philosophy

To think like Socrates

Or

The Socratic method of the liberal thinking

 

1Socrates once said ‘I know that I know nothing’ and he is claimed as one of the most influential people who ever live and one of the wisest man in the Greek philosophy. We all know these words , whether by word of mouth or from experience during our school years, but do we know the spirituality and wisdom they possess?! That giant of the Greek society put under consideration every statement or belief under the scrutiny of his critical eye, not for pleasure only, but for justification how we should treat the conclusion on which we often jump often too easily and with such hastiness. He handed down his wisdom and knowledge to us freely, the question is whether we are able to embrace such a provoking conception and make out of it the best we could.

The Socratic Method is named after the fallowed philosopher and in nutshell it is a way of critical questioning of statement, which main aim is to provoke and stimulate the logical reasoning or how you lead to one conclusion to another and what is behind it as reasons and justifications. The method opens the ‘Pandora’s box’ of new thinking by involving the participants in an open dialog in which the logical reasoning and deduction go hand in hand in order to explore in depths the given problem or the subject of the discussion. One of the key elements of that methods is in letting your ‘ contender’ to express their opinion freely without interrupting them , as doing so  you could see how his logical- thinking flows around and he introduces his ideas more openly. Moreover , very often it comes down to the point when there is a lot of contradictions in what he is trying to explain, but in these contradictions are the roots of his misunderstand or misinterpretation of the subject.

The second element of an utmost importance in this ,method is questioning. Instead of responding in kind to your opponent, you have to ask him question from which you could reach his basic statement and the flaws in his thinking could easily emerge on the surface.

Your question could seek different target and results such as making conclusive evidence of the statement, seeking logical explanation, assumption or verification. By these questions, it could be even possible to be explored the moral scruples and ethical boundaries of the participants in the dialog. The element of surprise should not be ruled out by you or even by them.

For giving explicit clarification of what I’ve said above I would like to put forward one ‘theoretically hypothetical argument from which I could give you examples of the questions’ aims in the method.

Supposing someone said ‘I’m against the war, everyone who is responsible for such a conflict should be punished!’

‘So you’re for the peace and prosperity, right? (Seeking Clarification)

‘Yes, of course!’

‘OK,So everyone responsible for some kind of worldwide conflict should be punished? Who exactly?’ (Again seeking clarification of the statement)

‘The world leaders …like Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler…’

‘Only the leader then, they are the most responsible for such actions to be taken?’

‘Yeah, I guess , they give orders…but they are not alone, I mean the most closest people around them.’

‘What about the soldiers in their armies? What about them? Should they be punished from what they did or not? ‘

‘Yes, of course!’

‘But what about the fact that they were only taking orders or were threatened with death if they wouldn’t have done it? Were they victims or not?’ (Questioning Ethical boundaries).

Indeed, the discussion could head another direction, this is only manufactured potted version of the real conversation that might take place. However, the place from which everything begins is the statement from it all other things follow. For instance, it could be questioned the original source from which the person forms his/her deduction or possible implication might be added by conditional statements like ‘If that’s true, then…’.

The beauty of the Socratic Method is partially hidden in the fact that there is no ‘right’ answer to the raised question during the discussion. The objective is not to be sought the ‘RIGHT’ answer and to be provoked heated discussions and endless quarrels, but rather to be explored the domain of the person’s knowledge and how that knowledge could be useful in the new way of thinking in order the issue to be looked from different perspective. The method is a new interpretation of the version of Socrates ‘ thinking regarding the moral reasoning and the common ‘sense’ as he said that we should achieve the “moral qualities of a high order: sincerity, humility, courage.”   The Greek philosopher said that ‘unexamined life is not worth living’ and we could see how his main object of curiosity was the human’s thinking and the limitations of it. Aristotle even said that only one arrow could reach the target, but millions to miss it, from which it is plainly clear how the truth could be veiled in deep mysteries and not so easy to be approached.

