At the beginning, the book of Genesis says, God created the world, drawing a line down the middle of twilight and designating one half as night and the other half as day. And one thing became two. And, as He continued to draw, the two became the many. Then the many became the world.
And, in the end, some believe, the many shall become one again, that borders will disappear between lands and differences shall disappear between peoples, that people will unite and that we shall live not as a multitude but as a totality, not as many separate parts but as a singular whole.
In the meantime, however, limits are the way in which people comprehend the world around them and organize social life.
But what is a limit? Is it, like a unicorn, merely a product of the human imagination, something that has no existence outside of our own understandings?
Limits are employed to define words as well as countries. For everything that a unicorn is, there is also what a unicorn is not. Even words have borders.
Language, law, custom, meaning, all exist by virtue of limits, as do countries, properties, cities, seasons, years - in short, limits as they are applied to space, time, action, behavior and ability.
Freedom, or liberty, is non-limitation, non-impediment, non-restriction. To be limited is to be unfree, or bound, in one respect or another. This is the notion of limitation as it applies to action or behavior. No surprise, maybe, that there is a strong relationship between limitation and duty.
What happens when no limits are imposed upon behavior? Then anything is permissable. But if something is not permissable, then there is a limit, at least one. If this is the case, can there be any such thing as a free society? If anything is permissable, then there as no such thing as disrespect or violation, whether than be verbal abuse, rape or murder. If a society is free, then there are no limits on action or behavior. If there are, in society, always limitations on action or behavior, whether these be rules of politeness, customs, and so forth, then this implies that there is not, nor has there ever been, any such thing as a free society. Anything would go in a free society. Bosses, employees, landlords, tennants, guests, hosts, would not be able to cause offence, would not be able to break any rule, law or custom, no matter what.
Free speech means there are no official restrictions on what somebody is permitted or not permitted to say. Yet, there is cursing, people do become offended, and we are, on the whole, very restricted in what we can say if we wish to remain within the bounds of what is considered acceptable or polite behavior.
What does it mean if I say, "It is wrong for you to limit my freedom"? If this statement arises from the belief that to limit human freedom is wrong, then the argument contradicts itself. In limiting another person's ability to limit my freedom, I establish a limit and convey, in essence, a double standard, delimiting my own power while restricting someone else from protecting him or herself against it.
What happens when limits are violated, or not respected? Take borders as an example. When one country violates the borders of another country, the unlimited freedom of the invading party means the violation of the party that is invaded. Does this suggest that freedom and restriction is a zero-sum game?
The Marquis de Sade attempted to demonstrate in his literature the consequences of unlimited freedom and unbounded human appetite. Ironically, this leads to absolute submission to impulse.
In times of war, limitations are also dissolved and might be conceived as an example of unbounded human impulse. In times of peace, there are many limitations. The idea of crime depends upon limitations imposed upon behavior. If anything is permitted, then there can be no crime. Therefore we are not free.
Possible that freedom is founded upon limitation, that there are limits to limitations and that within, but not beyond, this restricted area, our actions or behavior is unbounded and free.
Relation of limits to the perception of value. When something is conceived of as being limitless, that thing is not valued. People do not value an unlimited supply of something, but would be more prone to wasting it, such as resources. Once resources are recognized as finite, these resources are more likely to be valued, as the idea of running out of the resource, which is similar to the idea of death, arouses anxiety. Scarce items sell for items of unlimited store are difficult to give away. Early Christians were prone to wasting their lives because they believed that life was infinite, or that life would have no end. This suggests that the realization that life is finite, and that death is not, may be the key in learning how to value life.
Infinity is conceived of as limitlessness.
Technology as the means by which humans overcome physical limitations. Also, technology as an agent which dissolves limitations in time and space.
The way in which people tend to bind the concept of nature does not define nature but the attitude of people towards nature.
The freedom in the United States founded upon limitations to governmental power.
Limits to free enquiry. DNA, genetic engineering.
No comments:
Post a Comment