Freedom is one of the most difficult things to define, yet wars are fought to secure it. Pres. George W. Bush wants freedom for the entire world, but the question remains whether some might not want it and, if they do, cannot handle it. Many desire to be 'free of their freedom', for the latter requires assuming responsibility for one's actions. It is easier to have others choose for us. Freedom has many meanings arid applications. There is political freedom, involving the ability to choose one's own form. of government, hold elections, etc. Professors are concerned with academic freedom, namely to teach and publish in accord with their scholarly findings. These, though, are secondary meanings and presumably are grounded in something fundamental to the nature of humans. This is called moral freedom—but there's the rub of it. Is such freedom an illusion? One cannot ignore Sigmund Freud's massive unconscious as a factor in why we act the way we do. Moreover, psychological literature suggests' obsessive-compulsive' acts as more commonplace than we realize. Alcoholics and drug addicts are told they cannot help themselves instead, they need others to help them break their habit. Let's face it, we seem to be evolving into a 'no fault' society in which freedom is an empty term. It certainly is easy to rationalize that this or that action really was not free, as one can say we are the product of our genes, passions, and culture. But Jean-Paul Sartre disagreed that freedom is an illusion, claiming instead that it is the very essence of man. Freedom is a human's distinguishing mark. Essentially, a human is nothing, and therein lies his freedom. Although freedom may not be an illusion, in many cases it is illusory. Is it true to say piously (虔诚地) that the cure for any ills in democracy is more democracy, i.e. freedom? The Patriot Act certainly raises many hackles as an infringement(侵犯) on freedom trading civil liberties for security—part of a seemingly continuing trend in society. How strong is the argument that if we are not free, then laws and prohibitions make no sense? Does knowledge, a seemingly necessary component involved in free acts, restrict or enlarge our freedom? The Socratic position is that, if one really knew what was right, one would do what was right. Moslems maintain that it is the 'will of Allah' that governs all things and we only can hope to conform. to it. This is not entirely foreign to Christian theology. The problem of predestination is a formidable one challenging freedom, maintaining as it does that, even before creation. Like most dilemmas posed by philosophy, perhaps it should be taken with reserve: 'All arguments', concluded 19th-century philosopher and psychologist William James, 'are against freedom all experience is for it'. The phrase 'free of their freedom' (Line 3, Paragraph1) can be paraphrased as ______