Even at that time when Socrates lived, he was able to see the dangerous and scandalous side of his method. He managed to acknowledge how it would shake the grounds under which the society lived at that time by saying ‘we have form conviction from childhood about what’s just and fair…but then lads get their first taste of arguments which they used only to contradict and refute others… (539 b.)’

However, the  Socratic dialoged lifts the veil behind the truth that no universal agreement on one problem is ever achievable as the philosophers use wide range of tenable and untenable justifications of the man’s actions. Moreover, it reveals the problematic and perplexing nature of our reasoning and put under consideration the circumstances under which we form our system of beliefs.

Moreover, the method creates the so called ‘creative discomfort’ in which the facts, ideas and inspiration flow together in order to create new way of thinking. The participants are prompted to expose themselves at such variation and degree that the truth behind their assumptions eventually come clear to everyone.

 

Law and Church in Russia during the late middle ages

header

  • Russian Pravda

The first arrival of the ‘Russian Pravda’ appeared to be in 1016 and reached its completion in 1170s. In fact, those series of documents were regarded as the most fundamental principle of Russian law until 1546.

The document started as a court handbook in order to provide protection of the people in Novgorod against the various Vikings’ oppression. Throughout the years, many new chapters took place in it , considering different aspects of the Russian society. For instance, Vladimir Monomakh’ (1113–25) was particularly concerned about the debts and how they were paid, since he introduced a new accretions to the document concerning that problem. Furthermore, around 1176, a new chapter was added regarding the status of the ‘slaves’ – which claimed for the first time that the slaves were not animals,but human beings like everyone else with true characters. Despite the existence of those fundamental affairs, it is quite astonishing the fact that by and large the document was consisted of oral evidences written down. But for Pravda, Russian law would have continued its path as providing only oral evidences with questionable faithfulness.

However, according to the document, the possibility of banishment and exile was as strong as the corporal punishment and execution. In its principle the Russian law was somewhat unfair regarding the women, for example if there were no heirs, the land was passed to the prince. It was not permitted to the wives to inherit anything, neither the children of female slaves. On the other hand, another major function of the law was to preserve the Christianity and protect it, facilitating male superiority, but providing protection towards the helpless women and enforcing the feeling of collective responsibility.

Indeed, as every political document, Russian Pravda took over questions as supporting the military power,private property and business trade.

 

  • Church law

The Church was another major body of the political and social structure of mediaeval Russia with its own laws and rules. The church of Russia was almost as powerful and with inhospitable predominance as in other places around Europe at that time, in terms of staying above the ruler of the country.

In fact, there are to major points ,which are worth to be mentioned in relation with the status of the church law. First of all, the Church people (which population consisted not only by the clergies, bishops,monks and priests, but also widows, beggars and free men) were not permitted to be juridical subjects. In other words , they were not allowed to impose decisions and making judgments regarding the crime in the country. As an quite opposition to the previous prohibition, the second point illustrated how the Church was given right to impose its judgment over some family and common issues, which was viewed by many people as sheer violation of the communal law.

During the 15th century, many questions were raised in close relation with the succession of the dynasty or in correlation with the conflicts between the representatives of the Old Testament, but above all the most important one was the role of the Orthodox Church in the world. Gaining more and more land, the Church in Russia at the very end of 15tth century owned around third of the populated land of Muscovy. This refracted with little sympathy and outrageous rage among many people, who urged that the major objective of the church should have been anything, but the souls’ salvation of the people.

As usual , there were two major views of those who accused the church of Godless by its actions and those who interceded it.  The first called themselves ‘nonpossessors’ , they believed in the holiness of the Church’s image, in the simplicity in which monks should have to lived and in the disengagement of everything, but searching for spirituality. On the second front were the so-called ‘possessors’ whose argument was that in possessing a land, the church was involved in responsibility of regulating society’s needs, those needs included in themselves the schools and the hospitals. Joseph Volokolamsky,fervent defender even said ‘God’s holy churches and monasteries must not suffer injury or violence, and their lands and belongings must not be taken away. … For all Church and monastery property, as well as the fruits of the monks’ labor, are dedicated to God. … He who takes away anything that belongs to a monastery is an offender, and the holy regulations curse him.’

