Đề Xuất 2/2023 # Freedom Vs. Liberty: Understanding The Difference &Amp; What It Means To Be Truly Free # Top 10 Like | Cuocthitainang2010.com

Đề Xuất 2/2023 # Freedom Vs. Liberty: Understanding The Difference &Amp; What It Means To Be Truly Free # Top 10 Like

Cập nhật nội dung chi tiết về Freedom Vs. Liberty: Understanding The Difference &Amp; What It Means To Be Truly Free mới nhất trên website Cuocthitainang2010.com. Hy vọng thông tin trong bài viết sẽ đáp ứng được nhu cầu ngoài mong đợi của bạn, chúng tôi sẽ làm việc thường xuyên để cập nhật nội dung mới nhằm giúp bạn nhận được thông tin nhanh chóng và chính xác nhất.

Freedom vs. Liberty: How Subtle Differences Between These Two Big Ideas Changed Our World

You’re free to republish or share any of our articles (either in part or in full), which are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Our only requirement is that you give chúng tôi appropriate credit by linking to the original article. Spread the word; knowledge is power!

“I see the liberty of the individual not only as a great moral good in itself (or, with Lord Acton, as the highest political good), but also as the necessary condition for the flowering of all the other goods that mankind cherishes: moral virtue, civilization, the arts and sciences, economic prosperity. Out of liberty, then, stem the glories of civilized life.” Murray Rothbard

The terms “freedom” and “liberty” have become clichés in modern political parlance. Because these words are invoked so much by politicians and their ilk, their meanings are almost synonymous and used interchangeably. That’s confusing – and can be dangerous – because their definitions are actually quite different.

“Freedom” is predominantly an internal construct. Viktor Frankl, the legendary Holocaust survivor who wrote Man’s Search For Meaning, said it well: “Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms – to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way (in how he approaches his circumstances).”

In other words, to be free is to take ownership of what goes on between your ears, to be autonomous in thoughts first and actions second. Your freedom to act a certain way can be taken away from you – but your attitude about your circumstances cannot – making one’s freedom predominantly an internal construct.

On the other hand, “liberty” is predominantly an external construct. It’s the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views. The ancient Stoics knew this (more on that in a minute). So did the Founding Fathers, who wisely noted the distinction between negative and positive liberties, and codified that difference in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The distinction between negative and positive liberties is particularly important, because an understanding of each helps us understand these seminal American documents (plus it explains why so many other countries have copied them). The Bill of Rights is a charter of negative liberties – it says what the state cannot do to you. However, it does not say what the state must do on your behalf. This would be a positive liberty, an obligation imposed upon you by the state.

Thus in keeping with what the late Murray Rothbard said above, the liberty of the individual is the necessary condition for the flowering of all the other “goods” that mankind cherishes. Living in liberty allows each of us to fully enjoy our freedoms. And how these two terms developed and complement one another is important for anyone desiring to better understand what it means to be truly free.

Etymology of Freedom and Liberty

To better understand what freedom and liberty mean, it’s helpful to look at the respective etymologies of these words, digging into their histories and how they developed.

Freedom comes from Old English, meaning “power of self-determination, state of free will; emancipation from slavery, deliverance.” There were similar variants in Old Frisian such as “fridom,” the Dutch “vrijdom,” and Middle Low German “vridom.”

Liberty comes from the Latin “libertatem” (nominative libertas), which means “civil or political freedom, condition of a free man; absence of restraint, permission.” It’s important to note that the Old French variant liberte, “free will,” has also shaped liberty’s meaning. In fact, William R. Greg’s essay France in January 1852 notes that the French notion of liberty is political equality, whereas the English notion is rooted in personal independence.

In an interview with Lew Rockwell, Professor Butler Shaffer makes some interesting distinctions between freedom and liberty. Shaffer argues that freedom is the “condition that exists within your mind, within my mind. It’s that inner sense of integrity. It’s an inner sense of living without conflict, without contradiction, without various divisions and so forth.”

