What is freedom for a person? What are the types of dependencies? Conquer your internal barriers
Who is free man? The answer to this question is not as simple as it might seem at first glance. Many philosophers have tried to comprehend the concept of freedom. The conclusions they came to are presented in this article.
The problem of freedom in philosophy
It should be noted that in philosophy the problem of freedom is usually conceptualized in relation specifically to a person, to his behavior. In nature, freedom is considered as an “unknown necessity”, an accident. The problem that interests us received its development in such issues as free will and the associated human responsibility. The problem of the very possibility of being free was also touched upon, and they talked about freedom as a force that regulates social relations. Probably not one philosophical question does not have as much political and social resonance as the one that interests us. It is very important to determine who a free person is and whether people can be considered free at all. Why? Let's figure it out.
How important is freedom for a person?
Possessing it for an individual is a moral, social and historical imperative, a criterion of his individuality, as well as an indicator of the level of development of society. Strict regulation of human behavior and consciousness, arbitrary restriction of his freedom, reducing him to the role of a “tool” in technological and social systems harms not only the individual, but also society as a whole. After all, it is a free person who ultimately makes up a society that becomes capable of not only adapting to the social and natural circumstances of reality, but also transforming them in pursuit of its goals.
The personality is always a material concrete bearer of freedom and acts as its subject. Accordingly, they are also the communities (classes, social groups, nations) in which it is included. However, a free person inevitably faces necessity. How to resolve this contradiction?
Freedom and Necessity
Human freedom has been traditionally considered in the history of philosophy in relation to necessity. Necessity, in turn, was usually perceived in the form of predestination, fate, fate, commanding the actions of people and denying the freedom of human will. This understanding of necessity found its most expressive embodiment, perhaps, in the Latin proverb, according to which fate guides those who accept it and drags those who resist it. The contrast of such concepts as “necessity” and “human freedom”, the replacement of one of them by the other or the denial of one or the other has been a stumbling block for philosophers for more than two thousand years, who could not find a satisfactory solution to this problem. The old question of necessity and freedom arose before the idealists of the 19th century, as did the metaphysicians of the 18th century and all philosophers who considered the relation to thinking of human existence.
The meaning of solving the problem of freedom and necessity
Huge practical significance has a philosophical solution to the problem of the relationship between such concepts as “freedom of the soul” and “necessity” in the behavior and activity of the individual. This is important primarily for assessing people's actions. Neither law nor morality can ignore this problem, since it is impossible to talk about legal and moral responsibility for actions without recognizing the freedom of the individual. If people act only out of necessity, and they lack freedom of soul, then the question of a person’s responsibility for their behavior loses its meaning. Then “retribution according to deserts” is either a lottery or arbitrariness.
Existentialism and essentialism
The solution to the antinomy “necessity or freedom” depended in the history of philosophy on which direction the philosophers belonged - to existentialism (from the Latin word meaning “existence”) or essentialism (from the Latin “essence”). In other words, existence or essence was original or primary for them. For supporters of essentialism, freedom was only a manifestation, the embodiment of necessity, deviations from which were accidental. Representatives of existentialism, on the contrary, considered freedom as the primary reality of human life, and considered necessity an abstract concept. Man in existence acquires essence; there is no higher nature before existence, as well as predestination (destination) of man.
The meaning of freedom of choice
Freedom of choice is central to the progress of society, just as natural selection is in biological evolution. Both of them play the role of the main driving factor of development (in the second case, wildlife, and in the first, society). However, there is a fundamental difference in the mechanism of their action. In the process of natural selection, a biological individual is subject to the action of evolutionary laws, according to which the organisms most adapted to the environment survive. Freedom of choice implies that a person, a social individual, is a subject of the social process who perceives the achievements of the spiritual and material culture of all mankind.
The biological advantages of individuals during the action of natural selection are transmitted only to their immediate descendants. Freedom of choice leads to the fact that the achievements of people in a variety of areas of activity - spiritual and moral values, practical experience, inventions, accumulation of knowledge - can potentially be perceived by all people who have access to them. For the full development of humanity, a society of free people is necessary. This raises the question of free will.
