Philo Lesson 5 2nd QTR (Reviewer)
Philo Lesson 5 2nd QTR (Reviewer)
Philo Lesson 5 2nd QTR (Reviewer)
A. Aristotle
The Power of Volition
The imperative quality of a judgment of practical intellect is meaningless apart from will.
Reason can legislate but only through will can its legislation be translated into action. For
others, reason is limited to thoughts that could be realized into actual action and behavior.
The task of practical intellect is to guide will by enlightening it. Will, in fact, is to be understood
wholly in terms of intellect. intellect. If there was no intellect, there would be no will. This is
obvious from the way in which will is rationally denominated. Humanity's capacity to make
choices, also called free will is an instrument of free choice. It is within the power of everyone
to be good or bad, worthy or worthless. This is borne out of:
Moral acts are in our power and we are responsible for them. All moral acts are specific
actions done at a particular time in a particular situation with people. Character or habit is no
excuse for immoral conduct. Attending class is a student's responsibility. Should the student
cut class, then he is responsible for the consequences of his actions. As a result, he must be
held responsible for any accident or failure in grades that will befall him. The student may
regret what he had done, but such regrets are irredeemable or irrecoverable. The point is that
the student should not have cut class in the first instance. When the matter is sifted down, the
happiness of every human being's soul is in his own hands, to preserve and develop, or to cast
away.
For Aristotle, a human being is rational. Reason is a divine characteristic, that is, God created
humans to reason and are inclined to reason. Humans have the spark of the divine. In other
words, humans are made according to the characteristics of God. Without intellect, there is no
will. Though reason rules over will, our will is an instrument of free choice turning into action.
As shown in Figure 5.1, reason, will, and action drive each other. In a nutshell, it means people
think and provide reasons for their action, then they decide to enact an action. This action
comes out as behavior and choice.
B. Thomas Aquinas
Love is Freedom
Of all creatures of God, human beings have the unique power to change themselves and the
things around them for the better. Humans are the only creatures on earth endowed with the
capacity to reshape their physical environment and civilization according to their thoughts
plans, and beliefs. All other creatures on earth merely follow their natural instinct and
maintain their natural place in the world. Thomas Aquinas considered a human being as a
moral agent. As discussed in Lesson 3, we are both spiritual and body element; the spiritual
and the material.
The unity between both elements helps us understand our complexity as human beings. Our
spirituality separates us from animals; it delineates the moral dimension of our fulfillment in
an action. Through our spirituality, we have a conscience. Whether we choose to be "good" or
"evil" becomes our responsibility.
A human being, therefore, has a supernatural, transcendental destiny. This means that he can
rise above his ordinary being or self to a highest being or self. To achieve the highest level of
human fulfillment and happiness, humans must aspire to go beyond their basic needs to live,
eat, and sleep. They must aspire to become beings that are not only guided by their animal
instincts but also by their intellectual and spiritual aspirations. This is in line with the idea of
Aquinas that in the plan of God, a human being has to develop and perfect himself by doing
his daily tasks. Hence, if a human being perseveringly lives a righteous and virtuous life, he
transcends his mortal state of life and soars to an immortal state of life.
The power of change, however, cannot be done by human beings alone, but is achieved
through cooperation with God. Between humanity and God, There is an infinite Gap, which
God alone can bridge through his power. Perfection by participation means the union of
humanity with God. Change should promote not only any purely private advantage but the
good of the community.
Aquinas gave a fourfold classification of law: eternal law, natural law, human law, and divine
law. Human beings, as rational beings, have laws that should not only be obeyed religiously
but also voluntarily and with understanding (e.g., following traffic rules). Natural law, in its
ethical sense, applies only to human beings. The first principle and precept of the natural law
is that good is to be sought after and evil is avoided (basis of self-preservation). There is,
inherent in every human being, an inclination that he shares with all other beings, namely, the
desire to conserve human life and forbids the contrary. For instance, if there is fire, and its
burning heat is felt, it is but a human tendency to avoid it. Natural law is the law that governs
natural phenomena in nature like the weather, the elements, and gravity.
Since the law looks to the common good as its end, it is then conceived primarily with external
acts and not with interior disposition. For example, if a child is honest to his parents because
he wants an increase in his allowance, the reason for his goodness stems not from avoiding to
lie but from the reward for being honest. The same reason goes with government officials who
use full media coverage when they help their constituents so that people would vote for them.
