“Nothing captivates me so much as the starry sky above my head and the moral law in me,” said the famous German philosopher Immanuel Kant.
However, he not only admired starry sky, but also made such a great contribution to his research that only the well-known hypothesis of Copernicus can be compared with him. This refers to Kant's development of the so-called nebular hypothesis about the formation of planets. solar system from the gas-dust nebula. In many ways, this hypothesis even surpassed the idea of ​​Copernicus in significance, since it introduced the idea of ​​development into cosmogony, while Copernicus did not go beyond the old mechanistic view of the universe.
After the nebular hypothesis, it would seem that nothing prevented the spread of this idea - the idea of ​​development, formation, turned one form into another - to all others. natural phenomena. After all, even if such, at first glance, “eternal” things like the Earth and planets are the product of evolution, that is, a gradual formation from some other forms, then what can we say about everything that is on Earth - living and inanimate.
But, oddly enough, the idea of ​​development, not only, if in this case one can afford a pun, was not developed in other sciences, but Kant himself lost interest in the “starry sky” and concentrated on the study, if not of the “moral law”, then such a subtle thing as the ability of human thinking to adequately reflect the external world. Moreover, as a result of these studies, he comes to very disappointing conclusions, based on which he denies the human mind the ability to know the world as it is - not only the “starry sky”, but, in fact, the “moral law”.
What is the reason for such a shameful finale of the path of knowledge, which began so triumphantly? Why does Kant become an agnostic? This question is all the more important because modern science very often adopts Kant's agnostic tendencies, and not his ability to formulate brilliant hypotheses and set promising tasks for science.
What is common between modern science and Kant?
As far as achievements are concerned modern science, and Kant - there is nothing in common between them. On the contrary, in their achievements they demonstrate the exact opposite: just as science was poor in the knowledge of facts in Kant's time, modern science is just as poor in terms of "judgment ability", i.e. critical thinking, the master of which was the great philosopher.
And it is precisely this contrast in achievements that easily explains their coincidence in shortcomings. If even the great master of critical thinking, Kant, could not overcome the empirical approach to understanding nature, characteristic of materialism of the 18th century, is it worth expecting this from the incredibly gullible and very naive in matters of thinking modern science?
It is unlikely that you will find a modern scientist who would express even the slightest doubt that the individual is the subject of knowledge, and thinking is a function of the brain that secretes thought, if not like the liver secretes bile, then certainly so, how a computer produces processed information. As for the object of cognition, if there are scientists who doubt that they are eternal and unchanging nature, the laws of which must be known by generalizing observational data, then only in favor of the fact that the question of the existence of nature outside our sensations remains open, which means that the object of scientific knowledge is the sensations themselves, or theories that scientists have come up with on the basis of these sensations.
The modern scientist, who considers it just a matter of honor to look down on philosophy, cannot understand that the subject of science is not nature in itself, but, as Marx would put it, humanized nature, that is, nature to the extent that it is included in human activity. This idea allows us to formulate the requirement to include practice in the theory of knowledge. Not a category of practice, but a living social object-transforming practice, moreover, taken each time not abstractly-individually, but concretely-historically.
But in order for this inclusion to benefit science, it was also necessary to understand that the subject of practice is not a separate individual, and the essence of a person is "not an abstract inherent in a separate individual, but the totality of all social relations."
After that, it becomes clear that by knowing nature, we thereby know ourselves. Or, on the contrary, we can cognize nature only by examining it through the prism of the production of human essence. In other words, the starry sky is indeed much closer to us than Kant believed. It is also "within us", like the moral law. And just like the moral law, it must be sought not inside the human body, but “inside” human society which, by changing the nature around it, changes itself.
Looking at the starry sky, a person thereby peers into his own soul. Of course, not into the mystical soul of Christianity or Eastern religions (modern scientists are very fond of mysticism), but into a very real soul. real person, our contemporary, who, despite all the efforts of the current dominant ideology, in every possible way to “ground” him, turn him into a dull, soulless instrument of the capital turnover process, into a simple professional function, into an “economic man”, has still far from completely lost the ability to “reach for the stars” and break through to them "through thorns." After all, distant stars have long served people not only for orientation in space and time, but also as a guide for choosing their life path and development of society as a whole.

"The moral law is in me."