This point of view is in line with the philosophy of the Stoics. They believed that a person’s body can be physically imprisoned, but not his mind (much like Viktor Frankl famously said in his Man’s Search for Meaning). Shaffer adds to the distinction:

“Liberty is a condition that arises from free people living together in society. Liberty is a social condition. Freedom is the inner philosophical and psychological condition.”

In short, freedom is inherent to humans. It exists within them by virtue of their humanity. Liberty is a political construct that allows people to enjoy freedoms such as property rights, free speech, freedom of association, etc.

Sadly, liberty has not been the natural state of mankind. History has shown that liberty – particularly of the individual – has been a distinguishing feature of Western societies, especially in the early years of the United States.

Negative Rights vs. Positive Rights

Philosophy professor Aeon Skoble provides a good summary:

“Fundamentally, positive rights require others to provide you with either a good or service. A negative right, on the other hand, only requires others to abstain from interfering with your actions. If we are free and equal by nature, and if we believe in negative rights, any positive rights would have to be grounded in consensual arrangements.”

For example, private property, free speech, and freedom of association are negative rights. In other words, these are rights that prevent others – above all, the state – from transgressing on you personally or on your property.

Along with these rights come responsiblities. In other words, you must bear the consequences of your actions as you exercise them. This is why you can’t “falsely shout fire in a theatre and cause a panic” without bearing the consequences of the panic you caused, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes noted in Schenk v. United States in 1919.

Like all negative rights, free speech comes with responsibility; if you use that speech to spread information which is false and causes harm, then you’re not protected carte blanche. Others can petition the court for the panic you’ve caused as a result of your exercise of free speech.

On the other hand, positive rights are granted by the government and involve the trampling of an individual or another class of individuals’ rights. These kinds of rights – like state-funded healthcare or public education – are justified on abstract grounds, such as the “public good” or the “general will.” By their very nature, they require the state to take from one group in order to give to another, usually in the form of taxes.

Appeals to the general will originate from the famous 18th century French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who emphasized that a strong government makes individuals free and that individuals submit to the state for the sake of the greater good. If that sounds backwards to you, you’re not alone.

Author James Bovard highlights some of the follies behind Rousseau’s thinking:

“Rousseau’s concept of the general will led him to a concept of freedom that was a parody of the beliefs accepted by British and American thinkers of his era. Rousseau wrote that the social contract required that ‘whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free.’ ”

In other words, if you don’t want to go along with the “will of the people” (or as Rousseau defined it, “the general will”), then the state can compell you to do so – even if that means trampling your individual rights and responsibilities.

Bovard also noted how Rousseau’s concept of freedom had nothing to do with the independence of the individual:

“C. E. Vaughan, in a 1915 study of Rousseau’s work, correctly observed that, for Rousseau, ‘freedom is no longer conceived as the independence of the individual. It is rather to be sought in his total surrender to the service of the State.’ “

Rousseau (1712-78) was the first of the modern intellectuals, and one of the most influential Englightenment thinkers. He died a decade before the French Revolution of 1789, but many contemporaries held him responsible for it, and so for the demolition of the Ancien Regime in Europe.

One can see how Rousseau’s ideas translated into actions when comparing the French Revolution to the American one. After all, ideas matter – especially in revolutionary politics.

French vs. American: A Tale of Two Revolutions

The French and American Revolutions happened within a dozen years of one another, yet they centered around two very different concepts of individual liberty. For the French, the goal was to ensure political equality. For the Americans, it was personal independence. This distinction helps shed light on what made the outcomes of the two Revolutions so different.

The French Revolution devolved into chaos when revolutionary zealots like Maximilien Robespierre became the de facto head of the Committee of Public Safety. Under the Committee’s direction, Robespierre conducted the infamous “Reign of Terror” against all opponents of the French Revolution. Robespierre was inspired in part by Rousseau, stating: “Rousseau is the one man who, through the loftiness of his soul and the grandeur of his character, showed himself worthy of the role of teacher of mankind.”

If Thomas Jefferson was to Rousseau the facilitator of their respective Revolutions, then Robespierre was to General Washington – the implementor.