Thus, a person should not be judged according to his actions alone but also through his
sincerity behind his acts. It means that man's moral acts are good in themselves because their
fulfillment and obedience bring good to whoever obeys them. Morally, good acts are
objectively good regardless of how people perceive them.
For Aquinas, both natural and human laws are concerned with ends determined by humanity's
nature. However, since a human being is, in fact, ordained to an end transcending his nature,
it is necessary that he has a law ordering him to that end, and this is the divine law or
revelation. The divine law gives human beings the certitude where unaided human reason
could arrive only at possibilities. It deals with interior disposition as well as external acts and it
ensures the final punishment of all evildoings, neither of which is possible for human law. This
divine law is divided into the old (Mosaic) and the new (Christian) that are related as the
immature and imperfect to the perfect and complete. We have, however, now passed beyond
philosophy, since this rests on reason and experience alone; the analysis of the divine law is
the function of theology. Eternal law is the decree of God that governs all creation. It is "that
law which is the Supreme Reason cannot be understood to be otherwise than unchangeable
and eternal." Natural law is the human "participation" in the eternal law and is discovered by
reason. Natural law is based on "first principles." As discussed in the previous lessons, the
principle of sufficient
reason states that nothing exists without a sufficient reason for its being and existence.
For Aristotle, the purpose of a human being is to be happy. To be happy, he has to live a
virtuous life. In other words, human beings have to fully develop their powers- rational, moral,
social, emotional, and physical- on earth. For Aquinas, he followed the same line of thinking
but pointed to a higher form of happiness possible to humanity beyond this life, that is,
perfect happiness that everyone seeks but could be found only in God alone. Aquinas wisely
and aptly chose and proposed love rather than law to bring about the transformation of
humanity. For love is in consonance with humanity's free nature; for law commands and
completes. Love only calls and invites. Aquinas emphasized the freedom of humanity but
chose love in governing humanity's life. Since God is love, then love is the guiding principle of
humanity toward his self-perception and happiness- his ultimate destiny.
C. Thomas Aquinas
Spiritual Freedom
Thomas Aquinas established the existence of God as a first cause. Of all God's creations,
human beings have the unique power to change themselves and things around them for the
better. As humans, we are both material and spiritual. We have a conscience because of our
spirituality. God is love and love is our destiny.
The person, first, exists and encounters himself and surges up in the world, then defines
himself afterward. The person is nothing else but that what he makes of himself.
The person is provided with a supreme opportunity to give meaning to one's life. In the
course of giving meaning to one's life, he fills the world with meaning.
Freedom is, therefore, the very core and the door to authentic existence.
Authentic existence is realized only in deeds that are committed alone in absolute
freedom and responsibility and which is, therefore, the character of true creation.
The person is what one has done and is doing.
On the other hand, the human person who tries to escape obligations and strives to be
en-soi (e.g., excuses such as "I was born this way" or "I grew up in a bad environment")
is acting on bad faith (mauvaise foi).
Sartre emphasized the importance of free individual choice regardless of the power of other
people to influence and coerce our desires, beliefs, and decisions. To be human, to be
conscious, is to be free to imagine, free to choose, and be responsible for one's life.
E. Thomas Hobbes
Theory of Social Contract
Law of nature (lex naturalis) is a precept or general rule established by reason by which a
person is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life or takes away the means of
preserving the same, and to omit that by which he thinks it may be best preserved.
Given our desire to get out of the state of nature, and thereby preserve our lives, Hobbes
concluded that we should "seek peace." This becomes his first law of nature. The
reasonableness of seeking peace immediately suggests a second law of nature, which is that
we mutually divest ourselves of certain rights (such as the right to take another person's life)
so as to achieve peace. That a person be willing, when others are, too (this is necessary for
peace-building), to lay down this right to all things and be contented with so much liberty
against other people as he would allow other people against himself (Ramos, 2010). The
mutual transferring of these rights is called a contract and is the basis of the notion of moral
obligation and duty. If one agrees to give up his right to harm you, you give up your right to
harm him. You have then transferred these rights to each other and thereby become obligated
not to hurt each other. From these selfish reasons alone, both are motivated to mutually
transfer these and other rights, since this will end the dreaded state of war. Hobbes continues
by discussing the validity of certain contracts. However, one cannot contract to give up his
right to self-defense or self-preservation since it is his sole motive for entering any contract.
