Lecture
Freedom — the state of a subject in which it is the determining cause of its own actions, that is, they are not directly conditioned by other factors, including natural, social, interpersonal-communicative, and individual-generic ones . At the same time, freedom should not be confused with permissiveness, when a person completely disregards the possible harm of their actions to themselves and others .
There are many different definitions of freedom[⇨]. In ethics, the understanding of freedom is connected with the presence of human free will.
In philosophy: freedom — a cultural universal of the subjective series, fixing the possibility of activity and behavior in the absence of external goal-setting .
In law, freedom — is a possibility of a certain human behavior enshrined in the constitution or another legislative act (for example, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.). The category of freedom is close to the concept of right in the subjective sense; however, the latter presupposes the existence of a legal mechanism for its realization and usually a corresponding obligation of the state or another subject to perform some action. In contrast, legal freedom has no clear mechanism of realization; it corresponds to an obligation to refrain from committing any actions that violate this freedom . Thus, in the «Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen» (1789, France), human freedom is interpreted as the ability «to do anything that does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of every man is limited only by those bounds which ensure that other members of society enjoy the same rights. These bounds can only be determined by law»
The word «svoboda» (freedom) in its current noun form is of relatively late origin. In ancient monuments of the 11th and 12th centuries only the adverb is found, in the sense of an adjective: svobod' or svobod' (for example, in the Ostromir Gospel of the earliest recension: v istinu svobod' budete — "you will truly be free").
The Old Russian word svobod' traces back to Proto-Indo-European, clearly correlating with the Old Indic svapati (master of oneself: «svo» — one's own and «poti» — master) .
The main types of freedom of a person are defined in accordance with the forms and manner in which a person exists.
Most often, six types of freedom are discussed:
State freedom – consists in the right of every person to live in the country they themselves choose.
National freedom – is determined by the need to identify oneself with a particular people and to live in the territory it inhabits.
Political freedom - is connected with the establishment of certain rights for a person to perform certain actions within the framework of the law. The most common political freedoms are the right to freedom of speech, freedom of choice, ownership of property, etc.
Physical freedom – represents a person's freedom to engage in the activity they wish and to move in whatever direction they desire.
Spiritual freedom – is determined by a person's right to hold their own opinion, express their thoughts, and live in accordance with their worldview. In its purest form, this type of freedom arises from the striving for complete identification with God (or the will of God, or perhaps with all of creation), in order to attain a state of soul that transcends disharmony with oneself, with the body, and with the entire material-political world.
Inner freedom - is the hidden core of the human being, incomprehensible to others, distinguishing it from the entire animal kingdom and from other people.
In addition, sociologists identify such types of freedom as personal, emotional, cultural, social, economic, and so on. Furthermore, theosophy distinguishes formal, real, and ideal types of freedom. In philosophy, the following types of freedom are classified - negative, positive, indifferent, qualitative.
All types of freedom have equal legal force, are equally significant for every citizen, and are subject to equal protection by the state.
Kant's 4 types of freedom
1 – «Freedom of goal-setting» - consists in freedom of conscience and freedom of thought. By definition, it cannot be regulated by law. As Ulpian (the ancient Roman jurist) said, «Thoughts are not punishable». In Orwell's dystopia "1984," it is shown how this principle can be violated under totalitarian states.
2 – «Practical freedom» - freedom regulated by law, which is realized in an act conditioned by a person's personal choice.
3 – «Freedom of the legislator» - another name is transcendental freedom; it frees the will from the influence of sensory impulses; the legislator creates a new legal norm and thereby influences all legislation.
4 – «Arbitrariness» - a type of freedom in which any moral norms and restricting rules are absent; in fact it represents a complete negation of freedom, being its opposite - unfreedom.
