Today, since there's not much news to post, I've decided to post something a little different. Lately I've been reading the Albert Camus book, The Rebel. It's philosophy, and it has inspired my underused philosophical gears. I originally started with a single concept: Freedom. Thought of it in a context of the United States and it's 'Fight For Freedom'. The more I contemplate the subject though, it has morphed from a simple discussion on Freedom in relation to the war, to a discussion on the concept of Freedom. How is Freedom interpreted in our world, how should it be. Obviously, from what follows many of you will wonder where I get that from. That's because the bulk of the discourse is still in my head, still in conceptual stages. I think that by following a path of reasoning, I could turn my essay into a manifesto of absurdism. It could end up going that way, in fact I'd quite enjoy writing in that respect. So, for everyone reading the following excerpts: remember that what follows is little more than slivers of a tree, a few thoughts and ideas in desperate need of expansion. I invite anyone who enjoys philosophy and politics to offer their views and opinions.

What is Freedom? The power to make choices, to engage in actions without restraint or control. We reserve the right to make our own decisions regarding issues affecting our lives. Thus we have: Freedom to say Yes or No, Freedom to Rebel, to accept the status quo, Freedom to kill or be killed.

The problem with Freedom is the impossibility of Absolute Freedom. Absolute Freedom is Freedom in its truest sense. This is impossible due to the probability of having the freedom of another person violated by an individuals actions. For example, in an individual decides to take the life of another, there is a contrast in freedoms. On one hand, the defending party has the choice to die or to live. If the choice to made to live, then that contrasts with the choice made by the attacker to kill. In a conflict such as this, the goal of one party will eventually overcome to goal of the other. In such a case, the result is a negation of absolute freedom.

-------

Taken in a societal context, does absolute freedom result in a libertine society? If every individual, comprising the whole of a society, engages in any chosen action without restraint, then the answer would be yes. Unfortunately, the result of a libertine society is anarchy. If there is no restraint, then there is no law. In an anarchic society, freedom is sacrified for the law of power. If the law of power rules a society, then inevitably the culture will become multi-tiered. In a multi-tiered, law of power society, absolute freedom exists only for the individual holding the most power. Thus do we understand that the choice of a libertine society is the path to anarchy, and the loss of freedom.

-------

How does one fight for freedom without violating the freedom of another? Once again, the ensuing conflict leads to a negation of freedom. The instance of any fight concludes that a disagreement exists between two or more parties, implying an infringement upon the party under attack. The law of power has asserted itself once again, leading to an anarchic attack on freedom. The law of the majority also arises. If freedom is inevitably negated, then is it morally acceptable to pursue a course that results in freedom for a majority over a minority?

-------

Keeping in mind the problems with the concept of freedom in relation to an entire society, we look instead to individual freedom. How much freedom does an individual have in a law of power society? Without analyzing the influence of other individuals upon a person's choices, we look instead to other issues. What about inhibitions and restraint, what about religion? The former is simple yet difficult, we must rebel against them. The quest for freedom can be seen as a rebellion against slavery - slavery being those forces that restrict us, forces that assert control over our choices. In order to pursue individual freedom, we must first rebel against ourselves. Only when we have rebelled against our inner selves, and thrown off the shackles of slavery forced upon us by inhibitions, only then can we begin to assert individual freedom. Religion also restricts individual freedom. Religion is another form of the law of power, in the metaphysical sense. The existence of a god, or gods, to which an individual must pay homage to, is a counter to free thought. Religion is founded upon rules of conduct, religion demands that an individual accept their small place in society. Individual freedom requires an individual break free of the overbearing presence of pious restraint.

-------

To accept the concept of freedom, one must first accept the existence of evil. Evil exists as rightly as Good, and both have bearing on the actions of individuals. Freedom is not strictly a utopian concept.

-------

Ok, well that's about as much as I have thus far. There's a lot that could/should be expanded upon, for example the Law of Power isn't adequately explained above. Anyhow, my time is up once again. Have a good one people. Peace.