The laws of nature can be said to represent axioms and postulates that render this deduction
possible. They answer the question, "What are the conditions under which the transition from
the natural state of war to the state of human beings living in organized societies becomes
intelligible?" These systems are rooted from human nature and are not God-given laws. Nor
do they state absolute values, for according to Hobbes, there are no absolute values.
It follows that there are "some rights that no human being can be understood by words or
other signs to have abandoned or transferred." Contracts made in the state of nature are not
generally binding for if one fears that he will violate his part of the bargain, no true agreement
can be reached. No contracts can be made with animals since animals cannot understand an
agreement. The third law of nature is that human beings perform the covenant they made.
Without this law of nature, covenants are nothing but empty words. With the right of all
human beings to all things remaining, we are still in the condition of war. Further, this law is
the fountain of justice. When there has been no covenant, no action can be unjust. However,
when a covenant has been made, to break it is unjust.
Hobbes added:
“…that covenants of mutual trust are invalid when there is fear of nonperformance on either
part, and that in the natural condition of war this fear is always present. It follows, therefore,
that there are no valid covenants and hence, no justice and injustice until the commonwealth
is established, that is, until a coercive power has been established which will compel human
beings to perform their covenants.”
Hobbes upheld that human beings seek self-preservation and security; however, they are
unable to attain this end in the natural condition of war. The laws of nature are unable to
achieve the desired end by themselves alone, that is, unless there is coercive power able to
enforce their observance by sanctions. These laws are rational but are contrary to human
nature. Therefore, it is necessary that there should be a common power or government
backed by force and able to punish. This means that the plurality of individuals should confer
all their power and strength upon one human being or upon one assembly of human beings,
which may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will. That is to say, they must
appoint one man (or woman), or assembly of human beings, to bear their person, a person
being defined as “he whose words or actions of another human being, or of any other thing, to
whom they are attributed whether truly or by fiction.” Hobbes made a distinction between a
commonwealth by institution and by acquisition:
1. A commonwealth is said to exist by institution when it has been established through the
covenant of every member of a multitude with every other member. The multitude of
human beings subjects themselves to a chosen sovereign from fear of one another.
2. A commonwealth is said to exist by acquisition when the sovereign power has been
acquired by force. Here, human being fears death or bonds with that human being who
holds the power over his life and liberty.
Neither of these commonwealths affect the sovereignty. The subject of a sovereign cannot
change the form of government or repudiate the authority of the sovereign. Sovereignty is
inalienable. No sovereign can be unjustly put to death or in any way punished by his subjects.
For inasmuch as every subject is the author of all the sovereign’s actions, to punish the
sovereign would be to punish another for one’s own action.
One of the prerogatives of the sovereign enumerated by Hobbes is judging what doctrines are
fit to be taught. Thus, the power of the sovereign being, to all intents and purposes unlimited,
brings forth the question of freedom (if any) to be possessed by the subjects or ought to be
possessed by them. A point of greater importance is that subjects are absolved from their duty
of obedience to the sovereign not only if the latter has relinquished his sovereignty but also if
he has the will to retain his power but cannot, in fact, protect his subjects aby longer. If the
sovereign is conquered in war and surrenders to the victor, his subjects become the subjects
of the latter. If the commonwealth is torn asunder by internal discord and the sovereign no
longer possesses effective power, the subjects return to the state of nature, and a new
sovereign can be set up.
According to Rousseau, the state owes its origin to a social contract freely entered into by its
members; the EDSA Revolution is an example, though an imperfect one. While Rousseau
interpreted the idea in terms of absolute democracy and individualism, Hobbes developed his
idea in favor of absolute monarchy.
Both Rousseau and Hobbes have one thing in common, that is, they believe that human beings
have to form a community or civil community to protect themselves from one another,
because the nature of human beings is to wage war against one another, and since by nature,
humanity
tends toward self-preservation, then it follows that they have to come to a free mutual
agreement to protect themselves. Hobbes thought that to end the continuous and self-
destructive condition of warfare, humanity founded the state with its sovereign power of
control by means of a mutual consent. On the other hand, Rousseau believed that a human
being is born free and good. Now, he is in chains and has become bad due to the evil influence
of society, civilization, learning, and progress. Hence, from these come dissension, conflict,
fraud, and deceit. Therefore, a human being lost his original goodness, his primitive tranquility
of spirit.
