Years and years ago when I was in my first College Psych class, I remember attempting to have a discussion with the instructor about "free to and free from". This was part of his lecture, how people are only free to, but never free from.

I had asked him how he thought someone could feel "free to"... do something if they had never felt they had been previously unable to do that something. He said they were not connected. That free to stood alone.

I respectfully disagreed with him with the idea that someone would not need to feel free to do something with out ever having felt as though they were finally free from not being able to do that same thing.

He didn't like this much and refused to talk with me more about it. Anyone have a guess why?

But beyond that...

Someone had posted about feeling happy all the time and how they must have felt sorrow at one time to understand what feeling happy was about.

I agree. If we don't know the opposite how can we really understand the current state of being?

If I never felt sadness or sorrow, I would just "BE" as someone had stated (sorry I can not remember who it was).

This connects to the free from and free to argument.

Just try to tell a slave that they can be "free to" all they want, but they are not "free from". Or a woman who was not allowed to vote. Or anyone who has ever been oppressed, held back, discriminated against or any other such atrocity.

I think there has to be an opposite or a 'flip side' or it loses its meaning completely.