{"id":3827,"date":"2015-09-19T11:41:48","date_gmt":"2015-09-19T18:41:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.newcoolthang.com\/?p=3827"},"modified":"2020-01-09T04:11:44","modified_gmt":"2020-01-09T11:11:44","slug":"liberty-within-the-scriptures","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.newcoolthang.com\/index.php\/2015\/09\/liberty-within-the-scriptures\/3827\/","title":{"rendered":"Liberty within the Scriptures"},"content":{"rendered":"

If you have not done so already, I strongly recommend that anybody interested in social or political thinking go and read Isaiah Berlin’s classic: Two Concepts of Liberty<\/a>. \u00a0Within this paper he lists 4 premises by which modern thinking can and at times has transformed into the very opposite of freedom. \u00a0I will then state my views regarding the (in)compatibility of these premises with the religious tradition found in the scriptures.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. “all men have one true purpose, and one only, that of rational self-direction…<\/li>\n
  2. “the ends of all rational beings must of necessity fit into a single universal, harmonious pattern, which some men may be able to discern more clearly than others…<\/li>\n
  3. “all conflict, and consequently all tragedy, is due solely to the clash of reason with the irrational or the insufficiently rational – the immature and undeveloped elements in life, whether individual or communal – and that such clashes are, in principle, avoidable, and for wholly rational beings impossible…<\/li>\n
  4. “when all men have been made rational, they will obey the rational laws of their own natures, which are one and the same in them all, and so be at once wholly law-abiding and wholly free.”<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    First and most obvious, the scriptures have little if any praise for “rationality”. \u00a0For this reason alone, the scriptures are pretty hostile to all 4 premises. \u00a0If, however, we replace “rationality” with “righteousness”, then things start looking much closer to something we would hear in Sunday school. \u00a0Even with this substitution in place, however, there are still some aspects of (1) that I do not find within the Abrahamic tradition. \u00a0For instance, whatever praise there is for “righteous self-direction” is qualified at best. \u00a0Within the scriptures there is always an element of deference (what Kant would call “minority”) to higher authorities (especially God). \u00a0This, however, is exactly what (1) is rejecting.<\/p>\n

    I also find problems with (2). \u00a0While one probably could say that the scriptures teach a single, universal and harmonious ideal (I’m not totally sold on this), I do not think that the scriptures place much importance at all on our cognitive discernment\/conceptualization\/articulation of that ideal. \u00a0The prophets do not lead us because they necessarily have a better understanding of the plan in any deep sense – most of them being quite illiterate and ignorant in general. \u00a0 They know what they have been told to do and they do it. \u00a0Put simply, a better understanding of God’s plan in no way legitimizes authoritative leadership within that plan – sorry Scribes and Pharisees. Again, I think this premise is simply too tied to the Greek notion of enlightened or rational self-legislation rather than the Abrahamic notion of faithful righteousness.<\/p>\n

    I think that a version of (3) that replaces “rationality” with “righteousness” is actually pretty spot on. \u00a0Indeed, the entire point to the stories of the translation of Zion, the Nephites after Christ’s visit and this world during the millenium is that righteousness entails\u00a0peace and wars\/fighting stem\u00a0from unrighteousness. \u00a0This correlation should not, however, come as much of a surprise since it has often been noted that modern thinkers such as Marx explicitly imported\u00a0this Messianic thinking from their own religious backgrounds. \u00a0With regards to tragedy, however, the Book of Job strongly resists the idea that all suffering in this life is due to wickedness – although one reading of the fall would suggest otherwise.<\/p>\n

    With regards to (4), I find some ambivalence within the scriptures. \u00a0On the one hand, we are taught that to choose evil is to become slaves of some sort to Lucifer. \u00a0On the other hand, we are also taught that, contrary to Lucifer’s plan, we are completely free to choose\u00a0good or evil. \u00a0I guess the question is what does it mean to choose<\/em> <\/strong>liberty or captivity? \u00a0Is this simply choosing to retain the liberty that we already have, or is it choosing to acquire some kind of liberty that we do not yet have? \u00a0What is clear is that, just like (4) says, the highest degree of heaven will indeed be populated with\u00a0persons who are both fully righteous and fully free.