However, we should not take those words as a face value and turn a blind eye on the situation, but consider the both sides with equal judgment. In 1508, Vasilii (Vasily or Basil) III (1479-1533) ascended the throne and became grand prince of Moscovy. According to the historical records, he made everything possible to expand the Church authority and refused to consider the ‘nonpossessors’ objections. It is pretty obvious, how his actions worked in completely unison with his intentions to reinforce his authority and secure his centralization at the same time.  Vassian (Ivan) Patrikieev, who appeared in the court of the prince in order to raise his voice against these misjudgments, said ‘Where in the tradition of the Gospels, Apostles, and Fathers are monks ordered to acquire populous villages and enslave peasants to the brotherhood? …. We look into the hands of the rich, fawn slavishly, flatter them to get out of them some little village. … We wrong and rob and sell Christians, our brothers. We torture them with scourges like wild beasts.

Here we have either one unsolved question whether one of the speculations was untrue and absolutely unfair or we could see how , not for the first time and surely not for the last, the authority works against the common good of the people.

Karl Marx -a man of clear vision

karl_marx_quote_2

Karl Marx- a philosopher, journalist, writer, economist, sociologist, historian-but who was the man behind these layers of labels? Behind them stood a dreamer with comparatively different perspective on the world for his time . Marx was born in 1818 in Prussia, his father was successful lawyer and also a Jew, who was find compelled to be baptized due to the anti-Jewish movements and laws in the country. Being well-educated in Benn and Berlin, studing philosophy, history and law, Marx was destined to receive great knowledge of the world and its government. Unfortunately, he was far from satisfied and quite disappointed and devoted to his radical convictions he went on the journalism. As a journalist, he shortly worked as an editor of e Rheinische Zeitung, until the newspaper was banned due to the censorship imposed by the Russian government. Therefore Prussia didnothing, but abided by the decision.

However, during his studies in Berlin, Marx became more and more interesting in philosophy, he was almost part of the so called “Young Hegelians ’’ society, in which he converted himself into passionate supporter of Hegel’s philosophy, but without accepting whole his concepts and making some criticizing remarks on his own. For example, according to Hegel the reality itself is composed by the vision of some Idea, while Marx argued that it is the Man, who is the true subject of the reality. However, despite being eager to achieve something new and impose justice where it was missed, the reality in which Marx lived was a harsh one. In his early years when he lived in London around 1850s, he and his wife experienced depravation of living in poverty. This is an fragment of letter, which he wrote to his friend Friedrich Engels, depicting explicitly clear about the situation –‘My house is a hospital and the crisis is so disrupting that it requires all my attention. My wife is ill, Jennychen is ill and Lenchen has a kind of nervous fever. I couldn’t and can’t call the doctor, because I have no money for the medicine. For ten days I have managed to feed the family on bread and potatoes, but it is doubtful whether I can get hold of any today. How can I deal with all this devilish filth? ‘. Fortunately enough, Engels helped him out to come though those struggles, setting up some king of pension for his friend.

Despite the fact that few people ,if not nobody, doubted the intelligence of Marx, he was a hard nut to crack. Indeed, his personality was not the most pleasant one when it comes down to accepting or acknowledge somebody ‘s opinion. Many people depicted him with an arrogant, stubborn and sarcastic personality without omniscient features. For instance, his Russian rival Mikhail Bakunin said ‘“He called me a sentimental idealist and he was right. I called him vain, treacherous, and morose; and I too was right.”