During his despotic period of leadership, Robespierre went as far as to create a Cult of the Supreme Being, a state religion based on secularism. This was part of Robespierre’s revolutionary program to completely destroy France’s Roman Catholic tradition in pursuit of an ambiguous “political equality” amongst the masses. Instead of trying to fight for freedom-based principles like the Founding Fathers did, Robespierre was more concerned with destroying all features of French civic society in the name of progress.

In a cruel twist of irony, Robespierre and his Committee of Public Safety behaved more like the previous French monarchy once they seized control. For that reason, the French Revolution turned into a chaotic murder spree that saw tens of thousands of people executed at the guillotine for simply opposing Robespierre’s vision. In the end, Robespierre got a taste of his own medicine, when the French National Convention arrested him and put him to death on July 28, 1794.

It took a young upstart general in Napoleon Bonaparte to put an end to the 15-year chaos of the French Revolution. France reverted back to monarchical rule when Napoleon became emperor in 1804, which restored some semblance of political stability to the crisis-beleaguered nation.

France reached great heights under Napoleon’s rule, in which the country dominated a substantial portion of Europe. However, Napoleon would be defeated and forced into exile in 1815. France went back to its monarchical system, albeit with certain republican features, when Louis XVIII assumed the throne from 1815 to 1824. France did not morph into a genuine republic until 1848, when the Second Republic was established. However, France swung from imperial to republican governments until 1871, when the Third Republic of France came into power.

The road to political stability in France was rather rocky, and was a demonstration that flawed ideas about the tenuous relationship of the state’s role in an individual’s life can be deadly. Unfortunately, most countries across the globe have taken after France’s example of governance as opposed to the American model.

Latin America is arguably the best example of this.

Condemned to Mediocrity: Latin America’s Misunderstanding of Liberty

Etched above the entrace to the Colombian Palace of Justice is a quote by General Francisco de Paula Santander:

“Colombianos las armas os han dado la independencia, las leyes os darán la libertad” (Colombians arms have given us independence, laws will give us liberty)

Santander’s quote was indicative of the stark difference in political philosophies of the Latin American Wars of Independence from Spain and the American War of Independence from Great Britain. He and his counterpart, Simón Bolívar, were not inspired by classically liberal ideas of an individual’s inalienable rights – hence Santander’s belief that liberty comes from the state, not from natural law as Thomas Jefferson wrote in the American Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Jefferson’s philosophy held that an individual’s unalienable rights are not given to one in a document, but by their Creator (and subsequently codified in the Bill of Rights “in order to prevent the misconstruction or abuse of its powers” as it states in the preamble.) In other words, an unalienable right is God-given. It isn’t granted by a president, a king, or any government – otherwise it can be taken away.

Santander and his counterpart Bolivar didn’t share Jefferson’s view. Juan Baustista Alberdi, one of Latin America’s premier classical liberal thinkers in the 19th century, understood the major distinctions behind the Latin American and American Wars of Independence in his essay Omnipotence of the State:

“Washington and his contemporaries were more interested in fighting for individual rights and liberties than just fighting for independence of their country. Once they attained the former, they were able to achieve the latter, as opposed to South American countries, who won their political independence but did not obtain individual freedoms.”

The Founding Fathers fought, above all, for the restoration of the liberties they enjoyed as Englishmen, which were usurped by the tyranical King George III. On the other hand, Latin American leaders were fighting for independence from Spain – and not much else. There wasn’t an underlying belief in an individual’s unalienable rights. Instead, in their view, these rights were granted by the state and their laws, and consequently could also be taken away.

Bolivar in particular feared introducing too much liberty to the uneducated masses once Spainish rule ended. He foresaw anarchy, and thus believed in the necessity of a strong central authority once Gran Colombia gained independence. (Gran Colombia was made up of Colombia, Ecuador, Panama, and Venezuela.) These were the views of a man raised in the Caracas elite.

