Freedom is considered a metaphysical concept in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. One of three ideas, freedom, immortality and God. I associate the first with space, the second with time, and the third with my 'rational' consciousness, of my-self as well as the cosmos. The concept would be some kind of universalization of this 'rationality', and is one that is elemental for me, as I am only a part of the universe, yet can aspire to be whole.
I have read many accounts of free will. That it is something we grow to have. That the lack of determination within our consciousness occurs only within specific contexts, as in the case of personal interrelationships. That, (Hegel) it is the 'recognition of necessity'. There are more. I do not identify free will with thoughts 'generally'. (Please understand that I couldn't help but leave you this message. grin grin).

eek!

my theory is that bc most ppl in the rich west have literally never had to confront real existential threats to their ways of thinking and living (the soviet threat is now 25 years old) they sincerely believe there is no such thing as evil, only misunderstanding and not enough "inclusion" or whatever; and of course they are at least partly right, but as previous generations knew, and ppl in many parts of the world still know, evil exists and men's hearts are always being tempted to act on it.

All this discussion gives me an idea for a great new book:
"ISIS: Our Misunderstood Friends"

Good attempt using a nonsequiter series to obfuscate things. The sarcasm intended is recognized.

The electrochemical impulses in one person’s brain can be different than another’s. Not good or evil, just different.

Bingo. For the most part yes.Hence we have schizophrenia, hallucinations and all manner of mental aberation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g

IF - "The electrochemical impulses in one person’s brain can be different than another’s. Not good or evil, just different."

THEN - There is no actual good and actual evil just differently evolved opinions; and the stronger the ppl who hold one opinion the more likely that opinion is to prevail; the "struggle" for some thing we've created in our minds called "justice" is a useful illusion but nothing more. Today we think woman are equal to men but tomorrow our opinions may change via our chemical/physical structures which are continuously evolving in a totally random fashion - not in a "progressive" nor a "conservative" direction but blindly randomly.

Atheist or "nontheist", If one accepts a strict materialistic view of the intellect (not saying you do), it is interesting to see if said person is consistent within their position. For example…

- Spiritual laws (moral law/natural law/divine law) are man-made “concepts”.

- Concepts are like opinions; thoughts in the mind.

- Thoughts in the mind are electrochemical impulses that have evolved over millions of years to help us survive.

- The electrochemical impulses in one person’s brain can be different than another’s. Not good or evil, just different.

- There is nothing above the human mind to judge what is moral or not; no “outside system”.
Practical application: Is racism wrong? Of course not, it’s
just another way of thinking.

We are beginning to move at this point away from philosophy and what we can known by reason alone. We can know that it is possible for angels to exist by reason alone, but that they actually exist is only something that can be known through revelation--God's revelation to us.

The short of it is that trust in God's self-revelation through the centuries is reasonable to believe, and this revelation includes purely spiritual beings, i.e., what we call "angels". But all that is a whole 'nuther discussion for another time!

huh?

The above placement of truth with yellow could then be classified as a 'category mistake'. Want to look into that. It was the distinction between questions of ultimate meaning, and questions based on 'specificity', that prompted my above response. I think we understand one another.