Types of freedom by character and relation
In the history of the development of the concept of freedom, the notion of creative freedom gradually displaces the notion of freedom from obstacles (coercion, causality, fate). In ancient philosophy (in Socrates and Plato), the discussion concerns above all freedom in relation to fate, then freedom from political despotism (in Aristotle and Epicurus) and from the calamities of human existence (in Epicurus, the Stoics, and in Neoplatonism). In the Middle Ages, freedom was understood as freedom from sin and the curse of the church, and a conflict arose between the morally required freedom of man and the omnipotence of God demanded by religion. In the Renaissance and the following period, freedom was understood as the unhindered, all-round unfolding of the human personality.
Since the Enlightenment, the concept of freedom emerges, borrowed from liberalism and the philosophy of natural law (Althusius, Hobbes, Grotius, Pufendorf; in 1689 in England — the Bill of Rights), held in check by the ever-deepening scientific view that recognizes the dominance of an all-powerful natural causality and lawfulness. According to Marxism, a person thinks and acts depending on impulses and environment (see Situation), with the main role in their environment played by economic relations and class struggle. The human capacities for analysis, self-analysis, modeling representations of the outcomes of one's actions and their further consequences do not, in the view of the Marxists, make a person free. Spinoza defines freedom as love of God and God's love for man: «From this we clearly understand wherein our salvation, or blessedness, or freedom consists — namely, in a constant and eternal love toward God, or in God's love toward man» .
Some define freedom as mastery over circumstances through knowledge , while others, such as Schelling, maintain that freedom is the ability to make a choice based on the distinction between good and evil .
According to Heidegger's existentialism, the fundamental state of being is anxiety — fear before the possibility of non-being, a fear that frees a person from all the conventions of actuality and allows them, to a certain degree, to attain freedom grounded in nothingness, to choose themselves in their inescapable assumption of responsibility for themselves (see Thrownness), that is, to choose themselves as one's own existence, possessing value. According to Jaspers' existentialism, a person is free to overcome the being of the world by choosing themselves and attaining the transcendence of the Encompassing.
According to R. May, «…The capacity to transcend the immediate situation is the basis of human freedom. The unique quality of the human being is the wide range of possibilities in any situation, which in turn depend on self-awareness, on the ability in imagination to run through various ways of responding in a given situation» . Such an understanding of freedom bypasses the problem of determinism in decision-making. However a decision may be made, a person is aware of it, and is aware not of the causes and aims of the decision, but of the significance of the decision itself. A person is able to go beyond the immediate task at hand (whatever we call the objective conditions: necessity, stimulus, or the psychological field); they are able to have some relation to themselves, and it is in accordance with this that they make their decision.
Free being means the possibility of exercising a good or an evil will. Good will possesses the certainty of the unconditional, the divine; it is limited by the unconscious vital obstinacy of mere determinate being and authentic being. According to Sartre's existentialism, freedom is not a property of man, but his substance. Man cannot differ from his freedom; freedom cannot differ from its manifestations. A person, since they are free, can project themselves toward a freely chosen goal, and this goal will determine who they are. Together with goal-setting, all values arise as well; things emerge from their undifferentiatedness and are organized into a situation that completes the person and to which they themselves belong. Consequently, a person is always worthy of what happens to them. They have no grounds for justification[citation needed 783 days].
The concepts of anarchism and freedom are closely related. The foundation of anarchist ideology is the assertion that the state — is a prison for the people. Against this assertion one may set the fact that the state ensures the security and other common interests of its citizens, restricting their freedom. In other words, the state plays the role of a monopoly on the restriction of human freedom. In this context it is worth noting the works of such science-fiction writers as Sheckley and Bradbury, especially the story «A Ticket to Tranai», describing a society with a radically different morality.
The founder of German classical philosophy, Immanuel Kant, pointed to the inseparable connection between freedom and legal order. He asserted that a person is free if they must submit not to another person, but to a law binding on all[10]:
Freedom is independence from the arbitrary will of another [person]. As long as it does not interfere with the freedom of others [people] in accordance with a universal law, it is a natural, innate right of every person, belonging to them by virtue of their human nature.