Solving the Free Will Problem
In philosophy, since ancient times, there have been endless debates about free will, that is, the possibility of a person’s self-determination in his own actions. They began from the time of Socrates. Is the will subordinate to something external or is it self-positing? Is its source within oneself or does it come from outside? These questions were caused by the great significance of this problem, the idea of the individual as a subject of creative and moral activity. Their solution contained the following contradiction: if any action is strictly defined and nothing other than what it is, then it cannot be credited or blamed. However, on the other hand, the idea that the will is only the “ultimate cause” of some moral action, not conditioned in advance by anything, implies that the causal series of phenomena is broken. On what then are the thoughts of a free person based? This is contrary to the need for sound, logical scientific explanation.
Determinism and indeterminism
In understanding free will in accordance with these two sides of the antinomy, two main philosophical positions have emerged. The first of them is determinism (from the Latin word meaning “causing”, “determination”). Representatives of this direction believed that the will should be explained by certain reasons. The second is indeterminism, which rejects this possibility. In accordance with the various factors (spiritual, mental, physical) that are recognized as the cause of volitional actions, among the concepts of determinism it is customary to distinguish between mechanical, or “geometric” determinism (Hobbes, Spinoza) and psychological, or mental, less strict (T. Lipps). The most consistent indeterminism can be considered the teachings of Maine de Biran and Fichte. However, indeterminism taken to its logical conclusion rests on the so-called freedom of indifference, that is, the equal possibility of opposite decisions. This, in turn, leads to paralysis of the will (remember, for example, " Buridan's donkey", that is, the need to choose between two equal alternatives), as well as to the absolute randomness of the choice made. Arguing this way, it cannot be argued that every person is free. Therefore, in the history of philosophy, the principle of a mixed (eclectic) doctrine turned out to be predominant. Such, for example, is Kant’s dualism .
Kant's dualism
According to this philosopher, being a rational being, belonging to the intelligible (intelligible) world, a person must be free (in determining his behavior, in moral life). However, in the empirical (experienced, natural) world, in which natural necessity dominates, people are not free in their choice, their will is causally determined.
Schelling's concept
Schelling's concept also bears traces of such duality. This thinker defines, on the one hand, freedom as an internal necessity. On the other hand, he recognizes that the nature of the initial choice is self-positing. The latter nevertheless prevails in Schelling. This philosopher says that man is at a crossroads. He has within himself a source of free movement towards both evil and good. The connection of these principles in him is free, and not necessary. Whatever a person chooses, his action will be the consequence of his decision. Thus, free life is a dual concept.
Hegel's opinion on freedom and necessity
The dialectical formulation of the problem of necessity and freedom that interests us is most clearly expressed in philosophy by Hegel and Spinoza. Hegel believed that freedom is a conscious necessity. However, this thinker, proclaiming free will, essentially endows it with the “world spirit” (that is, absolute idea), not a person. After all, in this case it cannot be said that a person is born free. It is Hegel’s “world spirit” that is the embodiment of free will in its pure form.
Other trends in understanding free will
Among the trends in the understanding of free will, presented in the idealistic philosophy of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, personal (personalistic) and voluntaristic indeterminism prevails. The positivist attitude not to touch this problem is also widespread. In Bergson both tendencies are intertwined. He refers in his defense of free will to uniqueness and organic value states of mind, which cannot be decomposed into some individual elements, and therefore they are not causally determined. Windelbandt considers volitional acts in some cases as free, and in others as causally determined.
Also, the problem of free will is in the center of attention of atheistic existentialism (Camus, Sartre), who saw a person rooted in “nothing” (that is, in absolute openness to being, potentiality, possibility) as a bearer of absolute freedom, who opposes to the outside world, actually reducing free will to self-will and the “freedom of indifference” turning into rebellion.
Philosophy of life
This irrationalist school of philosophy originated in Europe at the end of the 19th century. Its founder is F. Nietzsche. The philosophy of life was developed in the works of A. Bergson, W. Ditley, Schopenhauer and Spengler. She opposed the era of romanticism and rationalism that dominated at that time. Schopenhauer, combining Kantian and Buddhist ideas, declared that the world's will is the most important thing.
Nietzsche rejected the use of rationalism and reason in philosophy because it could kill life. It was proposed to rely on feelings and intuition as knowledge. Nietzsche thus solved one of the main problems of philosophy - the relationship between thinking (mind) and life. He divided them and thereby attracted the attention of many other thinkers. This philosopher, having introduced the concept of “life”, declared that it was she who was the source of everything. Everything comes from life: consciousness, matter, living beings, etc. Life, in his opinion, does not disappear in the absolute, since it is inherent in us. Nietzsche also introduced a new concept - "will to power." It is the main driving force of evolution, its stimulus, and permeates the entire existence of man.