To restore peace, his freedom should be brought back, and as he returned to his true self, he
saw the necessity and came to form the state through the social contract whereby everyone
grants his individual rights to the general will. The term “social contract” is not an actual
historical event. It is a philosophical fiction, a metaphor, and a certain way of looking at a
society of voluntary collection of agreeable individuals. However, the Constitution and the Bill
of rights constituted as an instance of a social contract, is not a metaphor but an actual
agreement and actually “signed” by the people or their representatives (Solomon & Higgins,
1996). The 1986 EDSA Revolution is an example of people who gathered to voice their
disenchantment peacefully, and through mutual effort, ousted Marcos. This had inspired
changes not only in the Philippines but also in other countries such as Perestroika Reformation
in Eastern Europe. There must be a common power or government which the plurality of
individuals (citizens) should confer all their powers and strength into (freedom) one will
(ruler).
Yelon (1996) accepted that behavioral psychology is at fault for having overanalyzed the words
"reward" and- "punishment." We might have miscalculated the effect of the environment in
an individual. There should be a balance in our relationship with others and the environment.
In our dealing with our fellow human beings, there is the strong and obvious temptation to
blame the environment if they do not conform to our expectations.
The question of freedom arises. Can an individual be free? According to Skinner, our struggle
for freedom is not due to a will to be free as for Aristotle or Sartre, but to certain behavioral
processes characteristic of the human organism, the chief effect of which is the avoidance of
or escape from "aversive" features of the environment.
The feeling of freedom, according to Skinner, becomes an unreliable guide as soon as would-
be controllers turn to non-aversive measures as they are likely to avoid the problems raised
when the controller escapes or attacks. For example, a skillful parent learns to reward a child
for good behavior rather than punish him for bad. Control becomes necessary in the issue of
freedom.
Following the Adage of John Stuart Mill, “ Liberty consists in doing what one desires, “Skinner
stated that when a person wants something, he acts to get it when the occasion arises.
Skinner argued that even though behavior is completely determined, it is better that a person
“feels free” or “believes that he is free.”
The issue is controllability. We cannot change genetic defects by punishment; we can work
only through genetic measures that operate on a much longer time scale. What must be
changed is not the responsibility of autonomous individuals but the conditions, environment,
or genetics of which a person’s behavior is a function. For example, a student was praised by a
teacher who said to him, “Very good!” for a solution to a problem or for giving the correct
answer to a question.
Skinner thought that the problem is to free human beings not from control but from certain
kinds of control and it can be solved only if we accept the fact that we depend on the world
around us and we simply change the nature of dependency. Skinner proposed that to make
the social environment as free as possible of aversive stimuli we do not need to destroy the
environment or escape from it. What is needed, according to Skinner, is to redesign it.
Life is full of paradoxes. Nobody could nor should control it. We have to be open to life, learn
to accept, and live with paradoxes. Learning with contradiction is not the same as living in
contradiction. The paradoxes account for the reasons why life cannot be held still. Defining or
conceptualizing insists on regarding one aspect of life at the same time disregarding the other.
In the spirituality of imperfection, we learn to accept that life, our environment, is both "evil"
and "good." In recognizing life's open-endedness, we learn to be flexible and adaptable. B. F.
Skinner believed that morality is a conditioned response impressed on the child by society.
Despite this view however, creating a static environment such as a controlled environment is
not applicable in the realities of everyday world (Schouten & Looren de Jong, 2012).
Skinner is right, however, in pointing out the influence of environment especially in the
socialization of children. Unfortunately, there is an emphasis nowadays in the acquisition of
money, property, and prestige, regardless of values---or lack of those---that children learn.
There should not only be a re-engineering of the environment, but also a total transformation
of how we view our environment beginning with our own orientation. How do we view life? is
it merely a life concerned with power that, according to Buddha, is the cause of despair? Or
should it be a life of cooperation, vision, and concern with other living beings?
Indeed, the theory of freedom has negative and positive tasks. Our lives should not be merely
controlled by rewards and punishments. As human beings, we are capable of reacting different
levels of heights and ideals. According to Yelon, punishment is an educative measure, and as
such is a means to the formation of motives, which are in part to prevent the wrongdoer from
repeating the act and in part to prevent others from committing a similar act. Analogously, in
the case of reward, we are concerned with incentive (Schouten & Looren de Jong, 2012).