Erich Fromm asserted that freedom is the goal of human development[11]:
In the biblical […] understanding, freedom and independence are the goals of human development; the purpose of human deeds is a constant process of self-liberation from the bonds tying a person to the past, to nature, to clan, and to idols.
L. N. Tolstoy more fully characterized the category of freedom in dialectical unity with the category of necessity (L. N. Tolstoy, «War and Peace», vol. IV[12]):
In order to conceive of a completely free person, not subject to the law of necessity, we must imagine them alone, outside space, outside time, and independent of causes.
In the first case, if necessity without freedom were possible, we would arrive at a definition of the law of necessity by that same necessity, that is, at a single form without content.
In the second case, if freedom without necessity were possible, we would arrive at an unconditional freedom outside space, time, and causes, which, precisely because it would be unconditional and unlimited by anything, would be nothing, or a single content without form.
We would arrive, in general, at those two foundations of which the whole worldview of man is composed — the incomprehensible essence of life and the laws that determine this essence.
In the first case it was necessary to renounce the consciousness of a non-existent immobility in space and to acknowledge a motion we do not sense; in the present case, it is likewise necessary to renounce a non-existent freedom and to acknowledge a dependence we do not sense.
In Buddhism, the samsara in which a person lives is also characterized as a world of unfreedom[13]. The Buddha taught that complete spiritual freedom of a person is possible if the person follows the Eightfold Path, which delivers one from suffering. If such a person is able to attain enlightenment, then, from the standpoint of psychology, they will attain «complete freedom from any negative emotions» and «a special, inexpressible fullness of being»[14].
In the view of the Zen school, a person truly attains freedom only when they have not even a suspicion that «they are free and that such concepts as „freedom“ and „unfreedom“ even exist»[15]. D. T. Suzuki, one of the leading popularizers of Zen Buddhism, also noted that Zen is a practice by which the follower attains independence from the external situation and thereby an absolute freedom, unconnected with political, economic, and other «relative» freedoms: «whatever situation he finds himself in, he will always find freedom within himself»[16].
Islam is a religion of freedom and peace, says the world-renowned theologian Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, head of the European Council for Fatwa. It has granted man such freedom as no social system has ever provided him throughout the whole of human history. From the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), as well as from the practice of the Muslim rulers of early Islam, one can see how much freedom Islam gave man in every aspect of his life: in spiritual, political, economic, and social matters.
Islam was sent down as a religion protecting the principle of freedom:
freedom of belief, thought, and its expression, etc. Islam does not even
compel people to believe in its message. The Qur'an says on this subject:
«There is no compulsion in religion. The right path has already become distinct from
error...» [Qur'an 2:256]. This verse, concerning the freedom of
belief, was revealed on the following occasion. Members of the two
largest tribes of Medina, Aws and Khazraj, back in the pre-Islamic era, had made
a vow that, should their wives bear them sons, they would raise them in
Judaism. It was thus that some members of these two Arab tribes came
to become Jews. However, when the Arabs were blessed with the revelation of Islam,
including the tribes of Aws and Khazraj who accepted it, some families wanted
their children to leave Judaism and become Muslims. However, Islam
rejects the idea of such conversion unless it takes place
voluntarily, by the person's own conscious choice. The verse was revealed
despite the confrontation that existed at that time between Muslims
and Jews. Freedom of belief was present in Islam at a time when
Byzantium was forcing people to accept Christianity, and the Persians tortured
their religious reformers. In such an atmosphere, Islam brought to the world the principle
of religious freedom.