Nevertheless, in a long term, it do not matter the personality of the person,but his achievement, and Carl Marx did achieve much. His vision of the world laid to the foundation of the new order and new attitude towards the social class struggle. This struggle was one of the main points in the Marxism as a theoretical knowledge and vision. Briefly, Marx was fervent opponent of the capitalism with its ruthless exploitation and unfair treatment towards the classes. The explanation of that exploitation is quite simple –society in which people receive less than they produce is capitalistic one, indeed we could see how this regime is put into practice in many regions around the world, not only in the lest developed countries.

In one of his major works (Das Capital) Capital, Marx described in detail the vagueness of the vision of the capitalism and its true nature. He himself put it extremely clear how the capitalist’s society runs and what future implications brings with its actions. ‘The contradictions inherent in the movement of capitalist society impress themselves upon the practical bourgeois most strikingly in the changes of the periodic cycle, through which modern industry runs, and whose crowning point is the universal crisis.’ Karl Marx , London 1873 Marx had a vision of the world, where the universal class- labour struggle did not existed anymore and the private enterprises were converted into collective ownership. He called ‘socialism’, the one which would wipe out the furious capitalism once and for all. Being quite convince, Marx wrote that the new regime should be born from ashes of the old one as if the mankind needed to preserve its observations in the course of the formation of the new one. For instance, he provided clear explanation how the capitalist society could provide solid grounds and preparation for socialism in the end of ‘Das Capital’ Volume One.

The most distinctive character of the socialism, which made clear demarcation between itself and the capitalism, is the very principle of distribution. (‘. . . a community of free individuals, carrying on their labour with the means of production in common, in which the labour-power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour-power of the community.’ ‘Das Capital’). We could easily grasp the importance of the distribution of labour, once we understand its fundamental principle in which the individuals work together in the single body of the society as a whole. The motto of the capitalism is clear ‘everyone for himself ’ while the socialism tries to tighten up everyone in one single grasp. With these ‘grasp’ Marx claimed that the class differences and the coercive force over the people would disappear.

Some people flatly contradict and refuse to accept these ideas , as such concepts are implausible and even impossible to be accomplished. Could it be possible for us to live without being govern by no one, and what are the chances of our survival in such society? In its peak, the communism doctrine ended up like a new dictatorship and Engels was able to predict such an outcome by saying ‘`the government of people will be replaced by the administration of things’ (1884).

However, it is not clear whether someday we will succeed in achieving the most precise and absolute vision of Marx’s classless society. I would prefer to be optimistic, but the universal struggle and exploitation do not give much hope for our utopia.

‘Народе???’

Vasil-Levski-12На днешната дата 18сти Февруари (по нов стил 19сти Февруари)  бе погубен един от най-видните българи живели някога -Васил Левски. Този ден е ден на траур за всеки българин ,защото бележи смъртта на една личност ,която е имала възможност да прозре характерът,битът и нравът на всеки един българин по онова време. Имайки кураж и смелост ,той не се е страхувал от смъртта ,за Левски тя била само началото на неговото дело. Затова той е напътствал със същата тази борбеност всеки друг българин да тръгне по неговият път,да прозре,види и разбере истината за своята същност-да бъде ковач на своята съдба.

Левски е притежавал остър и бърз ум за да съзре какво се случва на българска земя и какво искат от нас другите народи ,никой не чува словото на апостола как илюзията на заблудата във времето ,в което живеят българите ‘Кой ли не иска да ги грабне българите,та да му робуват во веки?’ ,кой ли? Само в едно единствено изречение той е формулирал образът ,който другите държави са гледали към нас,изгодата ,която те могат да извлекът от това да бъдем под една или друга чужда власт.