However, much more important than the question of when a person is, said to be responsible
is that of when he himself feels responsible. Evidently, not merely that it was he who took the
steps required for its performance but there must be added awareness that he did if
"independently" or " of his own initiative." This feeling is the consciousness of freedom, which
is merely the knowledge of having acted on ones own desires. "One's own desires" Are those
which have their origin in the regularity of one's character in the given situation, and are not
imposed by an external power, such as a stimulus. The absence of external power expresses
itself in the well-known feeling that one could also have acted otherwise.
Indeed, the environment plays a significant part in our lives. However, since the Stone Age, we
have proven that we are not completely under its mercy. We have tamed and shall continue to
tame and adapt to the changes in the conditions of the environment. As Plato believed, the
soul of every individual possesses the power of learning the truth and living in a society that is
in accordance to its nature.
We are responsible, whether we admit it or not, for what is in our power to do. Most of the
time, we cannot be sure what it is in our power to do until we attempt to do it. In spite of the
alleged inevitabilities in personal life and history, human effort can redetermine the direction
of events even though it cannot determine the conditions that make human effort possible.
It is true that we did not choose to be born. It is also true that we choose to keep on living. It is
not true that everything that happens to us is like "being struck down by a dreadful disease."
To use as an illustration, the treatment and cure of disease would never serve as a moral
paradigm for the whole human situation and would never have begun unless we believed that
some things that were did not have to be, that they could be different, and that we could
make them different. What we can make different, we are responsible for.
individual rights, as espoused by Hobbes and Rousseau, are not merely numbers. Rand
rejected collectivism because of its brute force. Though human beings have rights, there
should also be responsibility. Individual rights were upheld in capitalism, which is the only
system that can uphold and protect them. The principle of individual rights represented the
extension of morality into the social system.
Rand cited the right to gain, to keep, to use, and to dispose of material values. Most developed
countries have disposed their toxic wastes to developing countries. Disposing material values,
thus, is not only a matter of throwing waste but also projecting where to dump wastes that
would not impinge on the rights of others.
Filipinos, embrace family and political parties. For the Filipinos, one does not only fulfill
reasons of reasons of the mind but for the heart and personal involvement as well: Whereas
Rand upheld the individual Filipinos loob is essentially. An interpersonal and social concept
before it is a private, personal concept.
Filipinos look at themselves as holistic from an interior dimension, under the principle of
harmony. This encompasses the Filipinos' humanity personality, theological perspective, and
daily experiences. It aspires to harmony with others and nature to be in union with God. The
Filipinos' holistic and interior dimensions stress a being with others and sensitivity to the
needs of others that inhibit one's personal and individual fulfillment.
There is the apprehension on the group-oriented approach of the Filipino that might hamper
the individual's initiative and responsibility-.It is contended that the individual should be
disciplined from within rather than fear from authority figure. Discipline and responsibility
should be inculcated especially through education.
The Filipinos loob is the basis of Christian value of sensitivity to the needs of others and of
gratitude. It encompasses a "give-and-take" relationship among Filipinos. As such, repaying
those who have helped us is a manifestation of utang na loob or debt of gratitude. Loob is
similar with other Eastern views that aspire for harmony (sakop) with others. God, and nature.
Loob prioritizes family, relatives, and even nonkinsmen. It bridges individual differences and is
a common factor among human beings.
The concept of Rand's free individual and the Filipinos' view of the free human being may have
differences but can be overcome. The potential of the Filipino should be able to grow so that
he will be aware of his uniqueness. Children should be brought up to the identity of the
members of the family and simultaneously with that of the nation. Self-sufficiency (kasarinlan)
should recognize human worth and dignity.
Individualism, thus, should not be seen as selfishness but an affirmation of a truly human self
that is the supreme value of human living. To be a free individual is to be responsible not only
for one's self but also for all. Thus, the individual becomes a free and creative person who
asserts one's uniqueness. Kagandahang loob, kabutihang loob, and kalooban are terms that
show sharing of one's self to others. This is the freedom within loob. Loob puts one in touch
with his fellow beings. Great Filipino values, in fact, are essentially interpersonal. The use of
intermediaries or go-betweens, the values of loyalty, hospitality, pakikisama (camaraderie),
and respect for authority are such values that relate to persons. In short Filipinos Generally
believe in the innate goodness of the human being.
Filipino ethics has an internal code and sanction than other legalistic moral philosophies that
are rather negative. The Filipino, who stresses duties over rights, has plenty in common once
again with the Chinese or Indians. The Filipino looks at himself as one who feels, wills, thinks,
acts as a total whole---as a “ person” conscious of his freedom, proud of his human dignity,
and sensitive to the violation of these two.
