What is Freedom? The Ancient vs. Modern Idea of Freedom
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ม.ค. 2024
- That freedom is a good thing is something we take for granted, but what do we mean by freedom? Our modern understanding of freedom has changed so much that it is in conflict with freedom as the ancients understood it. I explain the differences between these two ideas of freedom.
🔵 Follow my Substack: keithwoodspub.substack.com/
🔵 All my links: bio.link/keithwoods
🔵 Support: www.buymeacoffee.com/keithwoods
www.subscribestar.com/keith-w...
Thanks to everyone who supports my work:
www.buymeacoffee.com/keithwoods
www.subscribestar.com/keith-woods
Keith, cover the Miami Mall Alien story!
Hey, you outlined the two current untenable dreams of freedom, but left out the Marxist definition of freedom.
Please don't be anticommunist, we've had more than enough of that, in fact we're dying of it.
But thanks for trying, if you were indeed trying.
The Marxist view of freedom is to free all of humankind (to the extent it is both desirable and feasible) from the lack of everything necessary to sustain and reproduce a life of realized individual potential. Once that is done, then people can argue about the nature of freedom. But probably they'll be doing what they want instead. Because they're free.
Mr. Woods, have you ever considered studying philosophy under the aegis of a PHILOSOPHER?
@@ReverendDr.Thomas He has, I am sure. But he has a purpose: to exclude Marxian analysis from all consideration. You can't do that neatly!
All Hail #17 ! -Awesome Job, Keith.
This is what Nietzsche meant when he said that Liberal societies were inevitably less free. A man that has no control over himself is not "free".
Do you believe that free-will exists?
@@TheVeganVicar In the moment maybe. It's naive to think that your actions aren't dependent on the millions of years of events that happened before it though.
@@biasedriot3603How do you connect that with your argument for freedom?
I think we're all slaves to something....
Freedom is the privelaged ability to exercise decisive will over action. It is highly circumstancial in the sense that even a prison mate who actively decides to improve his physical and spiritual form during his stay and succeeds in doing so could be described as freer than any given portion of co-convicts, prison guards and non-convicted citizens alike
@@user-hu3iy9gz5jhah.... guayyyyyyyy
Keith Woods with another classic.
Keith is one of the few authentic intellectuals of our day
Unfortunately, intelligence does not necessarily correlate with WISDOM.
@@TheVeganVicar Keith understands Plato and all the major Western philosophers. When I say intellectual I include philosopher the roots of that word being Lover of Wisdom.
@@TheVeganVicarIntelligence is the science of knowledge. Wisdom is the application of knowledge. Keith excels at both.
@@mysticmouse7261:
🐟 03. WISDOM & TRUTH:
PHILOSOPHY DEFINED:
Philosophy is the love of WISDOM, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or a decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgement. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. For example, “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.” Etymologically, the word originates from the Greek “philosophia” (meaning “love of wisdom”) and is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values/ethics, mind, and language. Some sources claim the term was coined by Pythagoras (c. 570 - c. 495 BC). Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation.
Philosophers generally divide their field into the two kingdoms, the Eastern branch, which covers the entire Asian continent, and the Western branch of philosophy, which mainly includes European, though in recent centuries, embraces American and Australian-born philosophers also.
GENUINE WISDOM:
Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside of ancient Indian philosophical traditions, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and/or pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous!
In “The Republic” the ancient Greek philosopher Aristocles (commonly known as Plato) quotes his mentor Socrates as asserting that the “best” philosophers are, in actual fact, naught but useless, utter rogues, in stark contrast to “true” philosophers, who are lovers of wisdom and truth.
An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. See Chapter 12 regarding morality.
THE REPOSITORY OF WISDOM:
One of the greatest misunderstandings of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has arisen in the popular mind, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an unschooled buffoon, compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained collegiate doctorates in philosophy, psychology, psychiatry, et cetera. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only a miniscule percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! Anyone who doubts this averment need do nothing more than read the remaining chapters of this Holy Scripture in order to learn this blatantly-obvious fact.