It’s the dream of every teenager who wants to get out from under their parents’ wing as quickly as possible. At a young age it seems that adult life filled with entertainment and interesting events. However, after leaving father's house, young people understand that freedom actions always come with responsibility for them.
Intelligent Dalya explains “ freedom", as "the absence of bondage, constraint, pressure." From a philosophical point of view, it is interpreted as the possibility of manifesting one’s own will. So, freedom- the ability to make choices, make independent decisions. However, responsibility for a particular act lies entirely with the person committing it. In addition, it should be remembered that all people are equally free. Therefore, human activities should not harm those around him.
From a legal point of view, freedom- the possibility of certain human behavior protected by the constitution or legislation. For example, freedom words, freedom religions enshrined at the state level protect the right of every individual to choose a religion to their liking and not be afraid to express their opinion.
An entire philosophical, economic and political ideology - liberalism - is based on the protection of human rights and freedoms. According to his principles, everyone has the right to personal freedom, and all people are equal. Liberalism limits the influence of secular and religious authorities, reducing their functions to serving the people and providing them with the necessary benefits.
In recent decades, the phrase “ open relationship" However, according to psychologists, this is not the best option for creating a strong family. They associate this phenomenon with the growing number of infantile people who want to live for their own pleasure - who take, but forget to give. Infants live according to clichés, love for them is an endless stream of pleasures. The very first problems and difficulties force men and women who do not know how to bear responsibility to remember their freedom.
A free man is a mature woman psychologically a person who knows about his rights, but does not forget about his responsibilities. Only in this case will the right to follow one’s own will and make one’s own decisions serve the good.
Video on the topic
The concept of freedom is one of the fundamental ideas in the concept of democracy, which has become an “idol” modern world. This word is said too often, without always thinking about its meaning.
In the era of slavery, and later serfdom, the meaning of the word “freedom” was beyond doubt: the absence of personal dependence on the slave owner or feudal lord. In modern times - in the era of bourgeois revolutions, when the slogan “Freedom, equality, fraternity” was put forward - freedom was thought of as something opposite to the class structure of society, which largely predetermined the fate of a person, closing many paths to those who were born in the lower class. In the conditions of the national liberation struggle, freedom can be identified with the preservation of the identity of one’s people. Some philosophers - for example, I. Kant - interpreted freedom as the subordination of a person not to another person, but to a law obligatory for everyone. Freedom in this context is identified with law and order.
All of these approaches to the concept of freedom can be viewed from a historical perspective, and to modern man It’s quite difficult to attribute them to yourself. In the modern world, the question increasingly arises of what one should ideally be free from.
Absolute freedom
The simplest and most attractive understanding of freedom for narrow-minded people is the complete and unconditional following of one’s desires and instincts when complete absence any restrictions. The impossibility of such “freedom” is obvious; this can be seen using a simple example.
So a man wanted to turn on the TV at full volume at three in the morning - he is a free person, he has the right to do what he wants. But the neighbor is also a free person, he also has desires and needs, he wants to sleep at night. The question of the priority of the freedom of a particular person remains open. The essence of this situation was brilliantly formulated back in the 13th century. Parisian court: “Your freedom to swing ends where the freedom of someone else’s nose begins.”
Freedom from desires
Opposite understanding true freedom can be considered the desire for liberation from desires. This approach exists in some eastern worldview systems - for example, yoga, Buddhism.
The ideal achievement of such a state also turns out to be impossible. Behind human desires are needs. Some needs cannot be completely abandoned, since life is impossible without their satisfaction (for example, the need for food). Refusal of needs (for example, in communication) means rejection of the truly human principle in a person and transformation into an animal.
Freedom and Morality
Freedom can be viewed objectively and subjectively. Objective freedom is hardly possible: a person will always be limited by the laws of the society in which he lives, by the requirements of his immediate environment. Even a hermit experiences the effects of some restrictions - in particular, the moral principles that he recognizes.
Subjective freedom arises where a person does not feel any coercion. An example of such a subjectively free person is a law-abiding person who never
in philosophy: the possibility of a subject expressing his will on the basis of awareness of the laws of nature and society. Legally, i.e. In a narrower sense, freedom means the subjective ability of a person and citizen to perform or not perform specific actions based on his constitutional rights and freedoms. Freedom in the subjective sense is a legal form of the possibility of choosing one or another behavior option for an individual.