However, sometimes, the beneficiaries of the monetary assistance (utang or loan) use the
money for non-essentials (e.g., gambling) when there are more important concerns that
should be prioritized (e.g., saving). Hence, because of the Filipino sakop, those who are better
off must inspire the morale of their family members to be more responsible.
Likerwise, family members should consider sakop seriously to support themselves financially
and socially so as to not squander the help bestowed on them. Moreover, they must come to
realize that their personal worth and dignity are not exterior to themselves; it is found not in
the body of the sakop but in one’s kalooban. If these are fulfilled, the Filipinos shall not only be
better persons but a better nation with a sound economy (Andres, 1994.)
A leader or a manager with Magandang kalooban is not passive but plays an active role in
economic development. Leaders should not only focus on the impact of job performance but
also treat every individual worker as a person and not as an object. Filipinos can attain a sound
economy through a more integrative system as such there is support and help among units of
organizations withina company. To make up for the inferiority complex of Filipinos, a good
Filipino leader/manager must encourage fellow Filipinos to believe in themselves so that they
can bounce back as an economic power. Rand presupposed that greater creativity will be
achieved if the government will minimize influence on individuals. Filipinos should take the
initiative by following and's suggestions and adapting individualism in their value system.
Individualism will provide Filipinos an opportunity to be more aware of their capacity to
harness fully their strengths and to commit themselves to life. Individualism reinforces
kasarinlan (self-sufficiency) as such it discourages subservience from external control higher
than itself.
Kasarinlan promotes entrepreneurship, which minimizes foreign control of Filipinos (i.e., from
the control of monopolies and multinational companies). Other than entrepreneurship,
individualism also prioritizes countryside development, a self-help concept among the country
dwellers which discourages dependence on government loans which would leave the locals to
follow whatever conditions the government sets in favor of the loan. Furthermore, for Andres
(1986), the spirit of self-help is the root of all authentic growth in rural development, which is
a source of national productivity and efficiency.
However, individualism should be tied to social responsibility and show, not be just tayo-tayo
or kami-kami. Our own individuality should interact with the individuality of others. Th this
light, every Filipino should be given equal chance to cultivate their talents that inevitably
contribute in the development of the society. Further, as individuals who are free, Filipinos
should recognize their own brand of uniqueness, instead of copying foreign cultures. Loob
does
not only develop the self of an individual but also the welfare of others.
For Rand, advocating Aristotle, reason and will are part of being human Specifically, the 1986
EDSA Revolution is evidence of the Filipinos' exercise: of reason and political will. During this
time, a song became popular with verses:
The lines showed the Filipinos' sovereignty--Filipinos who stood up for what they believe was
right, voluntarily risking their lives in the face of danger. They ousted Marcos, proving their
political maturity. Miranda (1987) viewed the 1986 EDSA Revolution as a redeeming event and
not as fate. The Filipinos concept of kasarinlan recognizes human worth and dignity. The
person, basing his actions through reason, is free and not a servant to anyone (Ordonez,
1986).
The Filipinos’ self is rooted in loob (Alejo, 1990) from which springs a person’s authenticity.
Individualism could only progress to real change if it springs from the innermost depth of
kalooban and not only pakitang tao (outward appearance’s sake). Thus, individualism
manifests changes within and outside the person.
Further, loob is the only identical factor among people's diversity in creed color, and status in
the society. Moreover, there is no way that Filipinos will have no equal chance to become
worthy individuals. The interplay of Western philosophy emphasizes modern science and
technology while the East is more concerned on the inner and personal nature of the self. The
Eastern thinker is acquainted with one's personal experience and intuitive grasp of reality,
which is of higher value than the analytical speculation.
SUMMARY:
Freedom should not be squandered but taken as a wonderful gift that must be nurtured
and protected, not impinging the rights or freedom of others. Therefore, it is not enough that
the human person is free but that one is responsible for the consequences of one’s choice.
Rabindranath Tagore once said, “ Let me not crave in conscious fear to be saved, but hope for
the patience to win my freedom.” Darkness and bondage symbolize the opposite of freedom
or liberation. Freedom should not be taken for granted but earned and protected. Freedom is
spiritual. Hence, we should not be enslaved by our self-interests but to be truly free, we
should be one with each other and the environment.