Bolivar (1783-1830) was born into aristocracy in Caracas. He was a product of the Enlightenment, and was strongly influenced by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Just like Robespierre in France, Boliver was entranced by Rousseau’s ideas. In particular he subscribed to Rousseau’s “general will” concept, which called on the intellectual and educated elite to identify what’s in the best interest of the people. Picture the state serving as a “benevolent guiding hand” if you will; except that it won’t be benevolent if you don’t go along with where that hand is guiding you.

Bolívar believed that past subjugation under Spanish colonial rule left many of the Gran Colombia people ignorant and unable to acquire knowledge, power or civic virtue. Therefore, supposedly in the name of the “greater good,” Bolívar believed that these people should be freed – but not given too much individual liberty. He says as much in his famous Cartagena Manifesto, where it’s clear he was not a fan of federalism:

“But what most weakened the government of Venezuela was the federalist structure it adopted, embodying the exaggerated notion of the rights of man. By stipulating that each man should rule himself, this idea undermines social pacts and constitutes nations in a state of anarchy. Such was the true state of the confederation. Each province governed itself independently, and following this example, each city claimed equal privilege, citing the practice of the provinces and the theory that all men and all peoples have the right to institute whatever form of government they choose. The federal system, although it is the most perfect and the most suitable for guaranteeing human happiness in society, is, notwithstanding, the form most inimical to the interests of our emerging states.”

In Bolívar’s view, the 1812 collapse of the First Republic of Venezuela was due to its decentralized federal system, which demonstrated that the First Republic in fact needed to have stronger state control. After independence was achieved throughout most of Latin America in 1821, Bolívar established Gran Colombia – an even larger territory with stronger centralized power.

Bolívar had lofty aspirations for Gran Colombia. He saw it as a potential powerhouse that would rival the U.S. and European powers by implementing Rousseua’s “general will” concept. However, Bolivar’s dreams did not go as planned. By 1828, Gran Colombia was on the ropes due to internal turmoil and political infighting.

There is a parallel here with the U.S. Articles of Confederation. It lasted eight years before the Continental Congress in Philadelphia replaced it with the U.S. Constituion, primarily because the federal government was too weak to pay their Revolutionary War debts. Gran Colombia lasted seven years before it began to implode. However, unlike the Continental Congress, which convened to replace the U.S. Articles whilst still protecting an individual’s inalienable rights, Bolivar dissolved the Constitutional Convention of Ocaña because he was unable to reform the Constitution of Gran Colombia. He then did what all good dictators do – he declared himself in charge of the Republic of Colombia, making it abundantly clear that Colombia was in fact no longer a republic.

The Gran Colombia experiment would come to a grinding halt in 1830, when Ecuador, New Granada (present-day Colombia), and Venezuela decided to break away and carve out their own national paths.

Gran Colombia’s dissolution made Bolívar pause and reflect. At the end of his life, he’d been driven out of politics, into exile, and knew he would die soon. In his letter to General Juan José Flores, Ploughing the Sea, Bolívar was blunt about his concerns for Latin America’s future:

“You know that I have ruled for twenty years, and I have derived from these only a few sure conclusions: (1) (Latin) America is ungovernable, for us; (2) Those who serve revolution plough the sea; (3) The only thing one can do in (Latin) America is emigrate; (4) This country will fall inevitably into the hands of the unrestrained multitudes and then into the hands of tyrants so insignificant they will be almost imperceptible, of all colors and races; (5) Once we’ve been eaten alive by every crime and extinguished by ferocity, the Europeans won’t even bother to conquer us; (6) If it were possible for any part of the world to revert to primitive chaos, it would be (Latin) America in her last hour.”

Since then, Latin America would experience decades of political and economic instability. Despotism, the non-existence of the rule of law, and economic interventionism have been hallmarks of Latin American politics for the past century and a half. One could argue this is due to the fact that there is no philosophical basis in an individual’s unalienable right. It is only a matter of power.

One needn’t look further than present-day Venezuela to see what happens when collectivism becomes part and parcel of the political culture. Ideas like individual liberty and personal responsiblity form the philosophical bedrock of a functioning republic. Their adoption can be the difference between generational poverty or prosperity for nations.