POPULAR PHILOSOPHERS:
At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and Theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case! The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), and the British author, Mr. Clive Staples “C.S.” Lewis, almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or they have managed to promulgate their ideas via the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHERS:
To proffer merely one example of literally tens of thousands, of the assertion made in the previous paragraph, the 1905 essay paper by the famed British mathematician, philosopher and logician, Bertrand Russell, entitled “On Denoting” was described by one of his most notable contemporaneous colleagues, Frank P. Ramsey, as “that paradigm of philosophy”. Notwithstanding the fact that less than one percent of the populace would be able to even comprehend the essay, it is littered with spelling, grammar, punctuation, and syntactic errors, and contains at least a couple of flawed propositions. Even if the average person was able to grasp the principles presented in that paper, it would not make any tangible impact on the human condition. Currently, this planet of ours is doomed to devastation, due to moral decay and environmental degradation, and such overintellectualizing essay papers can do nothing to help improve our deeply harrowing, frightful, and lamentable predicament, especially those papers that deal with exceedingly-trivial subject matters, as does Russell’s paper (an argument for an acutely-abstruse concept in semantics). The fact that Russell’s aforementioned essay paper falls under the category of Philosophy of Language, and the fact that he was a highly-cultured peer of the House of Lords, in the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, yet his own writings being composed using far-from-perfect English, serves only to prove my assertion that philosophy ought to be restricted to genuine members of the Holy Priesthood. Furthermore, that Bertrand was fully intoxicated with adharmic (leftist) ideologies and practices, including sexual licentiousness and socialism (even supporting Herr Adolf Hitler’s Nazism, to some extent) indicates that he was no lover of ACTUAL wisdom.
The fact that, after THOUSANDS of years following the publication of Plato’s “Republic”, not a single nation or country on this planet has thought it wise to accept Plato’s advice to promote a philosopher-king (“rāja-ṛṣi”, in Sanskrit) as the head of its social structure, more than adequately proves my previous assertions. Unfortunately, however, both Plato and his student, Aristotle, were themselves hardly paragons of virtue, since the former was an advocate of infanticide, whilst the latter favoured carnism (even stating that animal slaughter was mandatory).
To my knowledge, the only philosopher in the Western academic tradition who was truly wise, was the German, Arthur Schopenhauer, because he espoused a reasonably accurate metaphysical position, and he adhered to the law (that is, the one and only law, known as “dharma” in Bhārata) to a larger degree than most other Westerners. Hopefully, someday, I will discover another philosopher, without India, to join Arthur!
Cont…
@@sklarks8279
Sings: “It ain’t necessarily so...” 🎤
You've hit on something deep here.
To me, the simplest definition of "freedom" is "the ability to say no to temptation".
I like the simplicity of this
which is responsibility
The greatest general is the one who conquers himself.
@@DeathoftheWest I like it
@@DeathoftheWest yes
"True freedom is the active ability of a man who is not enslaved to sin." -St. Philaret of Moscow
My mother always told me, "Freedom is not doing whatever you want, but the freedom to do what is right."
War is peace, freedom is slavery
Your mother is based
Wise Mother! 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻
Define right
Positive freedom
Love the new editing style, Keith. Great video! You are truly an inspiring thinker, one of the greatest of our time. Thank you.
Keith isn’t just philosophically wise, but spiritually insightful, he’s very informative and eye opening
"I am free"
"Ok then free yourself from desire"
"Reeeeeee"
The "freedom" to commit sin wasn't part of the collective consciousness until the latter 20th century. It denigrates the folkish way of life.
I agree. In the early days of human history, freedom was about preserving the wellbeing or autonomy of one’s own language, culture and ethnicity. If you could not fall back on a tribe or community; you had little to no freedom in the old days.
It’s kind of shocking to consider how normalized the freedom to sin has been made in the Western world, to the point where our forefathers have gone to the ends of the earth to fight to normalize it there as well. We’ve been deceived.
Sin is a man made concept, born of Christianity.
We're not all Christians.
Freedom to sin? You mean freedom of religion, mate. I'm free of your metaphysical nonsense.
