Assuming time, the most objective concept, is in fact relative, what then exists outside of our minds? Do we all perceive the world through different views or do we each perceive unique worlds that our minds piece together? Assuming verity in that stipulation, it would hold that the truth in which you believe really has no impact on the truth that I believe. Therefore, we come to the chilling conclusion that even truth is relative, making it difficult to differentiate between right and wrong. Given the assumption that the notions of time, justice, and emotion do not truly exist, the answers we seek will always be contingent.

It can be theorized that primitive instincts must be God’s controls: refrain from harm, the pursuit of shelter and sustenance, the instinct to protect one’s kin. Eventually, through evolution and pure chance, a point can be reached at which one is satiated. It will then be discovered that the only remaining desire is to possess and understand the abstract concept of happiness. This, also being relative, allows the theorist to substantiate that true happiness can only exist if the mind allows it to. Thus, it can be argued that the possession of affluence by the philosophical mind is often the greatest curse; to be provided so much that the only thing left to pursue is the unattainable- happiness. The quest for such is one that can rarely be wholly completed and thus leaves the subject with an inevitable gaping emptiness.

Concluding the inquiry, should freedom be defined as being free from earthly restrictions or being free from the shackles of the desires of the mind?