1. Life exists in the universe.
2. Life exists in a myriad of forms, fauna and flora, animals and insects to plants and microbial, as far as we know.
3. Of all the forms of life that we know, only humans beings ask why life exists.
4. All forms of life are unique ie. singular and unprecedented.
5. Life ends.
6. We cannot say for sure what happens after life ends.
7. We understand that the uniqueness of life gives it a certain dignity and value.
8. Human beings, unique among animals, possess the capacity to express the experience of life.
9. Freedom, properly understood, must therefore acknowledge and respect not only the uniqueness of life, but also the expression of life experience.
10. Any system of rules, laws, conventions or form of human governance that does not respect freedom, properly understood, is inadequate or illegitimate, and must be opposed.
It's cool how you build your argument, starting with science, really, but stealthily ending with a political statement on the current state of affairs. It's like a geometric proof.
ReplyDeleteUltimately it's freeedom that I am concerned with. I wanted to see if a conception of freedom could be derived from epistemological statements ie. distinguishing what we can know from what we can't know. Of course freedom, conceptually speaking, needs to be followed by either 'from' or 'to'. The implication being limits ('from') and responsibilities ('to'). Freedom always entails a choice between limitations and responsibilities, and so the freedom we are speaking about necessarily demands the maximal ability to choose. I was also thinking of Layton's poem "Whatever Else Poetry Is Freedom" in the sense that the choice between limitations and responsibilities must include thought and expression of thought, which implies certain forms of governance.
Delete"Only the tiniest fraction of mankind want freedom. All the rest want someone to tell them they are free." ~ Irving Layton.
Delete