Freedom means, stay out of my business. Which Keith Amazingly doesn't address
@@kevincassidy1983 - It's a concept that existed before Christianity. I'm using the word "sin" as a simplification of that metaphysical concept. Indo-Europeans had that sort of concept that maintains morality, self-preservation and kinship, which is lost in this post-modern society.
@elcidleon6500 whatever you meant by it, they're man made concepts with no basis other than "some people don't like that"
Sex between 2 consenting males hurts nobody. But we still have religious institutions trying to restrict that freedom.
You say the right to have gay sex is a freedom to sin
Its a freedom of religion. You stay out of people's business. Your ancestry doesn't give you a moral high ground, despite what you think. That's also why slavery is abolished. Because we stop obeying our ancestral notions.
The institution of religion is flawed. Time to end it
Another keith classic
These types of questions and discussing these subjects are what made whites great, are central to a healthy vision of the world for thinkers and made boys turn into men. We need so much more of this. When is the last time you have had an IRL conversation about something like this?
Brilliant production, excellent explanation, and I enjoy your takes on politics. This shows the deeper thinker we all need. And the concepts explained frame the sensibility many have intuitively. The ends without anchors upset the concrete sensibilities and people don't want that on mass. Thank you for this short explanation. Well done Keith. Much appreciation
freedom to build & maintain micro-civilizations (communities & families & such) vs freedom to atomize & pursue lowest common denominators
The modern idea of freedom seems to revolve around central banks (on a societal macro level) and hedonism/sexual degeneracy (on a personal micro level). That's their ideal or pinnacle of freedom. I forget the exact phrase but it's something like "You shall know their name by their deeds" or something like that 😅😅
It might be lowering the tone a bit, but I think this explains why "nofap" and even the entire manosphere is becoming popular. Men are sick of being chained to their primitive urges and passions and how it derails their chance to be their better higher self. Amazing as always Keith
"Men" or "SOME men"?
So you combined or chain the primative urges into complex urges? What happens when you become a slave to those?
Algorithm is go 😉👍
Great point near the end about the AI people being unable to imagine an upward limit to intelligence. “Just build bigger microchips,” etc.
Sup GP
From a political theory context, there is an essay, "The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns," by Benjamin Constant which contrasts ancient liberty with modern liberty. Isaiah Berlin later picked up this in his distinction of positive and negative liberty. Even Robespierre, who is often credited as the brainchild of the French Revolution, was more or less a proto-corporatist.
Have you looked up “Marshall McLuhan”? It’s EERIE how well his ideas hold up.
not enough philosophical youtube videos from Keith. A formidable intellect.
Freedom is not having to work for a living.
I agree, in that I instead believe in ‘working for a purpose’.
I’d literally rather not live in the current state of the world, never mind work to live for it.
Define work
“Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.”
What is this "SPIRIT"?
You need therapy.
@@VVVVV99611, Good Girl! 👌
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
@@VVVVV99611Jesus Christ rose on the third day after His crucifixion and without this Truth, meaning cannot be justified. Praying for you, friend!
@@VVVVV99611did you listen to the video?
May you be blessed Keith Woods. Thank you for sharing this. This exact thought has been in my mind for a very long time, and I'm glad there's someone who properly spreads these important insights. We have to return to classical worldview in it's most pristine form.
Uhhhhh based
"There is a lot of libertinism but not a whole lot of liberty today" (paraphrasing Nigel Carlsbad)
Mark Fisher would speak of how capital prefers an individualism that is highly managed.
Freedom in political sense is not to be ruled by enemy or outsider . In non political sense is very relative and not important for politic .
The warrior class we're freemen, hence the right to bare arms is directly linked to freedom. Just as a show of arms is to an electorate.
‘To think freely is great, but to think rightly is greater’
So through the flow of time the meaning of freedom changed from breaking the shackles of lust and desire to embracing lust and desire?
You have realized the truth. But is it too late?
Great analysis
This is type of content that made me subscribe a long time ago. Glad to see you making these insightful dissecting modernity again
I'll have to put that book by Schindler on my List. It will make for a good read by the swimming pool or the recreation room.