The principle of freedom in Islam did not come about as the result of a revolution or an evolution
of society - it was revealed from above. It came from the heavens, in order to elevate
people on earth. However, freedom of belief, like other freedoms,
must have certain limits. Thus, Islam does not approve of Muslims
changing their religious affiliation. The Holy Qur'an
contains a warning: «And a party of the People of the Book say:
"Believe in what was sent down to those who believed, at the beginning of the day, and
disbelieve at the end of it, so that perhaps they will return" [Qur'an 3:72]. Thus,
here is a reminder to believers of the need to hold firmly
to their religion. Since Allah gave people freedom even in spiritual
matters, how can rulers deprive man of freedom in less
elevated affairs? 'Umar ibn al-Khattab once said to the ruler
of Egypt the famous phrase: «You enslave people, while their mothers bore them
free». Also known are the words of 'Ali ibn Abi Talib: «Be yourself,
Allah created you free». Allah grants people freedom, because
He created them free. Thus, Islam calls for the
liberation of man from bondage of every kind: intellectual,
political, social, religious, and economic.
The second important kind of freedom is freedom of thought. Islam calls on
people to reflect on the structure of the Universe in order to grasp
the wisdom of the Creator. The Qur'an says: «Say: «I exhort you only about
one thing, that you stand before Allah in pairs and singly, then
reflect; there is no madness in your companion. Truly he is only
a warner to you before a severe punishment!» [Qur'an 34:46]. «Say:
«Look at what is in the heavens and on the earth!» But signs and warners do not help
people who do not believe!» [Qur'an 10:101]. «Have they not traveled the
earth, so that they might have hearts with which to understand, or ears
with which to hear? For indeed, it is not the eyes that are blind, but the hearts within
the breasts that are blind» [Qur'an 22:46]. Islam not only allows freedom of thought, it calls
on people to think independently. Allah does not accept the excuse of those who
go astray by citing the error of the people they followed. In
the Qur'an, those who merely follow conjecture are also condemned.
A rational approach is used to convince people of the truth
of Islam's message. This is precisely why reason in Islam accompanies
Revelation, rather than contradicting it. Islam also encourages free
discussion and dialogue. It views positively the presence in society
of differing opinions. In a truly Muslim society, people are not
under intellectual oppression. They can boldly express their thoughts. This is
why various Islamic schools have coexisted for many centuries
in an atmosphere of tolerance and harmony. Islam teaches Muslims
to call to good and restrain from what is disapproved, to correct a person
who errs.
As for the freedom of religion, Islam calls for defending it by all
means, including by force of arms. The Almighty Allah says: «...And
had it not been for Allah checking the people, some by means of others, there would surely have been demolished
monasteries, churches, and places of worship, and places of prostration, in which
the name of Allah is much mentioned. Allah will surely help those who help
Him - indeed, Allah is
Powerful, Exalted in Might!» [Qur'an 22:40]. From the very beginning of Islam, Muslims
have been called upon to defend freedom. Muslims defended the rights and
freedoms of all citizens of Islamic states. Christians and Jews enjoyed
respect and protection under Muslim rule. They lived with their
Muslim neighbors in peace and harmony. In turn, Dr.
Muzammil Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Society of North
America, in connection with the question raised, first of all recalled
the following verses of the Holy Qur'an: «Allah is the Protector of those who
believe: He brings them out of darkness into light. And those who disbelieve, their friends are
idols; they bring them out of light into darkness. These are the inhabitants of the fire, in it they
abide forever!» [Qur'an 2:257]. «We have certainly honored the children of Adam and carried them on the land and
on the sea, and provided them with good things, and preferred them greatly over many
of those We have created» [Qur'an 17:70].