The need to comprehend some kind of internal law as a universally valid moral requirement and principle of people's life and activities is one of the key problems of the philosophy of the 18th-19th centuries. These questions preoccupied Socrates.

"The moral law is in me."

The need to comprehend some kind of internal law as a universally valid moral requirement and principle of people's life and activities is one of the key problems of the philosophy of the 18th-19th centuries. These questions preoccupied Socrates. Philosophical debate about moral essence man, his obligations to society were conducted for many centuries. But this human problematic received a global metaphysical formulation only in the Renaissance, then we can observe its deepest comprehension in the philosophical anthropology of I. Kant, and even later - in L. Feuerbach. It was in philosophical anthropology that the "moral law" acquired an exalted character, which determines virtually all the philosophical and ethical quests of critically thinking humanity. I. Kant became the first thinker who philosophically concluded that a person, belonging to the world of earthly phenomena, is subject to strict determinism, and as a carrier of a supersensible principle, he also has a certain freedom of being.

Human freedom, according to the philosophy of I. Kant, is always preceded by a moral duty - the duty to be a Human. The philosopher does not agree with the then common formula: "if I can, I will do it." He categorically stated: “I can’t, but I must, therefore, you will do it!”. This is the essence and meaning of all Kantian practical philosophy (ethics), the moral law of the natural and social existence of man. In Kantian ethics, a moral maxim is substantiated that can consistently become a universal law of human behavior. The philosopher fills ethics with strict moral standards, criteria and moral meanings inherent in the existence of the objective force of the law of nature. Love for life and obligations to preserve it are based, according to Kant, on the awareness of a rational being (man) of his dignity as a subject of morality. I. Kant argues that an unconditional moral obligation has the status of a categorical imperative: act only in accordance with such a maxim, guided by which you can at the same time wish it to become a universal law.

Kant's categorical imperative is the so-called "metanorm", standing above all moral and ethical norms. It appears as an ideal standard for answering the question of whether specific moral norms regarding a particular action of people are generally valid. All this entails the existence of a world moral order. He, among other things, generates harmony between duty and consequence; as a result, people's actions based on moral will lead to good consequences. In this connection, the fate of Kant himself, an outstanding man, the demiurge of his own destiny, is very instructive. It is known that in childhood he was an extremely sickly and physically weak child. Nature endowed him with a weak body (doctors predicted a short and unproductive life for him). But contrary to predictions, he lived a long (80 years) and very fruitful life as a scientist and philosopher. Cause? The strength of his spirit. It was she who allowed him to resist disease. Seemingly doomed to a quick death, I. Kant not only survived, but never got sick again in adulthood. This is one of the most amazing phenomena of the human spirit and creative energy, which make a person himself and fill his life with great meaning. Kant's personality was distinguished by an amazing philosophical humanity. A certain aura of special respect and compassion for people prevailed in his philosophy. There was no sentimental pity in this compassion, because it was more than simple sympathy, and presupposed some kind of light and clarifying becoming of man in man in all authenticity and fullness.

In I. Kant, as his contemporaries testify, an all-consuming life-sense interest in philosophy woke up very early, to which he devoted his whole life, a spiritual and creative act. With the flexibility of mind, strength of will, purity of feelings, the philosopher showed people an example of a heroic attitude to work, giving his own way of life a huge creative intensity, passion for truth, nobility of goals and strength of the human spirit. To live for him meant constantly and selflessly creating, creating. In his scientific activity, in everyday philosophical work, he found the main joy of personal existence. Kant studied the features and capabilities of his own organism well. In this regard, he developed for himself a system of rigid personal life support (food, rest, work) and up to last day his life strictly followed it. The life of I. Kant is an example of inspired labor, the unity of word and deed. He became a moral authority, an ideologue of moral and ethical responsibility.

By the example of the creative and personal fate of I. Kant, we wanted to draw attention to the problem of the spiritual and physical healing of a person through giving meaningfulness to his life. We are talking about the role and significance of philosophical and semantic guidelines and ways of spiritual elevation. The latter testifies to the unique, only one person's inherent spiritual strength, internal energy, which reveals and fills with moral content the entire active creative and creative life potential of the individual.

