Freedom is the knowledge of necessity. “Freedom is a conscious need

The fate of this philosopher is full of drama, and his name has become a kind of symbol of logic and rationality in European philosophy. Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677) considered the highest goal of this science to be the vision of things from the point of view of eternity. And on his seal for letters there was a rose with the inscription at the top: “Caute” - “Prudently.”

Benedict Spinoza (Baruch d'Espinoza) was born in Amsterdam into a wealthy family of Spanish Jews who fled to Holland from persecution by the Inquisition. Although they were forced to convert to Christianity, they secretly remained faithful to Judaism. At first, Spinoza studied at school Jewish community in Amsterdam, where he learned Hebrew and deeply studied the Bible and Talmud.

After that, he moved to a Christian school, where he mastered Latin and science - they opened up to him ancient world, the culture of the Renaissance and new trends in philosophy created by R. Descartes and F. Bacon. Gradually, young Spinoza began to move more and more away from the interests of his community, so that he soon came into serious conflict with it.

The young man’s deep intelligence, talents and education were striking to everyone, and many members of the community wanted Spinoza to become their rabbi. But Spinoza refused in such a harsh manner that some fanatic even attempted the life of the future great rationalist - Spinoza was saved only by the fact that he managed to dodge in time, and the dagger cut only through his cloak. Thus, already in his youth, Spinoza was forced to defend his freedom, the right to his own choice. In 1656 he was expelled from the community, and his sister challenged his right to inheritance. Spinoza sued and won the case, but did not accept the inheritance itself - it was important for him to prove only his rights. He moved to the outskirts of Amsterdam and there, living alone, took up philosophy.

From 1670 Spinoza settled in The Hague. He learned to grind glass and earned his living from this craft, although by this time he was already known as an interesting, deep philosopher. In 1673, he was even offered to take the chair of philosophy at the University of Heidelberg, but Spinoza refused because he feared that in this position he would have to make ideological compromises, because, having abandoned Judaism, he never accepted Christianity. He lived alone and very modestly, although he had many friends and admirers of his philosophy. One of them even gave him money for lifelong maintenance - Spinoza accepted the gift, but at the same time asked to significantly reduce the amount. Benedict Spinoza died at the age of 44 from tuberculosis.

Spinoza's main philosophical work was his "Ethics". He always considered himself a follower of the rational philosophy of Descartes and his “geometric” method of cognition, which requires strict proof of any statement. In “Ethics,” Spinoza took his teacher’s method to its logical limit - this book, in its manner of presentation, is more reminiscent of a geometry textbook. First come the definitions of basic concepts and terms. Then follow obvious, intuitively clear ideas that do not require proof (axioms). And finally, statements (theorems) are formulated, which are proven on the basis of definitions and axioms. True, Spinoza was still aware that philosophy was unlikely to be able to completely fit within such a strict framework, and therefore provided the book with numerous comments, in which he outlined the actual philosophical argumentation.

The main idea of ​​Spinoza, on which his entire philosophy is “strung,” is the idea of ​​a single substance of the world - God. Spinoza proceeded from the Cartesian concept of substance: “Substance is it is a thing whose existence requires nothing else but itself.” But if a substance is the basis of itself, that is, it creates itself, then, Spinoza concluded, such a substance must be God. This is " philosophical God", which is the universal cause of the world and is inextricably (immanently) connected with it. The world, Spinoza believed, is divided into two natures: the creating nature and the created nature. The first includes substance, or God, and the second - modes, i.e. individual things, including people.

Since the world is permeated by a single substance, strict necessity reigns in it, emanating from the substance itself, or God. Such a world, Spinoza believed, is perfect. But where does fear, evil, lack of freedom come from then? Spinoza answered these questions in a very unique way. Yes, a person is drawn through life by absolute necessity, but often the person himself does not understand this and he becomes afraid, a desire arises to contradict necessity, and then his soul is taken over by passions, he does evil. The only way out is to realize this need. Hence his famous “formula of freedom”: There is freedom perceived need.