Keith on negative freedom as 'uncaused self creation' made me think of the shift from discovering the world and truth to imposing human power and desire on the world. This is the difference to me between catholic christian telos that was removed from England for cablistic masonic imposition of power.
I like your cultural critiques the best
Being a slave to one's passions is not freedom.
Such an important distinction. Hard to get liberalism without this.
Excellent video Keith, keep it up!
And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free! Thanks Keith.
It's easy to see how Plato was a pre-Christian philosopher who made these observations about Reality but the Logos was not yet incarnate (Christ) so he didn't witness the fulfillment of his philosophy (it's thought though that during the Harrowing of Hades when Christ preached to the Souls of the underworld Plato was one of the Souls which repented and accepted Christ..). Ancient views of freedom were about self-mastery, virtue, and harmony with the cosmos, to be liberated from the desires and passions of the world, aiming for the nourishment of the Spirit and the nous.. In modernity, it's about individual autonomy, choice, and 'rights'. And the ability to pursue one's own desires and interests without undue interference (quite a Satanic & Luciferian notion actually)..
Nice to see these shorter philosophical videos again.
Freedom rises as morality rises
Great video. I've been pointing out to people that the modern system, especially globalism, is built on mistaking diversity for chaos (formlessness.) Potency is another word for chaos in metaphysical terms (i.e. Vedanta's Prakriti) so I'm glad to see other people making the same realization. You put it in a very clear way.
control is an illusion caused by thoughts. action is our only purpose. following our instincts is our key to peace and honesty helps us realize how we can live together. if you aren't honest its only ever going to cause an issue that doesn't exist otherwise.
Thanks. I've not studied and this is great for me. Excellent editing too.
Freedom is not merely being able to do whatever you want… it is the opportunity to become what you are supposed to be
that's based on a supposition. the entire problem is that multiple groups have different ideas what they and the rest of society are supposed to be.
@@Phobos1483yeah and only one group is right, the people who want things to be sensible
@@Phobos1483 Like Keith said in the 16:00 freedom in a classical sense collaborate to the natural world, so every free society will be led to a future of purity if they allow their citizens to be the best versions of themselves. It's almost a Perenialist argument. I agree with the statement above, and I think that thinking something like this is relative is itself relativistic.
I’m afraid you do not understand. Please contemplate more
@@Phobos1483
Only in the modern landscape.
In traditionally structured societies, everyone knew their place in the hierarchy and didn’t entertain ideas of it being any different. Unskilled laborers believed the king had the right to rule, just as much as the king believe he had the right to rule.
Modernity destroyed that, and now we have the absolute dregs of society believing they know what is best for all.
Wow, such a relevant but overlooked perspective
Brilliant insights, my brother!
One of the big problems with the modern conception of freedom is the idea that it's intertwined with tolerance.
And one of the big problems with the modern idea of tolerance is that it's intertwined with endorsement.
@@samuelyeates2326 Indeed. I think about the people who just say "Yes, people are free to be perverted consenting adults. IDGAF what consenting alphabet mafia members do in the privacy of their own home" and get "REEEEEE homophobia as a response."
Luke Smith also has a good video on this topic.
Great topic!
Keith making mega moves in this world
This is a very good video you should expand on this
Its what D C Schnidler said in his book. About John Lock and Freedom
Thanks
Matthew B. Crawford also criticizes this Lockean conception of freedom. Phenomenology and embodied cognition are more fruitful epistemic and ontological views that can be reconciled with the ancient notion of freedom.
Freedom sounds like a whole lotta burgers. USA! USA!
Awesome. Brillant content. Spot on.
I mean the idea of the neoliberal pure potency ultimately culminates in singularity, the apocalypse of humankind
Kieth Rambo cometh!
Nietszche said that happiness is the feeling of power increasing. Sounds like the word you use of potency.
What would be the Christian opposite of this? Freedom is maximised under the cross.
Take up my yoke for the burden is easy.
