RE: the law of freedom

by Fr. E.S.Q.S.

I can see that JRR has already beaten me to the punch; however, I'd like to add a few thoughts of my own as well - they are not quite the same and, so, it will be well worth the time and effort to write them out I suspect.

The Law of Freedom And The Law of Unity

What does the law of freedom have to do with the law of unity you ask? Well, in a sense, everything. The law of freedom and the law of unity are so closely inter-twined that you cannot really come to understand the one without also understanding the other. As HTL puts it (and I am paraphrasing here): unity is the basis of freedom; freedom is the basis of unity. Unity is the basis of freedom in that it sets a limit to freedom (which curtails the chaos of arbitrary freedom); freedom is the basis of unity in that unity cannot truly exist without freedom. Unity, for it to be unity at all, must - of necessity - be freely chosen.

Personally, I tend to think of the law of unity as the law of laws. The reason for this is that, upon close inspection, it very much seems to be the case that the law of unity contains hid within it the germ of all the other laws. The law of unity, in a sense then - as the law of laws - serves to effective circumscribes and delimit the other laws, such as the law of freedom. For example, as JRR has pointed out already, the limit of our freedom is the freedom of all. In other words, the law of unity (relating to the freedom of all) effectively circumscribes and delimits our freedom. We are free, yes, but within bounds.

I suppose that this will suffice for the time being. Please, feel free to respond in kind and examine the matter more deeply.

Thanks for your time,

Sincerely,

Fr. E.S.Q.S.