Sorry for the delay on this, but I needed time to cool off and calm down.
... ... ...
In this post, I will be discussing the third picture and further expanding my headcanons.
... ... ...
... ... ...
This picture has an interesting opinion, but it does not provide much evidence as to what they classify as "free will." Google defines free will as "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion," which is what one usually thinks of when presented with the idea; However, in regards to nations, free will could mean a variety of things.
I don't believe that nations have free will in the same sense as we do. Nations are responsible for representing their people's feelings and desires, even if they don't share them. That doesn't mean that have to want to share the opinions, but it likely would come through subconsciously if they attempted to repress it. It is their duty to feel what their people feel, and they can not be sure their opinions are their own.
Nations, during times such as civil war in particular, are greatly affected by their people. When there is so much divide and infighting, nations cannot choose sides; they would be representing one group of people and not another. This infighting would lead them to a bit of bipolar madness until the civil wars ended.
Nations are also affected by their leaders, but it is not as strong as the effect their people have on them. Naturally, leaders of countries are opinionated and can dislike other nations, but as the last sentence says in the picture, nations don't always feel the same. If a leader is being unjust and doing things that are not right for the people, a nation has the right and duty to speak up, just as the people do.
I hope my point came across well, I believe it's not quite what I ended up saying before, but I can't remember what I had so there's nothing that I can do.
I don't believe that nations have free will in the same sense as we do. Nations are responsible for representing their people's feelings and desires, even if they don't share them. That doesn't mean that have to want to share the opinions, but it likely would come through subconsciously if they attempted to repress it. It is their duty to feel what their people feel, and they can not be sure their opinions are their own.
Nations, during times such as civil war in particular, are greatly affected by their people. When there is so much divide and infighting, nations cannot choose sides; they would be representing one group of people and not another. This infighting would lead them to a bit of bipolar madness until the civil wars ended.
Nations are also affected by their leaders, but it is not as strong as the effect their people have on them. Naturally, leaders of countries are opinionated and can dislike other nations, but as the last sentence says in the picture, nations don't always feel the same. If a leader is being unjust and doing things that are not right for the people, a nation has the right and duty to speak up, just as the people do.
... ... ...
I hope my point came across well, I believe it's not quite what I ended up saying before, but I can't remember what I had so there's nothing that I can do.
... ... ...
In the next post, I will be discussing the last picture and further expanding my head cannons.
No comments:
Post a Comment