With regard to the expression "discovering your Self" in the modern context (1:22) I think it may be useful, to avoid any confusion, to clarify that this, despite the superficial similarity, is not at all the same as, and, in fact, even the inversion of, the Delphic (or Vedantic, for that matter) injunction "Know thyself" (Γνῶθι σαυτόν), the latter being based on the universal traditional doctrine of the two selves: consider Plato's "Would you not say that there was something in the soul bidding a man to drink, and something else forbidding him, which is other and stronger than the principle which bids him?"; the Delphic injunction here is advocating the investigation of and suggesting one's true identity with the "other and greater", whereas the modern version, not even having any notion of that fundamental distinction, is merely about fleshing out and "adorning" the part that "bids a man to drink".
"Man has as many masters as he has vices"
St. Augustine of Hippo
Make a video on Degrowth
freedom is finding peace in yourself and i a world of matrialisme egoisme status ...
addictions..it is difficult to find..
all i see around me is decadende addicitions...and egocentric people with no connection..
no family values ..criminal behaviour..a constant seek for the next dopamine hit.
sorry for my bad englisch btw..im dutch and its my second language englisch so make some mistakes with writing
People enslave themselves to sin and vice, and call it ultimate freedom.
Keith, you are As based as usual
Yes, commissioner? Please put me through to the Based Department.
Holy based
Well done Keith! Will you ever run for election in Ireland?
I wonder how free one could be, if they lived a life unconcerned, uninhibited, by philosophical, idealistic preoccupations of "freedom".
Guess Rambo was Nitch pretty much? So meta freedom is infinity theorem? That unreality of murika always blows us away an yet? hmmmm...
Ireland is a culture and a Nation
You're God damn right.
Hi Keith, autumn groyper fan here, you should read Augustine’s City of God and convert!
or you just just read the platonists, you don't really need the mystery cult on top
Isn't he an Irish Protestant?
@@DeathoftheWest no he’s a neoplatonist
@@DeathoftheWest People above a certain IQ cannot be Christian
The 'Ten Commandments' is a very cheesy movie from the 60s that I saw when I was a kid. I didn't care for it that much. But there was one scene that was actually a little thought-provoking. Moses presents the ten commandments to the Jews. The Jews don't want to follow them. They tell Moses, "We don't need your laws. We're free people." Moses replies, "There is no freedom without the law" (laws restricting hedonistic behavior).
Rather grim when you realize how many Americans would say that. Leftists and Libertarians epically, but conservatives as well
A month since the last Keith vid 😢
keithism
woodology 101
So basically there's good freedom and bad freedom, just as anything else that exists as a means and not an end. Good freedom is the choices you make for the purpose of aligning yourself with the good. Bad freedom is anything that does not.
Everyone's got the right to go wrong. Hand me down me bible 🎶🎵
D.C. Schindler is brilliant
“Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought.” - John Paul II
Funnily enough, a false idea of liberty is one of the core errors of Vatican II.
Begging the question.
no, its a claim that there is such a thing as right and wrong and you should have the freedom to do what is right @@TheVeganVicar
Very fine insight Mr Woods. Permit me to suggest Dr Doug Haugen's new book 'In pursuit of the metaverse'.
Keit woods
but Keith I need modern freedom to buy lots meaning less stuff
amen
Irish Master Race rise up!
I try my best to get this across to younger people real freedom is having the ability to walk away from the easy and chose the hard path
Freedom for what end?
I think Buddhism has it right. It would say something like people try to become free from fear and pain, hence the safe space epidemic. Ironically the modern person's attempt to free themselves is just an attempt to escape fear and pain by becoming distracted with pleasure.
Why not marry the 2? I think both philosophies have their goods and bad’s.
Freedom is not freedom to be degenerate, to do whatever we like. Freedom is differentiate oneself from others, build indifference to trails and tribulations, and break free from conditioning and programming to be apathetic, unambitious, weak, forcelessness, docile and subservient for the sake of being a cog in a machine, rather then strong, powerful and healthy. The latter comes from discipline and mental training. That's how freedom is earned. It's not about meaningless attachments to material things and approval or degeneracy, or whether we will get more entitlements. It's about what you can do for yourself and your family, tribe, village, state, nation, and society, when you pay in you then get benefits out of that system.
Mr Woods is the greatest right wing intellectual since Russell Kirk
So "freedom is a verb"?