Искайки да предотврати всичко това Апостолът на свободата е търсил нови съюзници в своето дело, карайки ги да коленичат и да се закълнат във вярата си и отечеството си.Опитвайки се да съживи пламъкът в душата на българина и да пречупи робските окови ,той  обикалял село след село,град след град ,търсейки истински и смели сърца,който да обедини под един свод и да нарече тях ‘народ’. Ала ,апостолът е знаел и виждал как делата му ту отиват на добре ту на зле (народната работа върви “като жаба през угар- днес наред,утре без ред ,други ден никаквата’ ). Той съзирал как душата на българина е изкривена под студените и мрачни дни на робството,как малко по малко пламъкът на един народ е горял и пламтял ,ала във времето когато е нужен е бил клечка кибрит. Страх и несигурност е била налегнала тази клета България , чакайки помощ от някой ,някой да я спаси и да я излекува от прокажените турска отрова. Българина е бил отровен ,умът му сломен – там е нямало волята .която е трябвало да съществува за подобно намерение като ‘всенародно български освобождение’. Защо ли Левски изписва “Народе???’ в своето тефтерче със три препинателни знака,защо ли…

Вдъхновена от думите на апостола ,написах няколко куплета .

Народе???

Февруарски ден,злокобен мрачен-

пропит със кръв и тъмнина.

Последен тътен на сърце в една героична мъжка гръд затуптя-

Отиди си Апостола…

последни думи на уста ‘Отечество,идеали,свобода’!

Родино,ще милееш вечно за тоз гигант,за тоз твой син.

Той падна ,други паднаха след него-

в една борба за правдина.

След тях ,другите дойдоха

потъпкаха те бързо твойта свята гордост, българино!

От роб свободен теб направиха ,

само за да те превърнат в роб с окови нови!

Раздадоха и земята ти ,Българио,

нарекоха те с чужди имена ,по-нови !

После ,плюха и още плюят върху всичко

що Апостолът нарече свято!

Но,спи дълбоко българино,

ти,не дей се буди…

да чуеш как децата ти забравят за дедите си

и как съдбата ти през пръстите ти като пясък все се губи!

И няма вече кой знамето да вдигне

и няма кой веч да се провикне “Смърт тиранино,живей Българио!

Апостол  означава ‘пратеник’ -Апостолът на Свободата,а къде е тя?

When one ruler fails ,another succeeds -Part 1

Image

Name : Maria Antonia Josepha Johanna (better well-known as Marie Antoinette-Queen of France)

Birth: 2 November 1755 /Hofburg Palace, Vienna, Austria

Tenure :10 May 1774 – 21 September 1792

Died :16 October 1793 (aged 37)
Place de la Révolution, Paris, France

Image

Name: Sophie Friederike Auguste (later well-known as Catherine the Great)

Birth: Born 2 May [O.S. 21 April] 1729/ Stettin, Pomerania, German Kingdom of Prussia

Reign : 9 July 1762 – 17 November 1796

Died :17 November 1796 (aged 67)
Saint Petersburg, Russia

Religion: Lutheranism, latter converged to  Eastern Orthodox

Beautiful, charming, gracious,with a lips only for a kiss and magical desire burning in their eyes -two women,but above all women in power! This article will be about one of the greatest women leaders who ever have lived. It’s much more about that , I would like to present how two world-powers like France and Russia changed the course of the history under the protection of their queens. It’s about two women destined to be great ,but how much greatness they achieved in the world of history is a question open to discussion if we are bold enough to consider their achievements ,devotions and contribution  to the people above whom they ruled.We would never be able to understand the measure of the crown’s weight ,neither the pressure which had on their shoulders, but we could explore the vast array of the consequences of their action throughout the prism of the history itself. We are able to see how rightful and wrongful their power was explored by themselves and the people around them.

First of all, both of them were not queens of the countries in which they were born ,Marie was austrian born and bred to be the future queen of France while Sophie (Catherina) was German by origin ,but later the world announced her reign as the Golden age of the Russian Empire. Both of them were brought into their new home due to the ambitious of their mothers ,who had unquenchable desire for power and prestige.From political standpoint the Russian-Prussian relations needed to happen in order Austria’s influence to be reduced while France was in need of another partner in its international relations like Austria. That’s beside the point , despite the fact that Catherine was born as a princess she was out of money and didn’t posses great weight,while Marie was born Archduchess of Austria with quite the opposite status of being well off. From here ,we could observe their first striking difference between them and that was based only on their birth rights and would play a crucial role in their life.