The turn of Western thinking towards critical rationalism is at the same time a new turn towards dialectical philosophy. Dialectical concepts of cognition run through the entire content of German classical philosophy (as F. Engels called it), constantly enriching and developing. The founder of classical philosophy, who revived and elevated the ancient ideas of the dialectics of the development of the world and society, was one of the greatest minds of mankind, Immanuel Kant. It was with him that the birth of modern dialectical philosophy began. However, the German thinkers Georg Hegel and Friedrich Schelling, and then Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, gave the most perfect form of dialectical philosophy.

“Two things always fill the soul with new and stronger surprise and reverence, the more often and longer we think about them - this is the starry sky above me and the moral law in me” (Kant I. Soch. in 6 vols. Ch. 1 M ., 1965. S. 439-500). Explain what I. Kant meant? In what way, according to I. Kant, is the abyss between man and the world manifested? Formulate the moral imperative of Kant.

In this well-known, rather poetic-sounding statement: “Two things always fill the soul with new and stronger surprise and reverence, the more often and longer we think about them, this is the starry sky above me and the moral law in me” (Kant I. Soch In 6 vols. V. 4. 4.1. M., 1965. S. 439-500), I. Kant expressed the gap between man, the human world and nature, which cannot be overcome with the help of philosophy.

Kant abandoned the naive identity of being and thinking, he saw the abyss that lies between man and the world, he realized the tragedy of attempts to overcome it. Confidence in the ability of philosophy to find the general laws of nature and thinking for Kant and his later followers is only a manifestation of the incomprehensible ability of a person to wishful thinking, to mythologize his life world.

In Kant's Critique of Practical Reason, these words reveal the essence and purpose of his entire philosophy. “Both that and the other, (the starry sky above me and the moral law in me), I do not need to look for, and only assume as something shrouded in darkness or lying outside my horizons; I see them before me and connect them directly with the consciousness of my existence.

The first begins with the place that I occupy in the external sensible world, and extends to the boundless distance the connection in which I am with worlds above worlds and systems of systems, in the boundless time of their periodic movement, their beginning and duration.

The second begins with my invisible self, with my personality, and represents me in a world that is truly infinite ... ".

Understanding the foundations and essence, moral rules, Kant considered one of critical tasks philosophy. According to Kant, a person acts necessarily in one respect and freely in another: as a phenomenon among other natural phenomena, a person is subject to necessity, and as a moral being, he belongs to the world of intelligible things - noumena. And as such, he is free. As a moral being, man is subject only to moral duty.

Kant formulates moral duty in the form of a moral law, or a moral categorical imperative. This law requires that each person act in such a way that the rule of his personal conduct may become the rule of conduct for all.

If a person is attracted to actions that coincide with the dictates of the moral law by a sensual inclination, then such behavior, Kant believes, cannot be called moral. An action will be moral only if it is done out of respect for the moral law. The core of morality is “good will”, which expresses actions performed only in the name of moral duty, and not for some other purposes (for example, because of fear or to look good in the eyes of other people, for selfish purposes, for example, profit etc.). Therefore, the Kantian ethics of moral duty opposed the utilitarian ethical concepts, as well as religious and theological ethical teachings.

The amount of suffering that falls to us directly depends on how moral we are. Morality is the formula for happiness and survival. The less morality, the more disgusting life. People have come up with many rules to help draw the line between good and evil. But no one has managed to do this better than Kant in his famous imperative, which allows you to accurately weigh any actions on the scales of morality. It sounds like this: "A person is an end in himself and should not be a means."

To put it more clearly, this means: a person is above any concepts, ideologies, states; its purpose is unknown to anyone; no one has the right to use it; only that to which he voluntarily consents is moral; all coercion is immoral; retribution - suffering, destruction, enmity. And nowhere is this more evident than in love and intimacy. We can only ask and offer. Allowing ourselves to be manipulated, blackmailed, pressured, we become immoral. Which means they are doomed to pay. But the saddest thing is that with the help of immoral methods, we never get into that bright tomorrow, for the sake of which we indulge in all serious. As Kant said: “Means deform the end.” That's the way the world works. Proximity, love, harmony, the bliss of mutual understanding... - all the highest and cherished things in life are given only in pure hands.