There is not to be found on earth not only a single human being, but not a single
living creature that does not love freedom. Put a bird in a cage and
leave a small door open, and you will see how it will strive to
break free. Shut a cat in a room, and you will hear it
scratching at the door to be let outside. A cat does not want to live in a
closed room. Freedom is not at all a modern idea, nor an idea
born in the East or in the West, it is universal. But, unfortunately,
quite often, both in the East and in the West, it happens that people strive
for freedom only for themselves, forgetting about others. Islam teaches man that he
must not only be free himself, but also care for the freedom of others and
even make the necessary efforts to that end. Freedom and equality in Islam
are interconnected. Freedom cannot be achieved without equality among members of
society. It should also be remembered that freedom in Islam is the freedom
to do good deeds, and not the freedom to follow one's own passions and
commit arbitrary acts. One of the words denoting freedom in Arabic -
«hurr» - means not only «free», but also «noble». The whole
of Islam is called to affirm and protect freedom. Islam places special emphasis on
human dignity, and it is precisely freedom that allows a person to preserve
their dignity. Freedom opens minds and hearts and prepares a person to
achieve lofty goals. A person cannot be called fully
respected and worthy if they are unfree.
Human freedom does not contradict the omniscience and omnipotence
of Allah. Muslims believe in qada' (fate) and qadar (predestination). This
means that Allah knows everything about the past, present, and future, and that He
has power over everything. However, by virtue of His omnipotence, the Almighty
granted man freedom of choice. He endowed us with free will, but this
does not mean that He does not know what we do, or that He no longer has
power over us. The concept of freedom does not contradict the concept of ibadah (worship)
of Allah. The idea of freedom in Islam goes hand in hand with the idea of obedience and
service to our Creator. The foundation of Islam is submission to Allah
alone. Thus, the Islamic concept of freedom includes the
rejection of any absolute domination over man,
since such domination means depriving the subjected person of the gift
with which Allah Himself endowed him. Submission to the Almighty is realized
within the framework of the concept of freedom. Freedom in Islam is inseparably linked with
responsibility.
Freedom in Islam does not mean freedom from moral obligations or
responsibility. It is inseparable from justice, respect for
human dignity, and righteousness. Freedom from these values is not
freedom, but anarchy and corruption. Islam says that a person must be
free intellectually, spiritually, and physically. Let us recall once again that Islam
grants religious freedom to all people: «There is no compulsion in religion»
[Qur'an 2:256]. People have the right to freely practice their religion, but they
must not impose it on others. Likewise, in using the freedom of expression
of thought (freedom of speech), a person must not abuse it and lie.
Islam also grants man political freedom. The people
have the right to choose their own leaders and to remove them from office if they
prove dishonest or incapable of fulfilling their
duties. In addition, a person must enjoy the freedom
to earn a living, but must not deceive, steal, or
defraud in doing so. Thus, the principle of Islam is spiritual, intellectual, and
physical freedom. Islam affirms both the freedom of the individual and
the freedom of society. Islam teaches us that one who properly makes use of their
freedom in this world will also be free in eternal life. The concept of freedom in
the Qur'an is multifaceted. Many Arabic words are used to convey it:
«hurr» (freedom), «tahrir» (liberation, for example, the freeing of a slave),
«najat» (protection, salvation), «fawz» (attainment of a goal), «falah» (complete
well-being, the use of hidden potential). The hadith
also use the word «'itq» (emancipation, liberation).
Freedom has both a positive and a negative component: there is
freedom to do something, and there is freedom from something. Thus, a person in Islam has the right to
live a healthy, happy life, to prosper, to observe moral norms,
and to preserve their dignity. Islam requires that a person be able to
pray, express their thoughts, earn a living, have a
family, and choose their own rulers. On the other hand, Islam requires freedom
from economic, political, and social oppression. Islam frees
people from attachment to material goods and from selfishness. Islam forbids
the persecution of people on religious grounds.
Finally, and most importantly, Islam seeks to free man from
eternal torment in Hell and to grant him eternal life in Paradise, where he will be
able to draw near to Allah. It was Muslims who brought to the world the ideals of freedom,
equality, and justice. But today's Muslim ummah, unfortunately,
has itself, on the whole, drifted far from them. Our societies suffer from
oppression, injustice, and inequality. Muslims must be at
the forefront of the struggle for freedom, for themselves and for the whole world. We must not
be afraid to speak of political, economic, social, and religious freedom, of human rights, minority rights, women's rights, and so on. Islam not
only recognizes all these rights and freedoms, but also demands that Muslims fight
for their realization
Freedom – a God-given capacity of the human will, without which a person could not consciously and willingly strive for good, and thus could not become virtuous.