Secondly, both had the undesirable misfortune to be rejected by their husbands. There was a rumour that Peter ,the future Tsar of Russia, was impotent and could not or was not aware how to perform his husband’s duties.Somewhat equal destiny reached Louis XVI of France, with the exception of being not so fatal and irreversible (the Queen ,herself had to waited seven endless years for the consumption of their marriage). Indeed ,the humiliation was disaster which composed an enormous strain on their reputation,but the approach they used  was complete verification of their characters as a person first ,then as a ruler. For Catherine that was an ample evidence that she was supposed to justify her position and status on her own,that’s why she eagerly shared her bed with many lovers and later assassinated her husband.Being ruthless and merciless ,she felt for the first time the weight of the crown on her head -a price that she was ready to pay.She was a woman of passion and determination ,a woman who could calculate with great precision every step she takes. Moreover , as if she had sensed the greatness that was on her path ,she embraced the Eastern Orthodox religion as her own,despite the oppositions of her father. While in response to her own humiliation Maria Antoinatte did only one thing-to wait. That passive-agressive response made her much more immature and incapable of solving the problem on her own. She was too gentle ,too fragile and partly too weak to do so- being rejected by her husband ,being pushed by her mother and surrounded by bad advisers ,she almost being trapped in that ridiculous situation.That’s why she did relinquish from her power in her mind-she had a great desires not for power and control ,but for pleasure ,dancing and flirt. She was young and nobody was able to tame her lust for freedom and to make her much more sensible.She lavishly entertained herself in dancing, gambling and expensive dresses almost every night while her husband was sleeping.Luis and Marie was like chalk and cheese ,the king was much more serious for her taste ,but is that fully excuse her actions? I do not think so!

What if…we were wrong about Machiavelli?

images

Niccolò Machiavelli one of the most famous people who ever had lived on the Earth, is still well-known even today after 500 years since he wrote his infamous pamphlet “The Prince”.

Do you know what it says?  It is much more secure to be feared than to be loved, what do you think of that? Do you find it amusing,alluring,exiting or even provoking? The question is not how it is perceived or recognized in a certain ways ,but why? Why so much people regard that “Prince” as one of the most useful books of all the time ,especially the politicians or those who have a great influence?The answer is simple : because it is not only reveal the reality as it is ,but it opens the Pandora’s box – throwing away all virtues just to be substituted by the vices. This book is a perfect excuse why we should behave badly in certain ways ,even when it is confronting with our inner sense of morality,just in the name of our ambitions and goals.This book put into test our moral values and question  us how far we could go to fulfil our ambitious dreams.

Let’s make that clear,shall we? This book “teach” as two things : how to gain power and how to keep it. It was a scandalous spectacle for that time something like that to be written,even more it was regarded as a sin. Not surprisingly not only “The Prince” was banned by the Catholic Church ,but all Machiavelli’s writing.

But to whom was addressed the prince and who is the prince himself?

Interestingly, when it was first written the book did not have a title at all ,only the name of one person “To Lorenzo di Piero de‘ Medici “– the new ruler of Medici’s dynasty who gained control and power over Florence again around 16th century. The title of the book was invented five years after Machiavelli’s death ,after being widely published and copies were at dispense to many people.

What we could assert from that fact is something astounding ,something more than it meets the eye ,indeed. We have a person to whom the book is dedicated ,specific person who was an inspiration for it, without whom that “book of art” might have not existed at all.Two words only- devotion and dedication.

Why it was written?

 The book is written in 1513 ,where was Machiavelli at that time? He was imprisoned and ( subject of unfair treatment and falsely accused of conspiracy against the Medici’s family) and tortuned, he protested his innocence still the end. Being deprived from the office he retired to his estate and write political philosophy.  The reason of the pamphlet is hidden behind the false accusation ,in the face of humiliation and reasonable desire for revenge and justice. Machiavelli wanted vengeance and he knew how to get it!