In the Kantian doctrine of morality, one should distinguish between "maxims" and "law". The first mean the subjective principles of the will of a given individual, and the law is an expression of universal validity, the principle of will, which is valid for each individual. Therefore, Kant calls such a law an imperative, that is, a rule that is characterized by an obligation, expressing the obligation of an action. Kant divides imperatives into hypothetical ones, the fulfillment of which is associated with the presence of certain conditions, and categorical ones, which are obligatory under all conditions. As for morality, it should have only one categorical imperative as its highest law.

Kant considered it necessary to study in detail the totality of man's moral duties. In the first place, he puts the duty of a person to take care of the preservation of his life and, accordingly, health. To vices he refers suicide, drunkenness, gluttony. Further, he names the virtues of truthfulness, honesty, sincerity, conscientiousness, self-esteem, which he contrasted with the vices of lies and servility. Critical importance Kant gave conscience as a "moral court." Kant considered the two main duties of people in relation to each other to be love and respect. He interpreted love as goodwill, defining "as pleasure from the happiness of others." He understood sympathy as compassion for other people in their misfortunes and as sharing their joys. Kant condemned all the vices in which misanthropy is expressed: malevolence, ingratitude, malevolence. He considered philanthropy to be the main virtue.

Kant said that he was surprised by two things:
starry sky above us
and the moral law within us...

We cannot change the starry sky, but we are quite capable of helping Kant formulate the moral law, and everyone should do this for themselves.
And, of course, the moral law of one person will be somewhat different from another.

1. A bit of history.
Moral laws have been developed by man for a long time and they were very different.
They are usually based on the laws of religion, like commandments that came from God.
The most famous is the Decalogue of Moses.

But studying such laws, one finds contradictions and voids in them - some
practical and important situations are not spelled out at all, and some, by their writing, reinforce the inequality of people (commandment 10 of the decalogue), and this gives rise to doubt about their impeccable origin.

2. Cinderella conscience.
"The moral law within us" is also called the voice of conscience.
Let us first analyze the practical and simple situation of choosing shoes.
There are many types of shoes in the store and we cannot do without the problem of choice.
When we buy shoes in a store, what is the main evaluation criterion for us, besides price, color and country of origin?
That's right, as in Charles Perot's fairy tale: does it fit on the leg?

Our foot here acts as a standard - a censor.

3. "Evry time" or every day.

When we do something every day, we consciously or unconsciously measure them against several categories of choice: desire, necessity, time, place, result or consequences.
And there is another important category that we are talking about according to Kant, which makes people out of us, and which we sometimes forget about - this is the moral law - as an imperative and an answer to the question: is it suitable for us?

There are many human situations. And there are even more moral laws that apply to them. But there are the main ones - from which the rest grow and those without which the rest - lose their meaning.
Some of them are set out in the same decalogue.

4. Moral decalogue.
Let's try to state the basic moral laws without pretending to be true and complete.

4.1. A person should never be deprived of life (killed) under any circumstances and for any reason. There are no reasons, rules, beliefs, obligations or benefits that would justify killing a person. (decalogue sixth commandment.)
4.2. It is impossible to deprive of life any living creature that has a living soul and mind.
(For a person, this is already from the moment of conception.)
It can refer to animals, birds, fish, insects, and plants.
4.3. It is forbidden to use dead animals, fish and birds in food and kill them for the purpose of eating them. For eating it is better to use natural products: milk, fruits flora or to synthesize organic food from another or from energy.

This refers to a certain level of personality development.
We proceed from the fact that a person, in general, is endowed with the right and property for himself to choose and establish the norms of what is permitted, corresponding to the level of development of his consciousness, and to have all the results of such a choice.

4.4. You can't use violence.
Violence is not acceptable in any form. Society happy people it is a society in which there is no violence.
Our society is at such a level of development that it is forced to single out a group of people who have the right to use violence against those who violate the rights of people set forth in the basic law.
The first thing to say here is that you cannot use parental violence against your child.
And in all cases: The child must not be beaten. The child should not be scolded, frightened and deceived. A child should not be locked up, put in a corner, allegedly for educational purposes, forced to commit actions that are unacceptable to him, humiliate him physically and morally, call him names.
It is impossible for a child to be denied food and care from the parents.
You can not forcibly excommunicate a child from the parents of the mother and father.
It happens that a parent is first deprived of the right to be such, and then excommunicated from the right to raise his child.