Spinoza defined human virtue in his own way. Since the world is perfect, it strives to preserve itself. Therefore, Spinoza believed: “For us to act according to virtue means nothing more than to live, taking care of self-preservation, guided by reason and our own benefit.” True, Spinoza himself, judging by his biography, was not very concerned about “self-preservation”; he was more attracted by the opportunity to think rationally, for this meant for him “bliss in the highest intellectual knowledge,” which is “not only a virtue, but also the only and highest reward.” for virtue." Virtue, Spinoza believed, carries its own reward, making “paradise” possible already here on earth.

“Freedom is necessity known.” - Spinoza

A person's ability to understand that freedom is an exaggerated term. Freedom is overrated, no one is completely free, everyone has their own responsibilities to someone or something. Every desire, aspiration and action of a person is provoked by certain facts and, therefore, is necessary for him. Spinoza says that a person also cannot exist without freedom, he needs it. Necessity begins to act as the direct basis of freedom. “A thing is called free,” writes Spinoza, “which exists only by the necessity of its own nature and is determined to action only by itself. Necessary, or, better said, forced, is one that is determined by something else to exist and act.” according to a known and definite pattern." Spinoza contrasts freedom not with necessity, but with coercion. Spinoza’s substance turns out to be unconstrained and acting only by virtue of its own necessity, and, consequently, free, i.e. nature or god.

"Man is raised for freedom." - Hegel.
Freedom is, first of all, the desire to realize one’s dreams, the desire to do anything that is necessary for one’s own “I” and for the human soul. But the most important goal is to get it. To have the right to freedom, the right to perform certain actions. That is why man was created for it from the very beginning. Education, according to Hegel, is the elevation of a person to the spirit and, accordingly, to freedom, for freedom is the “substance of the spirit.” Just as the substance of matter, Hegel noted, is heaviness, so the substance of spirit is freedom; the spirit is free by definition. Thus, in the form of the opposition of “nature” and “spirit,” Hegel retained the Kantian opposition of “nature” and “freedom,” although he subjected to significant transformations the content of these concepts, and the interpretation of their relationship.
As for freedom, Hegel’s interpretation removes the abstract opposition characteristic of Kant, the separation into different “worlds” of necessity and freedom - they are in complex dialectical mutual transitions. In addition, unlike Kant, according to Hegel, the kingdom of freedom does not oppose the objective world as an intelligible world of “ought”, within which the moral choice of the subject is carried out: free spirit is carried out in reality, including in the sphere of “objective spirit”, in history.
In Hegel's philosophy of history, the universal historical process appeared as a process of progressive embodiment of freedom and its awareness by the spirit. Historical cultures, according to Hegel, are built in a sequential ladder of stages of progress in the consciousness of freedom.

What then is human freedom? It does not exist. A person cannot be absolutely free; he is limited by the rights and freedoms of other people.
These definitions contain more necessity than freedom. Any action that we perform is caused by a certain condition, the need to fulfill it. We believe that we are free when performing certain actions, thinking that this is how we show freedom and our desires. But in fact, if it were not for the influence of some external and internal situational factors, then actions, even desires, would not be performed. There is no freedom, there is only necessity.

Supporters of absolute predestination see God in the nature of necessity

fishing Everything is predetermined for them. Also, in their opinion, there is no human freedom. The religious reformer Luther, a supporter of absolute predestination, said that God's foreknowledge and omnipotence are diametrically opposed to our free will. Everyone will be forced to accept and inevitable consequence: we do nothing of our own free will, but everything happens out of necessity. Thus, we think nothing of free will, but everything is dependent on the foreknowledge of God.

Other religious figures believe that freedom is the ability to choose. "Man is completely free in his inner life"These words belong to the French thinker J.-P. Sartre. Everything in this world is built in such a way that a person must constantly choose. A child, having been born, already exists, but he still has to become a person, acquire a human essence. Therefore, there is no advance given the nature of a person, no external force, no one other than a given individual, can bring about his becoming a person. This greatly increases a person’s responsibility for himself, for becoming a person, and for everything that happens to other people.

A number of other philosophers who deny fatalism define “necessity” as “law.” Necessity is a series of repeated actions, a natural course of events. Accidents happen, but there is still one unchanging road to which sooner or later a person will return. In a generalized form, the presented position can be expressed in the words of F. Engels: “Freedom does not lie in imaginary independence from the laws of nature, but in the knowledge of these laws and in the ability, based on this knowledge, to systematically force the laws of nature to act for certain purposes.”