A Warning to the United States

During this period, political pundits and economic theorists became obsessed with scientism, which is “the over-reliance on or over-application of the scientific method” as a means of trying to move society forward towards an ambiguous utopia. Instead of focusing on the defense of foundational principles like liberty and the rights and responsibilities of the individual, 20th-century intellectuals focused more on “scientific” ways to plan society from the top down. The state would obviously be the main driver, and its central planning would make people “free.”

However, such a view encountered pushback during the 20th century. Economist Ludwig von Mises courageously stood up to this top-down vision and exposed the limits of science in his work Planned Chaos:

“Science is competent to establish what is. It can never dictate what ought to be.”

Mises’ warning unfortunately fell on deaf ears. Progressivism’s apex came about during the administration of Woodrow Wilson.

Discussions about freedom and liberty – as well as the important distinction between negative and positive liberties, which form the bedrock of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights – have become quite quaint, as people use these words in Orwellian fashion to justify a litany of government intrusions in our lives. When we let their meanings become obscurred, we cede to those whose underlying goal is more state power the ability to manipulate the public for their own tyrannical ends. We not only need to comprehend the differences between freedom and liberty, but also recover their original meaning so that there is foundational clarity in political discussions.

Written by

Brian Miller

Effective Vs. Efficient: What’S The Difference?

There are many words in the English language that have very similar meanings but different applications.

The two words effective vs. efficient fall into this category. They both generally mean “having an effect,” but each word has its own distinctive application.

What is the Difference Between Effective and Efficient?

Today, I want to discuss the differences between these two words and how to use them in a sentence. I will go over their definitions, their functions and, at the end, I will give a few tricks to keep track of them.

After reading this post, you should never mix up effective or efficient again.

When to Use Effective

The young politician was a very effective public speaker.

I need to develop some more effective study habits; I failed my last test.

We need an effective solution for everyone.

The word effective focuses on whether or not something is accomplished. It doesn’t focus on how something is done, but rather, if it is done at all.

Efficient, on the other hand, focuses on how something is done. Was it done with little waste or expense? (See below.)

When to Use Efficient

My new car is very fuel-efficient, and it gets 40 miles per gallon.

I just had new energy-efficient windows put in the house.

We are losing too much revenue; we need a more efficient means of production.

This definition of efficient has strong economic connotations, but there is one additional definition of the word that bears no economic meaning.

In addition to its economic meanings, efficient can further be defined as acting directly to produce an effect.

In this sense, something that is efficient is something that causes change to start or stop. This is usually the thing (or person) that brings something about.

For example, in the case of a statue or painting, it is a person chiseling the rock and stroking the brush that causes the transformation. In this example, the artist would be said to be the efficient cause.

This use of efficient is less common in everyday usage, but it quite common to see in philosophical and scientific journals.

Efficient vs. Effective: Let’s Compare Examples

Think about these two words when describing a public speaker, as we did in our first example.

The young politician was a very effective public speaker.

If you were to call someone an effective speaker, you might think of someone who is convincing or persuasive, someone whom people understand, someone who is relatable, etc.

Conversely, if you were to call someone an efficient speaker, you might think of someone who says what needs to be said and nothing more. He or she gets to the point and doesn’t waste time with small talk or pleasantries.

As you can see, these words clearly evoke a very different kind of speaker, so it’s important not to mix them up.

Tricks to Remember the Difference

Think of the word efficiency as a science: the science of minimizing waste, time or effort. S cience and Effi cienc y have similar internal spellings, both containing “CIENC.”

Think of something as being effective as whether or not it got the job done. It may not have been pretty (or efficient), but it got it done. Both effectiv e and don e end in the letter ” E.”

Both efficient and effective have similar meanings, but they have their own distinct applications. Here’s how to never mix up efficient or effective again.

Effective means having a desired effect. Was something accomplished at all?

Efficient means accomplishing something with little waste. Was it accomplished efficiently?

Game Vs. Attraction: What’S The Difference?