4.5. Theft. Any thing, object, clothing, utensils, product is usually in someone's property. She can be taken over by him. different ways: Made, purchased, or received as a gift.
Some important attributes of being have a certificate, brand, logo, ex-libris, signature - establishing the owner. Others, such as pocket money, are a means of payment with a variable right of ownership - they pass from hand to hand.

In any case, the primary established order definition of ownership and the right of possession at the location: in whose hands (also in an apartment, car, pocket, bank, etc.) the thing is located - he is the owner.
The transfer of ownership from hand to hand can only take place voluntarily.
Changing the right of possession or ownership without the will of the primary owner is theft, embezzlement or robbery.
Coercion is not free will.
It is said: do not steal (decalogue eighth commandment)

4.6. Do not lie.
Man lives in the world of information. There are many ways, means and situations of information transfer, and sometimes its reliability becomes vital.
None of the information, nothing said or written (including those under the authorship of God) should be spared from the verification of authenticity.
Lovers of sophistry and demagogy are looking for such cases when "lying for good."
We do not find such cases. But the information must correspond to the time, place and conditions.
Lies, untruths, lies, as well as the concealment of information that should be accessible and public, makes our life not only uncomfortable, but also unsafe and equates to an attempt on life and health.
Lies encroach on our other fundamental rights and freedoms.
Do not lie. (Commandment Nine)

4.7. Keep out.

Everything in nature and human life should occur freely, naturally - without the interference of some in the lives of others. This also applies to relationships between people and
relations between peoples and countries and, especially, relations between man and nature.
The principle of non-intervention does not negate assistance and complicity.

4.8. Do no harm.
The life and activity of man should take place under this primary motto.

4.9. Do not turn over.
Do not deprive or restrict free will and freedom of choice. This can apply to both humans and animals. It's not about who it applies to.
First of all, it is within oneself - the daily observance of this moral law.
"Turn over" here in the sense of limiting along the perimeter.

4.10. Don't commit adultery.

Man is created, born and lives in an atmosphere of love.
The seventh commandment does not explain what has been said.
The feeling of love is boundless and free. The foregoing says that a person is triune - he consists of a body, soul and spirit.
"Adultery" refers only to bodily - physical love.
Love is primarily spiritual. And the emergence of physical love, more precisely, hormonal attraction, without spiritual love, this is the disharmony of relationships.

5. Moralisms.
And, of course, moral laws are set out here that have the nature of prohibitions and restrictions, but the basic laws of morality are those that encourage action.

Related terms
1. Rigorism
- a moral principle that characterizes the way the requirements are met
morality, which consists in strict and unswerving observance of certain moral norms, regardless of specific circumstances, in unconditional obedience.
2. Principle - a formulated general thesis, meaning the concept of good and bad.

3. Law of talion - the imposition of punishment for a crime, according to which the punishment should reproduce the harm caused by the crime ("an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth").

4 MORALITY - Internal, spiritual qualities that guide a person, ethical standards; rules of conduct determined by these qualities (Ozhegov)
5. Hegel in the "Philosophy of Law" presented morality, in contrast to abstract law and morality, as the final stage in the development of the spirit in and manifested in the family and civil society.

Reviews

Everything is interesting, especially the idea itself - morality is within us

Additions.
A man does not know what he wants until it is given to him. It's about not getting involved.
In addition, if "Thou shalt not kill" is accepted, then one must intervene to prevent the killing.

Regarding lies. The problem is that people lie primarily to themselves.
In an expanded sense, this is a misunderstanding of oneself and one's desires.

Thanks Michael.
"Besides, if 'Thou shalt not kill' is accepted, then one must intervene to prevent the killing" - sounds like sophism.
Where will the "murders" come from if everyone keeps the Great Commandment?
And laws, including moral ones, work only when they are observed.

"Additions. A man does not know what he wants until it is given to him"
If a person does not know what he wants, he is not yet a person, but rather an animal.

"Regarding lies. The problem is that a person lies primarily to himself.
In an expanded sense, this is a misunderstanding of oneself and one's desires.

Well, while there is a misunderstanding and a lie to oneself about moral laws, it’s too early to talk

Having accidentally stumbled upon another opus from Latynina - “Voltaire’s relevance”, where she, without hesitation, tries to justify the militant hooligans with verbiage about Putin’s Russia, the Inquisition and her own fantasies on the topic of Voltaire, could not resist answering.