We support such religious figures as J.-P. Sartre. God can create new life and can guide us in this life, but we make our choice independently. Only we ourselves decide what social status we will have in society, it depends only on us what moral and material assets choose. Freedom as a recognized necessity presupposes a person’s comprehension and consideration of the objective limits of his activity, as well as the expansion of these limits due to the development of knowledge and enrichment of experience.

This is how many philosophers interpreted freedom - B. Spinoza, G. Hegel, F. Engels. What is behind this formula, which has become almost an aphorism? There are forces in the world that act immutably, inevitably. These forces also influence human activity. If this necessity is not comprehended, not realized by a person, he is its slave; if it is known, then the person acquires “the ability to make a decision with knowledge of the matter.” This is where his free will is expressed.

“People are aware of their desires, but do not know the reasons by which they are determined.” B. Spinoza

But what are these forces, what is the nature of necessity? There are different answers to this question. Some see here God's providence. Everything is predetermined for them. What then is human freedom? She's gone. “God’s foreknowledge and omnipotence are diametrically opposed to our free will. Everyone will be forced to accept the inevitable consequence: we do nothing of our own free will, but everything happens out of necessity. Thus, we do nothing by free will, but everything depends on the foreknowledge of God,” said the religious reformer Luther. This position is defended by supporters of absolute predestination. In contrast to this view, other religious figures suggest the following interpretation of the relationship between Divine predestination and human freedom: “God designed the Universe so that all creation would have a great gift - freedom. Freedom first of all means the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and a choice given independently, based on one’s own decision. Of course, God can destroy evil and death in an instant. But at the same time He would at the same time deprive the world and freedom. The world itself must return to God, since it itself has departed from Him.” The concept of “necessity” may have another meaning. Necessity, a number of philosophers believe, exists in nature and society in the form of objective, i.e., independent of human consciousness, laws. In other words, necessity is an expression of a natural, objectively determined course of events. Supporters of this position, unlike fatalists, of course, do not believe that everything in the world, especially in public life, strictly and unambiguously defined, they do not deny the existence of accidents. But the general natural line of development, deviated by chance in one direction or another, will still make its way. Let's look at some examples. It is known that earthquakes periodically occur in seismic zones.

People who are unaware of this circumstance or ignore it when building their homes in this area may be victims of a dangerous element. In the same case, when this fact is taken into account during the construction, for example, of earthquake-resistant buildings, the likelihood of risk will sharply decrease. In a generalized form, the presented position can be expressed in the words of F. Engels: “Freedom does not lie in imaginary independence from the laws of nature, but in the knowledge of these laws and in the ability, based on this knowledge, to systematically force the laws of nature to act for certain purposes.” Thus, the interpretation of freedom as a recognized necessity presupposes a person’s comprehension and consideration of the objective limits of his activity, as well as the expansion of these limits due to the development of knowledge and the enrichment of experience.

Why do we strive for freedom? What limits our freedom? How are freedom and responsibility related? What kind of society can be considered free?

IT IS USEFUL TO REPEAT QUESTIONS:

Social relations, behavior deviating from norms, social sanctions.

This sweet word "FREEDOM"

Personal freedom in its various manifestations is today the most important value of civilized humanity. The importance of freedom for human self-realization was understood in ancient times. The desire for freedom, liberation from the shackles of despotism and arbitrariness permeates the entire history of mankind. This manifested itself with particular force in the New and Modern times. All revolutions wrote the word "freedom" on their banners. Few of the political leaders and revolutionary leaders vowed to lead the masses they led to real freedom. But although the overwhelming majority declared themselves to be unconditional supporters and defenders of individual freedom, the meaning attached to this concept was different.

The category of freedom is one of the central ones in the philosophical quests of humanity. And how do politicians color this concept? different colors, often subordinating it to their own specific political goals, so philosophers approach its understanding from different positions.

Let's try to understand the diversity of these interpretations.

