?
Would it be more accurate to say land of liberty to follow the rules?
Free will is defined as freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention.
Free will translates to being your own master and not having your will hampered by any outside influence not of your choosing.
Does any law or divine command negate free will, freedom of choice and the notion of a——Land of the free?
I am French. French has no word that equates to freedom or free will as understood by the English. This makes freedom and land of the free pure rhetorical statements and basically a dishonest statement. These terms are ideas or a reality that are impossible to have.
That’s kind of like saying that since in French there is no word for “hot dog” therefore hot dogs are incoherent (if French has gotten around to coining a term for “hot dog” then my apologies, but the point stands).
The limits of language do not necessarily represent the limits of logic or possibility. If the French mind can comprehend the idea of “freedom” then the French language can come up with a way to express it. Words are symbols for the things we have in our minds, in essence.
The U.S. built its “freedom” rhetoric on an unprecedented amount of freedom for the common man, along with rejection of inherited title and privilege (no artificial upper class of royalty, for example). In that sense there’s a clear departure from the very limited freedom experienced under preceding governments. Is that type of freedom short of absolute freedom? Of course it is. But that shouldn’t represent a serious impediment to understanding what is meant.
I am French. French has no word that equates to freedom or free will as understood by the English.
I seriously doubt that. J.J. Rousseau wrote essays carefully discussing the differences between freedom and liberty. You may have a less complete vocabulary in your native language than you think you do, GIA.
I do agree that our use of the word freedom is a simplification of the concept since, as in any society the members have traded their freedom (anarchic) for societally defined liberties.
I am French. French has no word that equates to freedom or free will as understood by the English. This makes freedom and land of the free pure rhetorical statements and basically a dishonest statement. These terms are ideas or a reality that are impossible to have.
That’s kind of like saying that since in French there is no word for “hot dog” therefore hot dogs are incoherent (if French has gotten around to coining a term for “hot dog” then my apologies, but the point stands).
The limits of language do not necessarily represent the limits of logic or possibility. If the French mind can comprehend the idea of “freedom” then the French language can come up with a way to express it. Words are symbols for the things we have in our minds, in essence.
The U.S. built its “freedom” rhetoric on an unprecedented amount of freedom for the common man, along with rejection of inherited title and privilege (no artificial upper class of royalty, for example). In that sense there’s a clear departure from the very limited freedom experienced under preceding governments. Is that type of freedom short of absolute freedom? Of course it is. But that shouldn’t represent a serious impediment to understanding what is meant.
I am French. French has no word that equates to freedom or free will as understood by the English.
I seriously doubt that. J.J. Rousseau wrote essays carefully discussing the differences between freedom and liberty. You may have a less complete vocabulary in your native language than you think you do, GIA.
Guilty as charged and I am still working on my English as well.
My lack of formal education, to me, is rather apparent but then, I am lucky in having some brightness to hide behind.
I like to think I do well for someone who is self-taught.
I do agree that our use of the word freedom is a simplification of the concept since, as in any society the members have traded their freedom (anarchic) for societally defined liberties.
Occam
Therein lies the shame. If you think you are free, you will not work to———
The U.S. built its “freedom” rhetoric on an unprecedented amount of freedom for the common man, along with rejection of inherited title and privilege (no artificial upper class of royalty, for example). In that sense there’s a clear departure from the very limited freedom experienced under preceding governments. Is that type of freedom short of absolute freedom? Of course it is. But that shouldn’t represent a serious impediment to understanding what is meant
It depends also on the “when” in using the term. As outlined in our declaration, freedom essentially meant white, land owning males over the age of 21. No black slaves, no women and no indigenous natives. Or not in the meaning that we give it today. My freedom ends when yours begins, so to speak or freedom under the law. For that reason we will never have Absolute” freedom. And I find it hard to believe that French has no equivalent word for the English definition. Remember Dl, French was the international language and should have picked up meanings from all over Europe.
I do agree that our use of the word freedom is a simplification of the concept since, as in any society the members have traded their freedom (anarchic) for societally defined liberties.
Occam
Therein lies the shame. If you think you are free, you will not work to———
Well, it seems as if, not only are you deficient in your native language, but you don’t really understand English, either. What Rousseau was saying, and I was repeating is that none of us is free unless we are completely by ourselves and without any society.
I do agree that our use of the word freedom is a simplification of the concept since, as in any society the members have traded their freedom (anarchic) for societally defined liberties.
Occam
Therein lies the shame. If you think you are free, you will not work to———
Well, it seems as if, not only are you deficient in your native language, but you don’t really understand English, either. What Rousseau was saying, and I was repeating is that none of us is free unless we are completely by ourselves and without any society.
Occam
And that’s what made America so free, and great. Limitless* land to spread out in and limitless* resources to exploit.
But, now that we are piling up on top of each other, and those resources are radically diminished those freedoms are of necessity (consequences) shrinking. I myself love freedom, that’s why I’m located by one of those empty circles SE of the Salt Lake City cross
*“limitless” Yea, guess we were wrong about that also.
Sorry, CC, but to be precise to the point of nitpicking, that statement is not quite correct as I was trying to get across to GIA. It should be something like, “And that’s what made America have so much liberty and be so great.”
None of us has complete freedom. Instead, to be members of a society we agree to follow laws and ethics of that society, that is, we give up the freedom to go against the laws, ethics and other standard behaviors, and agree to having the liberties (sort of partial or restricted freedom) that the society allows.
Agreed that the farther away from civilization and the rest of society you are, the fewer restrictions to freedom that you have to follow.
