The first lecture summarized the three levels of freedom. The first begins from sense knowledge and thereby is concerned with physical possessions. Competition for these generates collision between persons with others.

Secondly there is the Kantian ideal sense of freedom as under the categorical imperative to will in such wise that my will could be a universal law for all. But the universal law "to do unto others as you would want them to do unto you" is quite formal. It does not take account of the concrete, actual circumstances in which one lives and does not provide the motivation to follow the law.

Hence freedom moves beyond not only the external senses and objects of the first level of freedom to reason and its universal laws, but finally to existence and the project of self realization in its terms. Existence, however, is always specific; thus when I make a free decision to bring something into existence both the decision and its effect are concrete and unique. It is here that we engage our responsibilities and creativity.

While existence seems to be a general and abstract notion, upon reflection it turns out to be quite otherwise. We might begin with a rock as an example of something which exists. You could think of attempting to make this not to exist or even taking a sledge hammer and pounding the rock repeatedly. It would break into small pieces, but would not cease to exist. There would always be some sand remaining; I cannot make it not to exist. As a general principle we can say that it holds to existence and refuses to give it up.

If one puts a plant in good soil with water it will grow and flower. This is the heart of agriculture. It is not a matter of chance such that a plant might grow or it might not; if the conditions are good the plant will proceed stubbornly along its life cycle. Weeds prove this beyond doubt.

An animal is even more resourceful in pursuit of the nourishment it needs in order to grow and reproduce. Moreover, it is axiomatic that one should never corner a rat because it will attack viciously in defence of its existence, that is, its life. In short, what is holds to existence; it seeks to develop toward its perfection or full realization, and does so passionately.

One can conclude then about existence that it stands against non-existence or non being and seeks its full realization according to its nature. In the Latin languages this is expressed as seeking perfection (facere- to make, and per to make thoroughly). Whatever exists seeks the fulfillment or perfection of its existence, its full realization.

By considering existence in terms of rocks, plants and animals we have learned something about existence, namely, that it pursues stubbornly and actively its fulfillment or perfection. When we consider that notion of existence in terms of a human being, we find that similarly persons strive for perfection or self-realization according to the capabilities of their nature as human person. To the above levels of inorganic and organic reality the person in its search for perfection adds the capabilities of imagination, intellect and will. With that combination humans are able to see many different ways in which to seek fulfillment; in one circumstance one could be a professor, clerk or artist, or one could try to change one’s circumstances for oneself or one’s children. For a human being then the path of existence toward perfection can be very varied.

Among these many different ways we must begin to order and set priorities. Is it to take care of our children and to be there with them as they are growing up, or is our priority professional advancement? How we weigh and combine these two is the stuff of the exercise of our freedom. As we give priority to some among these many different ways of seeking perfection we say that they weigh more for us than others. This is expressed by the Latin term "valet", that is to weigh more on a scale, whence the term "value".

Note that this is not something that we can simply make up. It must truly weigh in on the scale and make a difference. Yet we can consider some differences to be more important than others, e.g., being on time may be considered more important than having a well prepared class, or vice versa. So we act according to an order of priorities, that is, an order of values, and adjust our lives accordingly.

In the previous lecture it was noted that the imagination at the third level could act like a spectroscope able to open the many different facets of life and, like a kaleidoscope, able to combine them in different ways. Values are not only possibilities, but also what we are committed to as being important. We can go still further to say that this is not only an intellectual assessment, but relates to our whole person. So if we have some values that are very important and see them being crassly denied and rejected, we say "this makes me sick", that is, I am repulsed and revolted by this situation. Our freedom then is not only an abstract intellectual concern, but a comprehensive relationship of our total personality to what it means to be good and to realize perfection. This is the heart of freedom.

Further values are not only individual preferences, but also are set socially. One’s consciousness is always in relation to the other. Even in its prenatal state in the womb consciousness emerges as awareness of the heart beat of the mother, reflecting her peace or anxiety. To come alive consciously is always a matter of consciousness in relation to others. This appears especially in the importance of the home and neighborhood in moral upbringing.

As we begin to learn a language we assimilate an attitude toward life which has been developed by those in our language group. The considerable difference between a Spanish and a Germanic personality can be heard in the language they use. This is made still more specific and reinforced in the special historical circumstances of a people. For instance a revolution achieved with suffering and sacrifice can mark a people for centuries, specifying what they will seek as a matter of personal freedom and what they will avoid, such as government interference.

Like capabilities of knowledge, the values of a people can be compared the glasses which young persons receive and with which they are raised. As a result they perceive life in their community in a special way. These glasses or values orient their emotional and effective life: what they consider important, what they are committed to or weigh negatively, all this is oriented by the values which are common in their community.

To this notion of values should be added the notion of virtue. Given a pattern of values one tends to act in a particular way. If, for instance, patience is a very important value in my family or community then I develop a capability for being patient. Similarly, if in my particular group courage is considered to be an important value then from my earliest days I am encouraged to face up to difficult circumstances. There is much discussion about this in relation to women and men. If in particular societies women are expected to act in certain ways and to take certain responsibility while men are expected to act otherwise, the result is a distinct set of capabilities in the two groups.

