Today in my philosophy class, we talked about freedom and how there are so many different meanings to the word freedom. When some say freedom they mean negative freedom or "freedom from." This is is to be free from consequences and restrictions. An example of a negative freedom would be not having to go to class when it is scheduled. In another sense, freedom can mean positive freedom or "freedom to." This means that we are free to do something rather than not being forced to do something. An example of this might be the freedom to drink alcohol. It is much easier to attain absolute negative freedom than absolute positive freedom. This being because we tend to see what is restricting us from doing something as worse than not being free to do something. Another thing we talked about was the rational self and the emotional self. Some see it that our emotions enslave us and that when are acting out of emotion, we are not thinking rationally. Others argue that we are most free when we act out of these emotions. It all depends on your view of the self. If you are emotional person you will say that you are most free when you are acting out of love and if you are a rational person you will think that you are most free when you eyes are not clouded by emotion. I'm having trouble deciding which side of the line that I fall on. I think taht we are all emotional beings, but we are all also rational beings. I mean without both of these things we would be no different from animals. If we were unable to use logic, we would not be who we are, but if we were without emotion we wouldn't be the same either. I think the true you and most free you is when you trust what you have learned through rational thought. I mean there you have the emotion of trust and the knowledge of logic. It is the perfect combination. Perhaps, the ultimate would be love of the knowledge you have that would make you most free. An exit to eternal summer slacking. But where were they going without ever knowing the way?