Blatantly blaming everything christian church en masse in totalitarianism, Latynina could not resist mentioning Stalin, obviously without similar " keywords"You may not receive the second Defender of the Word Award established by the US State Department, this time not from Condoleezza Rice, but from Hillary Clinton herself.

There is an alternative world in Latynina's head; there are no differences between the current Orthodox Patriarch, to whom she accuses the presence of some expensive watches, and, for example, the Catholic Pope Alexander Borgia, a seller of cardinal hats, a poisoner and a lover of his own daughter, putting an equal sign between such things and completely forgetting, or maybe on purpose not paying attention to some nuances, if we discard the difference in time epochs: A patriarch is a bishop, the first among equal bishops, presiding at a council and in a synod. Patriarch is an administrative position, as are metropolitans and archbishops., while: in Catholic Church on earth, the head of the Church, besides the Lord, is the Pope, and Catholics consider his decisions in matters of faith to be infallible (the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope). and the Pope is also considered the vicar of Christ.

It would seem that for Latynina the difference is small, but in fact, what a significant one.

Indulging in discussions about the difference between Christianity and Islam, mercilessly exaggerating and labeling, and ignoring the numerous currents in both teachings, the popular journalist is completely untouched by the feelings of believers, is it interesting for any confessions or just Orthodoxy?

In the strangest way, hanging the sins of the Inquisition on Orthodoxy, the sins of the popes - Orthodox Patriarchs, let's keep silent about the allegedly "burnt Copernicus", who was nevertheless corrected for Giordano Bruno, Latynina, nevertheless, did not begin to recall the so-called "black masses", the practices of worshiping Lucifer inherent in Western civilization. Also, for some reason, she lost sight of the "Hammer of the Witches" - Malleus Maleficarum - a notorious product of Western Christianity, whose sins, with a slight movement of her hand, the well-known journalist deigned to attribute to Orthodoxy.

And maybe not by chance.

The aggressive atheist Voltaire cannot but impress Latynina, I even suspect that she knows what the heresy of the Albigenses, who were also called " kind people”and how the work of Voltaire, a graduate of the Jesuit school and a freemason, resonates with the dogma of the Cathars. It was not for nothing that at one time in France, de Sade, the same Marquis, was published in the same little book with Voltaire: it’s trite, at least they will read something ..

Freemason Voltaire knew for sure what exactly he did, destroying the foundations of the then society, smashing and spitting on the Church, and French revolution with millions of victims, and then the arrival of Napoleon and Napoleonic Wars this is confirmed...

However, the same trick can be seen at the beginning of the 20th century in Russian Empire, ridiculing the Church, leaflets, moral decline, "everything is permitted, since there is no God" ..

Latynina would, but people like her actually, and a hundred years ago they printed under different names liberal newspapers have their own similar opuses, and now they all either died out in exile or are considered "victims of the bloody regime", although for some reason no one will say: "if you summon a dragon for a long time, then you should remember that you will become his first breakfast (with )"

Although, maybe Latynina believes that she will be in time for her cozy emigration for the next 30 pieces of silver...

Immanuel Kant wrote that two things amazed him: the starry sky above our heads and the moral law inside us, why does the starry sky shine on everyone, even the Latins, but, unfortunately, the “moral law” inside, it turns out, is in the form that it meant Kant, not everyone has.

How did Kant say it?

“All people have a moral feeling, a categorical imperative. Since this feeling does not always induce a person to actions that bring him earthly benefit, therefore, there must be some basis, some motivation for moral behavior that lies outside this world. All this necessarily requires the existence of immortality, the highest court and God ... "

Although Latynina, apparently, is closer to the homosexual Frederick the Great, whom Adolf Hitler called "the hero of genius from Sanssouci, and the ideologist of Nazism Alfred Rosenberg - the "ideal of Nordic beauty", there are so many real Western democratic values ​​​​in this .. and most importantly, no "Putinism" ".

In an amazing way, Ms. Latynina showed that the heresy of the Manicheans and the Albigensian Cathars did not disappear at all in the darkness of centuries, Voltaire, the Marquis de Sade and such Latins would take it out of oblivion - thirsting for only one thing - to bring confusion into souls, to confuse, confuse and enchant with another heresy, hiding behind the “fight against the regime” or “freedom of speech”, forgetting that freedom is not a synonym for the word “permissiveness”.