The word for this in the Latin language is "virtues", for if we practice a particular way of acting we develop particular capabilities or strengths in this regard, and eventually a whole set of virtues.

In sum, we began with something very simple, the existence of a rock, plant or animal. Moving to the existence of a human person we saw this to be a conscious and willed search for self-realization or perfection according to a certain order of importance which we call "values". These, in turn, entail the development of particular competencies we call "virtues".

The combination of these values and virtues is called a culture in the sense that this is a good way to cultivate the human person and to act with others who share this pattern of values and virtues. Culture is not something imposed on a people from outside, but is rather the development and flowering of their exercise of freedom through time. Taken synchronically then culture can be considered the cumulative freedom of a people.

This suggests the importance of a culture to a people and of its recognition by others. For if a culture is the cumulative freedom of a people, then to negate or suppress that culture is to deny the freedom of the people, and to do so massively. It also takes away the prime basis for cultivating the next generation. Nothing could be more destructive of the identity and hopes of a people, and nothing is defended with greater passion.

In North America there was an operative social approach called "the melting pot" according to which people coming from different parts of the world were expected to forget their heritage and to become the same as everyone else. This did not take account of their cultures or value them, but rather worked against them in order to achieve an homogenous population.

It is said that the Soviet regime did not promote the identities of the various peoples and their cultures, but rather enforced the universal forms of its dialectical system. This could be seen as a deliberate political strategy, but then it is necessary to ask why this seemed desirable, or perhaps better, why the significance of the cultures of the multiple peoples were not able to be perceived and appreciated. In this regard the epistemological limitations of the first and even the second levels of freedom outlined in the previous lecture become determinative — at which point one must ask whether they are freedoms at all.

In any case it is now considered imperative for the multiple peoples to attempt to redevelop an awareness and appreciation of their culture and to bring that into the educational process.

It is a measure of the change going on in philosophy that culture was given no attention twenty years ago. When in 1980 culture was proposed as the theme for the 1983 World Congress of Philosophy in Montreal it was opposed very strongly by leading philosophers, especially from the analytic school. Today philosophical bibliographies list a vast number of works on culture — now, but not twenty years ago. There is a good philosophical reason for that, namely, that at that time philosophy still was focused on objective knowledge. One can trace this back to Aristotle where the concern was very much for the object as standing over against (ob-ject) the subject. At the opening of modern times this was reinforced by Descartes. Though he seemed to turn to the subject in his "cogito ergo sum", even here the subject was a new epistemological object.

What has happened in recent decades is the development of phenomenology by Husserl, Heidegger and others. They took up the intentionality of the self-conscious human subject and followed its deployment from its inner source in the person through. They brought to light (the etymology of "phe-nomen-ology) the effort of human consciousness to relate to other persons and things by following the emergence of human experience from within. Once that happened it became possible to take proper account of values and cultures and their importance as guides in the exercise of our freedom. This emerged into general consciousness in the very last decades.

One can also reflect on recent experience in philosophy. In the past the two sides of the Cold War were thought of as two great campaigns which one wanted to join; suddenly these could no longer be appreciated. What had been a great human project of the 1920s suddenly became infeasible or even revolting in the 1980s. A similar total universion of consciousness now makes culture and subjectivity a central part of human growth, whereas objectivity alone had been recognized by the two sides of the Cold War. As human consciousness moves beyond mere objectivity to include subjectivity we entering a very different and potentially much more humane world at this turn of the millennium.

In sum, this suggests three central themes in appreciating the unfolding of freedom: culture, civilization and tradition.

The term "culture" is drawn from cultivation, as of a field. The soul that is not cultivated will yield only weeds; whereas good achievement requires cultivation. Similarly, as regards values and virtues, deprived of these life cannot develop toward human excellence, but rather takes on a brutish form, to use the term of Hume.

The second term, "civilization," is similar to culture, but has to do especially with the life of the city, "civis", and the ability to live in a more complex society. The third term, "tradition", requires a whole lecture in its own right — lecture IV below. Its basic nature is to pass on (tradere in Latin); hence, the term tradition means to pass on or that which is passed on. Each generation inherits the pattern of values and virtues which constitute its culture. Each generation must evaluate that and decide what they want to pass on as truly life giving for their children. In that way tradition is not something which points to a past which it simply repeats. Nor is it history which includes everything good and bad. Rather it is aimed toward the future and undergoes a continuing process of reevaluation and readaptation as the way in which we and our peoples can strive for human fulfillment.

On a horizontal level through time this can constitute a patten of trial and error in which feedback mechanisms condition us to act in ways which lead to immediate satisfaction. There is more going on, however. On a vertical level we come gradually to learn what is really worth striving for, what we want to realize as a longer range life project and what contributes thereto. In this way we come to discovery what transcends the immediate and concrete and are enabled for a creative realization of life. This will be treated further below.