Then you would also agree with Plato, who concludes the same thing, and also derives social responsibilities from the co-dependence on others in a society. But then you are not free. You are instead subject to political power.
In the Tenakh story of the Garden Of Eden, Adom and Euwe were not free. They were co-dependent on each other. Euwe could pester Adom. And Adom could dominate Euwe. (Hebrew spellings.)
Well, does it matter when he thought about it? The point is it isn't good, so how can we say we are free if we miss this huge part of our lives?
True, there is nothing keeping us from concluding that freedom isn't good in all situations. It could be that living on your own planet is free but not good.
I think freedom is always limited unless of course you are completely alone on an uncharted island. When you are around other people in any capacity, politics and regulations will limit you. And according to Plato there are also social responsibilities that everyone has when they live in any society. One such responsibility is to conform to the accepted norms. Another is to be productive. A third is to help others. That's all according to Plato. He went on solo camping trips and decided from this that it is better to be in the city or town around other people rather than alone. I think you can define freedom as a relative thing within those constraints of society. Organizations are micro-societies with their own rules. The captain of a ship for example is the closest thing to a god on this Earth, or so I was taught. The captain must always be obeyed for the sake of the ship and her crew (ships are feminine grammatically). Same with your boss at work, the head of your home owners' association, your PTA, your mayor, the country supervisor, governor, president, law enforcement, judges and courts, and so forth. I feel relatively free when I can change jobs at will, vote, choose what I will do every day, and defend myself from crime. For me this is freedom. Freedom also involves freedom from warrantless arrests or unconstitutional searches and/or seizures, freedom to speak the truth, freedom of and from Religion, freedom of choice in all things that are deemed to be legal, and freedom to peaceably assemble, armed at all times.
I think it all depends on whether you are for equality of outcome or equality of opportunity. For me equality of opportunity is far better than equality of outcome.
Aren't you a god? You decide to bring someone into your life to be your helpmate. At first that person is the love of your life, just like the person came from you. Then your opinion might start to change and you get betrayed. So how is that any different than the Adam & Eve story? Adam was a happy-go-bachelor, who had everything he needed until he wanted someone to share all he had with. That person led to his downfall. You see the same thing every day. We are all slaves to our desires (god).
In Philosophy, the definition of God is that Being which resolves the dilemma that everything we see in the Universe has a finite life. Ergo there must be a Being that has infinite life in order for the finite to exist. In Religion, the definition of God is the Creator. I do not have infinite life and I did not create myself nor the Earth nor humankind. Ergo I am definitely NOT a god nor God. Q.E.D.
Strictly speaking hydrogen and gravity created everything and they came from a whole line of elemental particles.
Right. That seems to me to be more about equality than freedom. Two people in chains can have equality in both opportunity and outcome, but they will be unfree.