Buridanov's donkey

No matter how much people strive for freedom, they understand that there cannot be absolute, unlimited freedom. First of all, because complete freedom for one would mean arbitrariness in relation to the other. For example, someone wanted to listen to loud music at night. Having turned on the tape recorder at full power, the man fulfilled his desire and did as he wanted. But his freedom is in this case has limited the right of many others to get a full night's sleep.

That is why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where all articles are devoted to human rights and freedoms, the last one, containing the memory of duties, states that in the exercise of his rights and freedoms, each person should be subject only to such restrictions as are intended to ensure recognition and respect the rights of others.

Arguing about the impossibility of absolute freedom, let us pay attention to one more aspect of the issue. Such freedom would mean unlimited choice for a person, which would put her in an extremely difficult position in making a decision. The widely known expression is "Buridan's donkey." The French philosopher Buridan spoke about a donkey that was placed between two identical and equidistant armfuls of hay. Unable to decide which armful to choose, the donkey died of hunger. Even earlier, Daite described a similar situation, but he spoke not about donkeys, but about people: “Placed between two equally attractive dishes, a person would rather die than, having absolute freedom, will put one of them in his mouth."

A person cannot have absolute freedom. And one of the restrictions here is the rights and freedoms of other people.

"FREEDOM There is a recognized necessity"

These words belong German philosopher Hegel. What is behind this formula, which has become almost an aphorism? Everything in the world is subject to forces that act immutably and inevitably. These forces also subordinate human activity. If this necessity is not comprehended, not realized by a person, he is its slave, but if it is cognized, then the person acquires “the ability to make decisions with knowledge of the matter.” This is where his free will is expressed. But what are these forces, the nature of necessity? There are different answers to this question. Some see God's providence here. Everything is defined by him. What then is human freedom? she's not there. “The prediction and omnipotence of God are diametrically opposed to our freedom. Everyone will be forced to accept the inevitable consequence: we do nothing of our own free will, but everything happens out of necessity. Thus, we do nothing of our own will, but everything depends on the foreknowledge of God,” - claimed the religious reformer Luther. This position is defended by supporters of absolute predestination. In contrast to this view, other religious figures suggest the following interpretation of the relationship between divine predestination and human freedom: “God designed the Universe in such a way that all creation should have a great gift - freedom. Freedom, first of all, means the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and a choice given independently, on based on his own decision. Of course, God can destroy evil and death in an instant. But at the same time He would deprive the world of freedom. The world itself must return to God, since it itself has departed from Him."

The concept of "necessity" can have another meaning. Necessity, a number of philosophers believe, exists in nature and society in the form of objective, that is, independent of human consciousness, laws. In other words, necessity is an expression of a natural, objectively determined course of events. Supporters of this position, unlike the fatalist, of course, do not believe that everything in the world, especially in public life, is strictly and unambiguously determined; they do not deny the existence of cases. But the general natural line of development, which sometimes deviates in one direction or another, will still make its way. Let's look at some examples. It is known that earthquakes periodically occur in seismic zones. People who are unaware of this circumstance or ignore it by building their homes in this area may become victims of a dangerous element. In the same case, when this fact is taken into account during the construction, for example, of earthquake-resistant houses, the likelihood of risk will sharply decrease.

In a generalized form, the presented position can be expressed in the words of F. Engels: “Freedom does not lie in imaginary independence from the laws of nature, but in the knowledge of these laws and in the ability, based on this knowledge, to systematically force the laws of nature to act for certain purposes.

