This is why freedom can be important.
Freedom allows for any existing perspective, none of which can really be proven to be THE correct one and all of which can easily be countered by another (as basically illustrated by the list on this post), to exist simultaneously.
Freedom even allows for the absence of freedom (voluntarily), which has the effect of dissolving the issue of freedom being just another perspective that claims to be "the" one.
Still a Conservative...
Agonism is another name for that ethos:
Agonism implies a deep respect and concern for the other; indeed, the Greek agon refers most directly to an athletic contest oriented not merely toward victory or defeat, but emphasizing the importance of the struggle itself-a struggle that cannot exist without the opponent. Victory through forfeit or default, or over an unworthy opponent, comes up short compared to a defeat at the hands of a worthy opponent-a defeat that still brings honor. An agonistic discourse will therefore be one marked not merely by conflict but just as importantly, by mutual admiration
—Political theorist Samuel Chambers
One need not have admiration for another's perspective in order to allow for its simultanious existance with others.
I also think that freedom (or anything else) shouldn't be associated with any kind of "ism".
"Isms" always attempt to box things up into neat and tidy little packages. However, it could be safe to say that life isn't neat and tidy.
Perhaps our creation for the countless "ism" for every ethos and nuance of life is in direct response to life not being neat and tidy?
But can we make life neat and tidy by trying to box every aspect of it up with "isms" or do we end up complicating things even more?
My guess is the latter because boxing things up seems incapable of dealing with relativity and the unknown.
Thanks for bringing this up.
Commenting by HaloScan
