philfinal

philfinal - 1 Emily Capdeville December 12, 2006 Philosophy...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Emily Capdeville December 12, 2006 Philosophy Final TEN POINT SECTION 11. The Grand Synthesis , McInerny; freedom from v. freedom for The terms “freedom for” and “freedom from” seemingly denote similar things. When thinking about the terms, one may conceptualize the disassociation desired by humans from things that bind us to things we do not desire. This, however, is strongly an American version of freedom. While this idea may indicate freedom from something, it does not encapsulate freedom for something. To be free from something indicates a negative, that there is something that otherwise would bind us, tell us what to do, indicate the direction in which our life should go, but in this circumstance (the one governed by the “freedom from”) that something can not bind us, because we are free from it and if we are not yet, we desire to be so. As McInerny says, underlying “freedom from” is “the notion that we ought to be free from all obstacles, and thus free to do what we will, with a minimum of restrictions” (39.) But, to have freedom for something is a different concept. The term “freedom for” has no negative, restrictive connotations. Instead, it suggests that we are free to achieve an end. It suggests a final cause. McInerny says, “free action is one way of achieving an end or purpose that is given” (40.) The root of having freedom for something is that whatever highest good exists, whether it be God’s will or some other good, man has the freedom for achieving it. Having freedom for something suggests that humans have a natural purpose. The problem with having freedom from things is that the ultimate good is unattainable. People will not argue about what is good, as good things are what individuals desire. A thing becomes not good when man does not have the freedom to attain it, freedom being limited because the attainment must impinge on the rights of others to fulfill their desires. Therefore, we in the US are limited by our freedom because we do not have the freedom to achieve an ultimate good, if that good stops others from attaining their desires. According to Plato and Aristotle then, we would be missing “what perfects or completes or fulfills the human person” (40), that right to decide what to achieve and how. 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
2. Salvation According to Christianity, salvation can be attained by doing good to others, and helping others that cannot help themselves. One must also follow God’s law, which means that you can’t infringe on others rights, by killing them, their loved ones, stealing from them, coveting their loved ones, etc. Salvation can also be attained by confessing your wrong-doings and acknowledging them as wrong. The Christian God will forgive whoever is repentant. Finally one must have faith in the one Lord alone and none other. This reconciles the tension between the good man and the deep good by encouraging man to help others in their quest for survival and good, which maintains order and civilization in a society. Man is simultaneously keeping in mind
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 03/13/2008 for the course PHIL 121 taught by Professor Sensen during the Fall '06 term at Tulane.

Page1 / 6

philfinal - 1 Emily Capdeville December 12, 2006 Philosophy...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online