I use the terms “game” and “attraction” interchangeably, in part because there’s a lot of overlap between these two terms, but also in part for ease of writing.

Terms like “value,” or “attraction,” or “game,” or “status,” are often thrown around in the pickup community without many people fully understanding what they mean. There is a stark difference between these terms, and for the sake of clarity, it’s important that they be understood.

Again, there will be some overlap. Game is one way to add value and to improve your status, but having high status will help your game. Being more attractive can be split into the physical and non-physical components. Oh, the joys and complexities of female attraction.

Despite the constant confusion involved in semantics, I’m going to try and clarify some of these terms. Yes, they may be very similar, but for the sake of becoming self-actualized, you must understand their differences.

Game vs. Attraction: The Critical Difference

Chad just oozes attractiveness, but what Chad doesn’t have is game. This is the key distinction to make:

Attractiveness: a combination of your physical attractiveness, resources, and status.

Game: your level of social intelligence.

As you can see, these two are NOT the same thing. While I could certainly give more detailed definitions, and while I plan to do so in this article, it should already be very clear that game and attraction are two entirely different things.

This is why when you go out to the club, you’ll see tons of “attractive” guys-tall, handsome, good looking dudes-standing in the corner like losers. Then, you’ll see guys with very little “attractiveness,” but who have “game,” talking it up with everyone in the venue and having fun.

Lamborghinis & Toyota’s

You can have the nicest car out there, say a Lamborghini-but without a great engine, it’s not going to get anywhere. Sure, a lot of people might walk up to it and admire it, but as soon as people see that it doesn’t have an engine, it becomes practically useless.

Conversely, you can have an old Toyota Camry from 2003-nothing particularly special. If you put a Lamborghini engine in it, though? It’s going to get places, and it’s going to get places fucking fast.

This is the fundamental difference between game and attraction. Being attractive will get you a lot of initial interest, but having game will actually help you get from point A to point B.

Non-Neediness is simply you being able to validate yourself. You don’t need others to validate you, you don’t need authority figures to validate you, and most importantly, you don’t need girls to validate you. You’re already 100% content with who you are and what you stand for.

This being said, “game” is loosely comprised of four different characteristics:

Empathy is your ability to read other people-this is a critical component of game. The other night I was out and, because I got too drunk, I misread way too many social cues. My night could’ve been a lot better, but because I was irresponsibly drinking, my empathy took a hit.

Integrity is knowing who you are and staying true to this. Once you have integrity, decisiveness and masculine polarity will naturally arise. Having integrity will allow you to be grounded in yourself, and it’s literally like pouring rocket fuel onto your game. This is developed over time.

The 3 Pillars of Attractiveness

Looks are pretty simple. How tall are you in comparison to her? Do you have a chiseled jawline? Do you lift weights and have a muscular physique? Even though a good portion of your looks is genetic, you can go through a lot of effort in order to improve your looks.

Resources are a bit more complicated. This can, and often does, refer to things like wealth-but the often overlooked aspect of this would be genetic resources. Things like competence, intelligence, and other intangible resources are very important to women.

How women judge a man’s attractiveness can be broken down into three categories:

Lastly, there’s status. In many ways this can be considered a resource in and of itself, but it’s still important to make a distinction. Status is simply where you lie on the social dominance hierarchy. Are you a leader of men, and do others respect you? If not, strive to improve this-status takes the most time to build, but can also be the most attractive.

Improve your looks by following a workout routine designed to build a sexy physique; develop the Body of an Alpha. Improve your style by shopping at designer stores, or shop at places like Zara’s, Nordstrom’s, and Express if you’re trying to save a few bucks.

My answer to this age old debate is that it’s a completely false dichotomy. In other words, who the hell cares which matters more? Why not strive to improve both? We’re quite lucky as men, because we have so much potential to improve our attractiveness and our game.

In summary, game and attractiveness are two very different things. While they often do overlap, it’s important to understand this distinction-attraction is like having a beautiful car, whereas game is like the power of the engine under the hood. You need both if you want to maximize your potential.

