ÃÂLife without liberty is like a body without spirit.ÃÂToday ÃÂFreedomÃÂ is very popular word in all over the world. All people have their own understanding of freedom. And I also have my own understanding of freedom. Freedom for me is to be not conforming of something, to be not slave of my own desires. But I donÃÂt believe that anyone is truly free, because we all conform to something or someone. For example social etiquetteÃÂs, beliefs of religion and all the biases subconsciously accepted from a life time of media and other external influences like friends and family. And the most interesting idea of the Chapter Four of ÃÂIndividual and SocietyÃÂ book was the idea of freedom. We discussed about how freedom influence for cultivating of individual, how it is important and what does mean freedom. And the most interesting texts on this theme for me were the text of Kahlil Gibran and Salvador Dali.
The Dali Atomicus, photo by Philippe Halsman (1948...
English: Salvador Dali with ocelot and cane.
Brooklyn Museum - Hands Female Nude Baby - Kahlil ...I think that these texts are similar to each other, and thatÃÂs why they can be compared. These two authors are talking about freedom, but not about the same freedom. They have their own understanding of freedom. And there are some questions: how they connected with each other and which freedom they are explaining in their texts. These two authors are so different but at the same time they are also similar to each other: Salvador Dali is talking about creative freedom and Kahlil Gibran is talking about inner freedom and IÃÂm going to compare these two ideas.
A major difference between these two authors is that they are explaining freedom in different ways and they understand freedom differently. For Salvador Dali real freedom is creative freedom. He understands the freedom in creativity that he can draw anything, what he wants. And he doesnÃÂt care...
An interesting idea underdeveloped
A very interesting pairing for comparison, however I don't feel the comparison was done justice to. I don't feel that there was any penetrating analysis of the ultimate concepts of freedom posited by the respective authors, which I think would have yielded more interesting mutual ideas than merely the truism "they both talk about freedom", and focus remained only on the rhetorical differences. I also found it a little hard to read as the English was at some points stilted, but it was a fairly good effort, and its certainly food for thought. C+
0 out of 1 people found this comment useful.