Excellent definition
Incomplete definition ↓
FREEDOM
one of the main qualities of a person, along with the presence of his mind, will and feelings, which consists of a person’s ability to act in accordance with his needs, interests and goals, based on the knowledge of necessity. The basis of freedom as a moral phenomenon is the objective discrepancy and opposition of the interests of society and the individual, as well as the conditionality of human life and activity by natural laws and conditions. In the history of philosophy and ethics, personality has been understood ambiguously. In ancient ethics, S. was considered as the subordination of the individual to the objective laws of the polis or cosmos (Socrates, Stoicism, Epicurus); in the Middle Ages, freedom was understood as the need for a person to follow the will of God (Augustine, F. Aquinas); in the Renaissance, freedom was considered as a person’s independence from God, nature and other people, as his ability to achieve goals based on his interests and fight for his earthly happiness (L. Valla, P. della Mirandola, M. Montaigne); in modern times, human freedom began to be understood as actions subject to certain restrictions and rules, natural and social laws (“free necessity” by B. Spinoza, “liberation through submission to the law” by I. Kant and J. G. Fichte, “simple rational action” G. W. F. Hegel). In modern ethics, all previous interpretations of freedom are reproduced. In Russian ethics, the predominant tradition is that coming from B. Spinoza and the German classical philosophy: human freedom is his simple rational action or action in accordance with conscious need. This understanding of personal freedom is devoid of the extremes of fatalism and voluntarism - a one-sided exaggeration in the consciousness and behavior of people either of objectively necessary factors, or of their individual needs, interests and goals - and assumes the responsibility of the individual for his choice.
Continuing the series of materials about philosophy and its basic concepts, I now want to talk about what freedom is, and whether we are as free as we think.
Freedom is a rather problematic concept in the sense that there is quite a large number different points of view on it. And depending on what point of view we take on this issue, we usually place ourselves on a certain side of the political spectrum. Because of this, it is almost impossible to be politically unbiased on this issue, so I will immediately make a reservation that I will talk about freedom from the position of republican theory (not to be confused with the Republican Party of the USA), which in the last couple of decades has aroused interest in the scientific community precisely thanks to the reconceptualization of the concept of freedom. Philosophers of republican theory have identified three main ways of understanding freedom, which I propose to discuss now: freedom as the absence of frustration (or freedom as the satisfaction of needs), freedom as the absence of interference, and freedom as the absence of domination.
Freedom as the absence of frustration
Understanding freedom as the absence of frustration is the simplest and most basic, and very often we think of freedom in this way. According to this understanding, freedom is the ability to do whatever you want. And, in fact, the absence of this opportunity causes frustration due to an unsatisfied need.
However, imagine the following situation: there is a certain slave who is so in control of himself that he can refuse all desires. Accordingly, if he does not have his own desires, then he cannot be frustrated by their failure to fulfill them. This means, according to the understanding of freedom as the absence of frustration, this slave is a free person.
But the paradox is precisely that it points us to a contradiction. In addition, according to this concept, everything that contradicts our desires limits our freedom. If someone wants to be able to fly, but does not know how, then it is unlikely that he will be less free from this.
Freedom as absence of interference
The idea of freedom as the absence of interference is a little more complex and much newer. It appeared only a couple of centuries ago along with the liberal theory, which formed the basis. Nevertheless, it is now one of the main ways of interpreting freedom.
This interpretation is in some sense the opposite of freedom as the absence of frustration, since it goes from considering internal state subject to external circumstances. Freedom as the absence of interference consists in the absence of external interference in the activities of the individual. If someone does not allow someone else to do something, then this is interference and therefore a restriction of freedom. Here, what a person wants to do is not as important as what a person can do, because the limitations are imposed precisely on the possibilities. Proponents of this understanding of freedom believe that the main task of the state is to prevent some people from interfering in the affairs of other people, while any other activity on its part will itself constitute interference.
But imagine the following situation: let us again have a slave who knows his master very well and his habits and desires, so that the master never interferes with the activities of the slave, since he perfectly fulfills all his desires. That is, there is no direct intervention. However, the slave knows very well that if he does something wrong, he will be punished. Moreover, the master, even being very benevolent, always has the opportunity to interfere in the activities of the slave, which the slave also knows about and cannot do anything about it. Here our intuition seems to suggest that the slave is still not free, but, on the contrary, is completely dependent on the will of the owner.