Don’t get caught up in the false dichotomy that “experts” often spout. They’re just trying to sell you a product, or they don’t know any better themselves. Strive to improve BOTH your game and your attractiveness, so that you can have a total abundance of women in your life.

Think of it like this: your attractiveness is what provides you with a baseline of passive attraction, whereas your game is your ability to turn this attraction into RESULTS.

Relation Vs Relationship: Do You Know The Difference?

Quick! Answer these questions:

Do we say “I’m in a relation,” or “I’m in a relationship“?

Are you visiting relatives or relationships next week?

Is there a relationship between the sun and Earth? Or is there a relation between the sun and Earth?

The words relation and relationship can be a bit confusing.

But they don’t have to be. Read on to find out the differences.

Remember English Prepositions Forever!

We use relation to talk about family members

★ Relation can mean “member of your family”

Relation and relative sometimes have the same meaning.

So you can say, “I can’t go paintballing with you this weekend – I’ve got to go and visit my relatives.”

Or you can say, “I can’t go paintballing with you this weekend – I’ve got to go and visit my relations.”

The difference?

There isn’t any difference. Some people prefer to use relative, and some people prefer relation.

★ The phrase “no relation” can help with confusing situations

We also have the phrase “no relation.”

We use it to stop people getting confused when two people who are not related have the same surname.

You can simply add the phrase “no relation” after the name that might be confusing.

“James Thompson was in court today accusing Cindy Thompson, no relation, of stealing his rabbit.”

“When I was in Washington, I met a politician called Angello Trump, no relation.”

You can also use the question “Any relation?” to ask whether someone is related to someone else with the same name.

For example, let’s say that you want to join the David Attenborough Fan Club.

And why not? I mean, David Attenborough is kind of fantastic:

She tells you her name, and you’re a bit surprised.

Her name is Charlene Attenborough.

So is she one of David’s relatives?

★ We use relations for bigger groups of people

We can use the word relations to describe how good things are between groups of people.

We usually use it for large groups of people, like countries, companies and their shareholders, or extended families.

So we can talk about how a company needs to improve relations with its shareholders.

Or how relations between India and Scotland are excellent at the moment.

Notice that we say “relations with …” or “relations between … and …”

It’s also worth noting that this word is quite formal. You’ll see it in the paper and hear it on the news a lot.

★ Common collocations with relations

Describing how well groups of people get on with each other can be a sensitive subject sometimes.

So for these cases, there are a lot of collocations with the word relations:

We use the phrase ” race relations ” to describe how good or bad things are between different races in a country.

If two countries get annoyed with each other and decide not to talk to each other anymore (as if they were four-year-old children), then we can say that they have cut off (or severed) diplomatic relations.

” Business relations ” between countries refers to how well the countries do business together.

And if you’re a big, bad, evil corporation that does big, bad, evil things, you’re going to need a good PR team.

And what does PR stand for?

Public relations, of course!

They’re the people who try to make sure everyone sees the corporation as the good guys. Even when they kill puppies. With oil.

Use “in relation to” to compare or connect two things

★ Use “in relation to” to compare two things

Let’s say you have a fantastic job working in PR. You’re earning big bucks.

But you’re not satisfied.

You want to do something more interesting and more fulfilling.

So you quit your job and follow your lifelong dream of training dogs for Hollywood.

A much more enjoyable job, right?

But when you compare the salary to your old job, it’s much lower.

So you can say your new job pays much less in relation to your old one.

It’s the same as “compared to.”

“The population of the city is very big in relation to its size.”

“Cats have very small brains in relation to how much they can actually remember. My cat has never forgiven me about the time I ate her catnip.”

★ Use “in relation to” to connect two ideas

“In relation to” can also connect two ideas or topics.

It’s another, more formal way of saying about.

Let’s take an example.

Here’s Nancy. Nancy’s a popular DJ.

So of course her PR team needs to step in to stop her looking any more ridiculous.

“There have been no convincing theories in relation to successful time travel.”