Freedom, as a modern American man, is the ability to share a Coke or a Pepsi with my gay black lover in celebration of our daughter's gender affirming surgery. Love is love.
Fuck, that made me laugh really hard.
@@The-NamelessOne It only gets funnier from here.
Hey as long the trans can chug a Coors she (he?) is alright in my book AM I RIGHT
The Founders would have been shooting years ago.
Any chance for a chat, Keith? I am intending to run for local election here in Ireland. You are the brightest Irish voice that I am aware of. Let's talk soon 🕊️❤️🙏☘️
Freedom is when there are no other humans around to impose their will upon you.
🎶Freedom isn't free...🎶
freedom of speech: the ability to speak one’s mind without fear of retribution. Normally, freedom of speech is dependent on the prevailing governmental rules, at least at the public level. In the private domain, freedom to speak one’s mind is, entirely contingent on the rules of the particular house or institution in question.
Freedom of speech does not negate the CONSEQUENCES of one’s speech. In order to give one example, if a child berates his father, obviously, he ought to be punished for that objectively-immoral, sinful deed. In order to propose another example, a genuine king will permit his subjects to criticize his actions in a constructive manner, as long as they refrain from deliberate insults, which is a criminal offence (see Chapter 12 of “F.I.S.H”). A large proportion of humanity seems to agree that one should refrain from speaking words that incite violent acts, and that one ought not yell the word “Fire!!” in a crowded room or an auditorium, purely as a practical joke. One who believes that free speech should be totally unconditional, will be unable to sustain that opinion if his or her children spout insubordinate speech, as in the first example, above (assuming, of course, that one is even close to being a decent parent).
So, to put it very succinctly, just as it is possible to execute immoral acts (that is to say, bodily acts such as theft, fornication, public obscenities, and murder), it is possible for a human to make verbal enunciations that are objectively immoral, far more than just those actions normally recognized by most jurisdictions, such as libel and slander. Any speech that is contrary to the principles of dharma is unethical and must be punished by a superior - again, few parents would excuse a child of theirs who belittled, insulted or even instructed them! Read Chapter 12 to learn the most authoritative interpretation of law/morality/ethics [“dharma”, in Sanskrit]).
At the risk of veering-off the topic, the best advisor to any monarch is his spiritual master, as defined in Chapter 19 (ideally, the most holy and wise member of the Holy Priesthood within the kingdom), so the need for him to require advice from anyone other than his guru would be scarce, at least in regard to matters of morality, which is the secure foundation of society. In matters other than dharma, such as in economics, warfare, and engineering, a wise king will take heed of the advice of his other ministers. Incidentally, the title “Prime Minister” (meaning “Chief Helper”) originally referred to a monarch’s “right-hand man”. Therefore, in absolutely every case in which that term has been used in recent centuries, it has been used quite incorrectly, since there has not existed a genuine monarch on earth for hundreds of years (not to mention the fact that in some countries where there is a so-called Prime Minister at the head of the government, there is not any sort of king to be found, such as is presently the case in Bhārata (i.e. India).
It costs folks like you and me.
@@TheVeganVicar Why did you copy and paste something from a book that was only vaguely on topic?
Limiting the will keeps the people in a small box; many live their whole lives in the same box. Spirits should be thought of as intellectual thoughts and carnal desires. Freedom is not about removing either, but becoming dominant over every spirit. This is why Adam and Eve were given authority over all creation from the very day of their creation. The story of the Bible is ultimately about resurrecting that spiritual authority. This is why Jesus had total authority over every spirit, even the demonic spirits, yet still submitted to God's will because God is the only one who has the perfect manifestation of authority. So submitting to God is not about putting yourself in a box, but changing yourself to become like Him.
Liberalism didnt start with Locke, not by a long shot. If you (or Imperium Press) can get an english translation of "Werner Sombart - Die (elves) und das Wirtschaftsleben" (The elves and the economic life) from 1911, it goes deep into the cultural roots of capitalism and with that also liberalism. Written by an economist in reaction to Max Webers "Capitalism and the protestant ethics", it deserves recognition.