He was traumatized by the sudden change that took place in his life ,it was not only sudden,but a big one. So ,it is absolutely probbable  after that for him to be angry and to hold resentment , he needed a way in which he could unleash all that negative thoughts in his mind. And so he did it.

Have you read the pamphlet?

 that Princes

who have set little store by their word, but have known how to

overreach men by their cunning, have accomplished great

thing, and in the end got the better of those who trusted to

honest dealing” .

Machiavelli extremely precisely depicted that prince as a cunning, deceitful and unmoral, that Medici’s bastard . It is quite understandable , since he was in favor of the Borgia ‘s family who made him well-known ambassador,suddenly out of nowhere the Medici came into power and they were not willing to show mercy. He was ambitious man with great ideas into his head ,he was clever and resilient and just like that he unfairly dispossessed from his rank. Such a pity,such a tragedy ! But he would mock that Medici’s son who deprived him  of everything, he would put a stain on his reputation and the justice might prevail!

“It is not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles.” He put emphasis on the corruption nature of the politics itself indeed ,but with his “lessons” how to be a good politician he expressed his disgust and repel against it rather anything else.

Since his heart was armed only with the hope of revenge and hatred.

How it is interpreted today?

 Awfully wrong! In my opinion ,of course, because of it many historians or philosophers might not look at me with  respect.I sincerely apologize!

As a matter of fact many worldwide leaders were genuinely aspired by “The Prince” ,possibly because they had perceived as “an ultimate guide how to concur the world and to be in power FOREVER”. Not surprisingly, among them were J.Stalin,Tacher and Musollini –not anyone loved by the people at all. What they represent –a great dictatorship , evilness and mercilessness. They were not at all Machiavellians ,they were Medici!

Since ,what if Machiavelli gave us an unique portrait of the cruel ruler ,possessing only vices and not a single goodness in his heart?

What if he ,with his cunning smile on one of portraits , said to us “I will give a tool how to conquer the world and an ample excuse why you should not to be good ,but evil?

Equality -lesson

Many people today are easily confused by the concept of equality itself,thus explain why so many of them associate the equality of freedom and liberty with the one of income.Yes ,such a thing as “equality of income” really exists and it’s completely different from the liberty of speech and freedom for example.

When Tomas Jefferson wrote the declaration of Independence ,he pointed out that “”all men are created equal’’ in the eyes of God and something more “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Nothing is said about the distribution of wealth or any other form of materialistic form (money,property and so on). Therefore ,our attention has to be concentrated on the key elements in this statement : life,liberty and pursuit of happiness. He emphasized on such private perceptions of everyone’s happiness or idea of happiness and this explain the diversity of it.

Indeed ,some people might associate the happiness with the social income and the amount of money they own ,which gives a completely wrong meaning of the liberty and happines’s concept and triggers many forms of discrepancies and misunderstandings.

Men are all equal before God, we have a right to live our life as we find the most appropriate way to do so,without interfering someone else’s freedom and rights. Without violations over someone else ,we are free to choose how to live and which goals we want to pursuit as a part of our own happiness. Moreover, we should have a dignity of being unique as a person and under no circumstances making someone being inferior to us. In this sense,we are all equal.

The biggest paradox is that Jefferson didn’t talk  about the abolition of slavery ,he even was a slave-owner . He didn’t mean to abolish this type of government , but he bore in mind more fundamental right of the people at all.Even after the abolition and the civil war the true justice had not took place, the truth is we live in unfair world and we have curved conceptions of it.

Nobody has a right to violate our concept of happiness or your attempt to be happy,but whether we all have equal opportunities and abilities is another question.The nature itself is unfair by granting someone with more and taking another’s vital ability. Who is responsible for someone being blind and another is not-the mother “Nature”.

My point is that we live in a world where the concept of justice and freedom exists,but it has a different meaning from what we think it should have.Unfair world,where the equality is such a dubious thing…equality