Philosophical Question Two
Music poured into her ears, Stratovarius was the band and the sound different from most present music, soothing and almost classic in a way, “I'm in control of this ship of mine/And everything will be just fine/Like the wind I'm free to go anywhere/I got my song, it dances in the air/Now I know what I'll do with my life/Now you will hear my freedom call…..” Alia sang softly with the words, shutting her English textbook with a sigh as she stretched out on her bed in her dorm room and checked her mental to do list. Only philosophy left for tonight, she reached to her book bag and took out her notebook for the rather interesting class. It was another envelope, oddly enough. Professor Upton said he wanted the students to wait until they were able to give at least an hour to open the sealed envelope and muse about the question. She used a nail to open the white packet neatly, pulling out the sheet of white paper, her gaze going straight to the words in the top left hand corner of the paper.
What is freedom?
That was a good question; recently there had been a lot of things pointing to the debate of freedom. When one was asking after the meaning of the word freedom, it was actually asking about the system in which this word has its meaning. The question dealt with the description of philosophical, judicial, political, economic, and societal system in which freedom displays itself. Like if you asked after the meaning of the word liberalism. That question took its concrete form through the specific historical process, in which it is asked. If you asked this question in Boston one refers to the events which paved the way in America's experiment in the realization of freedom. In that place the meaning of a conception, conceptions are concrete: they appear individually in historical manifestations, in symbols, or in linguistic expressions. But what she needed to focus on instead was the appearance of a conception in philosophical texts. More specifically, the appearance of the conception of freedom in the writings of Immanuel Kant.
When one examines Kant's conception of freedom, one presupposes the conceptual history of the idea which has given the conception its meaning. This meaning is marked from the Greek use of the conception in the Polis, through the individualizing and politification in Rome, through the theological discussion of the middle ages and the political discussion of the modern age up to its practical realization-that is to say, its catastrophe-in the revolutions around 1800. The concept freedom is always context-dependent. In various discussions it always has a meaning that is important to that discussion. Like with that case that had been in the paper a few days ago, a juror who helped convict a black man of fatally shooting a white teenager said he felt pressured by other jurors and the judge to change his vote to guilty during a marathon deliberating session. [CNN]
The man had been charged with murder because he had shoot one of the teenager’s in a mob that had formed outside his house, he was only trying to protect himself, his family, but his actions had taken the life of another. That was crossing the line of freedom, you weren’t free to harm others. Alia worried her lip absently as she lay on her bed and tried to think of other innicdents in the news that made her think of freedom. How free was freedom? And what as the cost of it? One question just led to another and then another, so many questions there really wasn’t a way to answer all of them. But she could try to sound this one out a little more. She leaned over to her desk and pulled a stack of papers she had printed out toward her, she was a journalism major so she printed out stories and read them like novels, going through them like they were candy some days. She found the paper she wanted.
“Police in the US city of New Orleans have used chemical spray and stun devices on people protesting against government plans to destroy public housing.
Despite the protests, the New Orleans City Council on Thursday voted unanimously to demolish 4,500 subsidised housing units damaged by Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and never repaired.
The move has taken on racial overtones in a city still struggling to recover from the devastating hurricane, with critics saying low-income black residents would lose badly needed housing.
But Thursday's vote crossed racial lines, with the three black council members joining four white colleagues to permit the US government to tear down four public housing developments in favour of new, mixed-income housing. “http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FB912D3C-6547-497F-9183-8E05E75D5AF6.htm
“"Is this what democracy looks like?" Bill Quigley, a Loyola University law professor who opposes demolition, said as he held a strand of stun gun wire he said had been shot into another of the protesters. “ She scanned through the rest of the story, shaking her head at the details. America was suppose to be a land of freedom, of chance and hope, but how could they call this hope? If these people wanted that building to remain standing the city could have given them a chance to fix it, or come to some other end then using brute force that seemed almost reminiscent of violent civil rights summer in 1964. But that had brought about great change, then again that had been over rights off a whole race, this was more to do with the shock that police would still got that extreme about things. A jury convicted one man for trying to protect himself and killing a person, yet police of the same government that sentenced that man used brutal force that could have resulted in death on citizens. There were so many fine lines that involved the concept of freedom. But there was no such thing as true freedom when you lived under a government, you just had freedoms that were given by the state, not true freedom.
What was true freedom? She would have to keep thinking about that one.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Well, first, one should always doubt the unbiased nature of Al Jazeera, especially since they are regularly publishing stories about how the Jews steal the organs of children to sell on the black market and make bread from the blood of palestinian chidlren. They also push stories about the American Soldiers raping and killing women and children and slaughtering innocents. These stories are beyond ridicule. (Also note that they also recently reported that the Jews have a secret earthquake machine and are trying to destroy the muslim mosques via earthquake.)
However, addressing the point they make:
The city has been pleading with the owners SINCE Katrina to come and clean up their land and begin reconstruction on their homes, or apply for FEMA assistance to do so. Those they have voted to have torn down were the homes of people who ignored multiple requests over the period of years.
There is no 'racial' motivation against black people. Remember that Mayor Ray Nagin is the one that declared New Orleans to be a "Chocolate City" (His words).
The decision is based on a couple years now of trying to get the owners to take care of their property. As the owners have not returned to the property for years to clean up the damage, after MULTIPLE requests and warnings of fines, the property can be considered abandoned.
If you want to talk about an abuse of power, we can discuss the legal firearm owners who had their guns confiscated due to the actions of some thugs who fired at rescue workers.
On that I was merely using the story as a way of making the character think about things, not just in American context either. I have been looking for a story that held something of the abuse or violation of freedom to compliment the other story I had found awhile ago. I am sorry if my using this has upset you, and also it was one of the editor picks.
I would like to hear what you think about legal firearm owners. And any comment is good. I hope you enjoyed the rest of the blog and its message.
Police in the US city of New Orleans have used chemical spray and stun devices on people protesting against government plans to destroy public housing.
Despite the protests, the New Orleans City Council on Thursday voted unanimously to demolish 4,500 subsidised housing units damaged by Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and never repaired.
The move has taken on racial overtones in a city still struggling to recover from the devastating hurricane, with critics saying low-income black residents would lose badly needed housing.
But Thursday's vote crossed racial lines, with the three black council members joining four white colleagues to permit the US government to tear down four public housing developments in favour of new, mixed-income housing. “http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/FB912D3C-6547-497F-9183-
It is a good thing those projects are being torn down. They were crime filled. And they were scheduled to be torn down before Katrina. The public housing was supposed to be a place for people to live temporarily until they were able to get back on their feet. People had begun to live in them as permanent homes. I don't mean to sound like a bitch, but the people who "need" public housing so badly should just work like everyone else, or do something.
That aside, the government in new Orleans is fucking up pretty badly with once privately owned homes. There are tons of houses that are scheduled to be destroyed and pretty good condition but the gov't is too lazy to get paperwork in order.
No need for change, I speak many dialects