“These plants need a lot of extra attention in the winter, especially in relation to water levels.”

Meaning of relationship

The word relationship is used in a similar way to the word relation.

But there are some important differences.

Use relationship to describe the situation with your partner

★ “In a relationship” can describe your status

Do you remember when Facebook started, and it was only available in English?

A lot of my students picked up some interesting vocabulary in those days – words like poke and wave.

Some of them also learned the phrase “relationship status” as well as the various possible options for “relationship status.”

There were, of course, the classics: single, married, engaged.

There was the interesting one: it’s complicated.

And there was ” in a relationship.”

Or even ” in a relationship with Barry McBarry” (or whoever you were in a relationship with).

When you say you’re in a relationship, you might be married; you might just be partners. It doesn’t matter.

What matters is the love that grows between you day by day, right?

★ You can also talk about a relationship as an abstract concept

When two people get together and become partners, sometimes it goes well, and sometimes it doesn’t go that well.

When we want to talk about it more subjectively, we can talk about the relationship as a concept.

“Their relationship kept getting worse and worse.”

This reminds me of a line from Woody Allen’s Annie Hall:

“A relationship, I think, is like a shark. It has to constantly move forward or it dies. And I think what we got on our hands is a dead shark.”

If a relationship is going badly, it might be time to get off Facebook and work on the relationship.

The word relationship can describe how well people get on

“Hang on a minute! You said the same thing about the word relations!” I can hear you say.

And you’re right.

But there are some differences.

★ We use relationship for smaller groups of people

As we saw above, relations can describe how things are between countries, cities, large families, companies, etc.

But when we want to make things more personal – more human – we use the word relationship instead.

Interestingly, we often use relationship with words like good or bad.

“We make sure that we maintain a fantastic relationship with our clients.”

“The relationship between the brothers is terrible at the moment.”

★ Common phrases with relationship

When a business relationship starts well, you can say that you’ve established a good relationship.

Then, to make sure things just keep getting better, you can build up the relationship or strengthen the relationship.

Sometimes doing this can take time.

Perhaps you’ve been working on building a relationship with one of your colleagues for a while, but it hasn’t quite happened.

Then one weekend you have to go on a business trip together. You both do a great job at securing a contract, and you enjoy a nice dinner afterwards, where you talk about future trips and working together more.

That weekend where it all came together? That was when you cemented your relationship.

Since then, you’ve worked with that colleague very well – you’ve got a good working relationship.

When you have different roles in the relationship (like a doctor and a patient, or a parent and a child), it’s common to say the roles before the word relationship.

So, you can talk about a doctor-patient relationship, a parent-child relationship, or a student-teacher relationship.

You can use relationship to talk about how things and people are connected

If a butterfly flaps its wings in Argentina, then Barry forgets to brush his teeth in Dundee.

We all know everyone else in the world through just seven degrees of separation. That means that I know you through (at the most distant) my friend’s friend’s friend’s friend’s friend’s friend.

And let’s not forget: we’re ALL related!

Everything is connected!

But of course, some things are more closely connected than others.

We can use the phrase “relationship between” to describe (or ask about) how (or how closely) two things are connected.

“There’s a very strong relationship between a plant-based diet and a longer life.”

The relationship between punk music and politics is unbreakable!

That’s it – now you should be able to use relation and relationship like a ninja!

But before we finish, can you answer these questions?

Which country enjoys particularly good diplomatic relations with your country?

How do you try to establish a good relationship with people at work?

What’s the relationship between a pencil and a cassette tape?

Bạn đang đọc nội dung bài viết Freedom Vs. Liberty: Understanding The Difference &Amp; What It Means To Be Truly Free trên website Cuocthitainang2010.com. Hy vọng một phần nào đó những thông tin mà chúng tôi đã cung cấp là rất hữu ích với bạn. Nếu nội dung bài viết hay, ý nghĩa bạn hãy chia sẻ với bạn bè của mình và luôn theo dõi, ủng hộ chúng tôi để cập nhật những thông tin mới nhất. Chúc bạn một ngày tốt lành!