Freedom as absence of domination
In order for us to be free, it is not enough that other people simply do not interfere arbitrarily in our activities, it is also necessary that they do not have the opportunity to do this. That is, if we know the following: when we do not behave in a certain way, another person will intervene and force us to behave as he wants, or harm us, then we will initially behave in accordance with his desires.
The fundamental difference between understanding freedom as the absence of domination is the ability to control one’s own actions and influence decisions made jointly with other people, which a slave cannot do. A free action is an action that seems desirable and reasonable to those who perform it. Actions that we are forced to perform against our will and without asking our opinion are not free.
The paradox of the free slave is impossible in this theory, because freedom in it is defined precisely as non-slavery, as the absence of domination or domination.
And here several important criteria stand out. The first, quite simple, but a little controversial: a free person is one who can calmly and proudly look into the eyes of his fellow citizens as an equal, because he does not submit to the will of any of them, but determines his own destiny and the fate of his state. The second criterion is that the person can be held responsible for his actions. The slave is not responsible for the actions that he performs on the orders of the master, since he is an instrument for executing someone else's will. Blaming a slave for following orders is like blaming a gun for murder.
The great advantage of understanding freedom as the absence of domination is that, unlike understanding freedom as the absence of interference, it does not identify any interference from the outside as a limitation on freedom. Only arbitrary interference, which we cannot influence, will be considered as such. Therefore, the state does not necessarily curtail freedom, even if it imposes quite a lot of restrictions. The point is that if we impose them on ourselves, this is not a restriction on our freedom. The state, on the contrary, can create obstacles to such interference from other entities.
At the same time, within the framework of understanding freedom as the absence of interference, many restrictions on freedom are ignored, which can be determined when interpreting freedom as the absence of domination. This applies, for example, to the above-mentioned case of a slave in whose activities the master does not interfere.
If you find an error, please highlight a piece of text and click Ctrl+Enter.
Freedom is a state that almost every individual desires. However, each person puts his own meaning into the concept of “freedom”, and what it is depends on the personality of the individual, and on the upbringing received, and on the society in which he lives.
What does freedom mean?
Philosophers, sociologists, psychologists, and politicians argue about what freedom is. And they all define freedom in different ways; only one condition remains common - a person must determine his own actions. Those. freedom can be defined as the absence of dependencies within the framework of law and morality.
Every person is free at the moment of birth, but over time this quality is lost, the individual acquires restrictions. A person simply cannot have absolute freedom; he will always depend, at a minimum, on the need to get food and warm himself.
Since absolute freedom unattainable and considered something abstract, ordinary person can only gain freedom:
- physical – freedom to work, move, do something, but subject to compliance with laws;
- spiritual - freedom of thought and speech, religion,
- political – freedom to reveal one’s personality without state pressure, lack of oppression of a person as a citizen;
- national – freedom to consider oneself a member of one’s society, people;
- state – the freedom to choose any country to live in.
Freedom of thought and speech
The right to freedom of thought and speech is enshrined in the Constitution and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. IN in a broad sense This right can be interpreted as follows: everything that is not prohibited is permitted. This applies to oral and written speech, the creation of artistic images, etc. A person is free to express his own assessments, thoughts, judgments, and views using words.
Information is a derivative of a person’s thoughts and words, and it, in turn, forms public opinion and moods. In any case, the information is subjective, because comes from one individual or group of people. Freedom of thought and speech can be prohibited only if it is used for extremist purposes, inciting racial, social or religious conflicts.
Political freedom
Political freedom is the constitutional right of a person to participate in the public and political life of the country. Lack of political freedom occurs in totalitarian states. You can exercise your right to this type of freedom only with the ability to reach a compromise and make a choice, in which case political freedom contributes to the development of a person as an individual.
Emotional freedom
Emotional freedom is the human right to express a wide range of emotions. This type of freedom is different from 
described above in that the ban on emotions in most cases is not external, but internal, but it is the result of the influence of society. The attitudes that a child receives in childhood, the rules learned in adulthood, force him to restrain himself, which leads to stress, neuroses, tension, bad mood and even diseases.
Is the concept of “human freedom” real?
IN modern society a person is considered free if he has the opportunity to engage in any activity to his liking, which brings him primarily moral pleasure. Unfortunately, most people are mainly concerned with material wealth - and this main feature lack of freedom from money. The main indicator of one’s own freedom is a person - if he is satisfied with life, has the opportunity to realize his talents, communicate, relax, travel, he is free.