of your own free will. A person cannot be absolutely free. Human freedom in all its manifestations is the basis of modern democratic regimes, the main value of liberalism. It finds expression in the legislative consolidation of the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens in the constitutions of states, in international covenants and declarations. IN modern society The trend towards expanding human freedom is becoming more and more clear.
22. Social norms and deviant behavior.
Human socialization is the process of learning cultural norms and mastering social roles. It proceeds under the vigilant supervision of society and surrounding people. They not only teach children, but also monitor the correctness of learned patterns of behavior, and, therefore, act as agents of social control. If control is carried out by an individual, then it is called group control (pressure), and if it is carried out by an entire team (family, group of friends, institution or institution), then it acquires a social character and is called social control.
It acts as a means of social regulation of people's behavior.
Social behavior includes two main elements - norms and sanctions. Social norms are instructions, requirements, wishes and expectations of appropriate (socially approved) behavior. Norms that arise and exist only in small groups (youth parties, groups of friends, family, work teams, sports teams) are called
“group norms”. Norms that emerge and exist in large groups or in society as a whole are called “social (general) norms.” These are customs, traditions, mores, laws, etiquette, and manners of behavior. Every social group has its own manners, customs and etiquette. There is secular etiquette, there are manners of behavior of young people, there are national traditions and mores. All social norms can be classified depending on how severe the punishment for non-compliance is (sanctions): Violation of some norms is followed by a mild sanction - disapproval, a grin, an unkind look; For violation of other norms there are strict sanctions - imprisonment, even death penalty. A certain degree of non-compliance with norms exists in every society and in every group. Violation of palace etiquette, the ritual of diplomatic conversation or marriage causes awkwardness and puts a person in a difficult position. But it does not entail harsh punishment. In other situations, sanctions are more noticeable. Using a cheat sheet during an exam will result in a grade reduction, and losing a library book will result in a five-fold fine. In some societies, the slightest deviation from tradition, not to mention serious offenses, was severely punished. Everything was under control - hair length, clothing, behavior. If we arrange all the norms in ascending order, depending on the measure of punishment, then their sequence will take the following form: Habits - customs - traditions - mores - laws - taboos. Compliance with norms is regulated by society with varying degrees of strictness. Violations of taboos and legal laws (for example, killing a person, insulting a deity, revealing state secrets) are punished most severely; habits are punished most mildly. Whether individual (forgot to brush your teeth

or clean up the bed) or group, in particular family (for example, refusal to turn off the light or close front door). However, there are group habits that are highly valued and the violation of which is followed by strict group sanctions (punishment accepted only among group members). These kinds of habits are called informal group norms. They are born into small rather than large social groups. The mechanism that controls compliance with such norms is called group pressure. There are four types of sanctions: positive and negative, formal and informal. formal positive sanctions - public approval from official organizations (government, institution, creative union); government awards, state prizes and scholarships, awarded titles, academic degrees and titles, construction of a monument, presentation of certificates of honor, admission to high positions and honorary functions (for example , election as chairman of the board); informal positive sanctions - public approval that does not come from official organizations: friendly praise, compliments, tacit recognition, goodwill, applause, fame, honor, flattering reviews, recognition of leadership or expert qualities, smile; formal negative sanctions - punishments provided for by legal laws, government decrees, administrative instructions, orders, deprivation of civil rights, imprisonment, arrest, dismissal, fine, depreciation, confiscation of property, demotion, demotion, dethronement, death penalty, excommunication informal negative sanctions - punishments not provided for by official authorities censure, remark, ridicule, mockery, cruel joke, unflattering nickname, neglect, refusal to shake hands or maintain relationships, spreading rumors, slander, unkind review, complaint, writing a pamphlet or feuilleton , compromising evidence. The word “norm” is of Latin origin and literally means: guiding principle, rule, example. Norms are developed by society and the social groups that are part of it. With the help of norms, certain requirements are put forward to people.
Social norms guide behavior, allow it to be controlled, regulated and evaluated. They guide a person in all life issues. In these norms, people see standards, models, standards of behavior. The following types of social norms are identified: moral norms (they express people’s ideas about good and bad, good and evil, justice and injustice); norms of traditions and customs (a historically established rule of behavior that has become a habit); religious norms(rules of behavior contained in the texts of religious books or established by the church); political norms
(norms set by various political organizations); legal norms
(established or sanctioned by the state). IN real life The behavior of people in society does not always correspond to established social norms. When a violation of social norms occurs, they speak of deviant behavior of the subject. Behavior that is not consistent with the norms, does not correspond to what society expects from a person, is called deviant behavior. Deviant behavior is called deviant. Deviant behavior is spoken of as a negative social phenomenon that harms society. The most serious manifestations of this behavior are crime, drug addiction and alcoholism. Deviant behavior Compliance with social norms determines the cultural level of society. Deviation from generally accepted norms is called deviant behavior in sociology. IN in a broad sense“deviation” means any behavior or action that does not comply with unwritten norms or written norms. As you know, social norms are of two types: written - formally recorded in the constitution,