God is the supremely free Being, because He acts independently of necessity or compulsion. He chooses what He wills and accomplishes what He has chosen as He wills. At the same time, His will possesses perfect holiness; He Himself creates only the highest good and goodness, which excludes all evil, just as light excludes darkness.
Man, created in the Image of God, likewise possesses the gift of free will. «If man is created in the Image of the blessed and supra-essential Godhead, and the Godhead is free and has will by nature, then man, as the Image of the Godhead, is free by nature and has will» (St. John of Damascus).
In becoming like God, man is called to do only good and to grow in unceasing union with God as the Archetype and Source of Good. Through such union his freedom must continually increase, for God Himself is perfectly free.
However, after the Fall, man set out on the path of evil. The Fall came about through the misuse of the freedom of rational creatures, which God created good and, having granted it to them, does not wish to violate. After the Fall, man descended to the lowest degree of freedom – the freedom to choose between good and evil. By choosing good, man struggles against sin and unites with God, growing in freedom. By choosing evil, man becomes enslaved to sin – to his own vicious passions, liberation from which requires no small effort, with the assistance of divine grace.
God granted man free will, among other reasons, so that man could freely and consciously become like Him, draw spiritually closer to Him as his Creator, the Source of all blessings, and so that he might, with the assistance of divine grace, realize his creative powers. Free will, which is essentially proper to us, when used correctly, allows us to acquire and develop virtues, and to voluntarily ascend the ladder of spiritual perfection. However, the first man used this freedom to fall into sin, and moreover even blamed God for the possibility He had given him.
The cause of sin is not freedom, but the desire to use this freedom for evil (for example, to satisfy one's lusts), a deliberately evil will that consciously chooses disorder and spiritual harm in its own life and in the lives of those near it.
The foundation of the freedom that man is capable of exercising is Divine freedom, the freedom of God Himself. God depends on nothing. He is unlimited, unbounded; He is not defined by anything, but is Himself able to define everything. The very word «definition» presupposes certain boundaries, limits, by which the object (in the broad sense of the word) is restricted, beyond which it is unable to go. God, however, has no such boundaries or limits; for Him, in principle, nothing is impossible. Everything is possible for Him because He is unlimited. And since freedom represents a certain limitlessness, then, in the true and absolute sense of the word, such freedom-as-limitlessness is possessed by God alone.
This is a sophism. God can do everything He wills, but He does not will evil. There is no limitation in this, just as there is no limitation in a person who does not wish to blow up the house of their noisy neighbor. God's will is not only good, but also entirely free. Being All-Perfect, He consciously and freely creates good, in accordance with the loftiness of His attributes, His properties, His perfections.
Man is created in the image and called to become the likeness of God, and this concerns not only freedom but the whole of man's being. God endowed man with freedom in His own image, but Divine freedom differs from human freedom in that it is absolute. Only God is autonomous in the direct sense of the word (from the Greek word meaning «to be a law unto oneself»). God has absolute freedom, while man has limited, relative freedom, dependent on God and on one's neighbor. And at the same time God is good, whereas for man freedom – is a choice between good and evil.
The renowned economist Friedrich von Hayek gave the following definition of economic freedom[17]:
Economic freedom — is the freedom of any activity, including the right of choice and the risk and responsibility associated with it.
Hayek also emphasized that a planned economy differs from liberal capitalism precisely in the absence of economic freedom[18].
According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, liberalism is «the belief that the purpose of politics is to preserve individual rights and to maximize freedom of choice». But they note that there is serious debate about how to achieve these goals. Every discussion of freedom depends on three key components: who is free, what they may do, and what forces limit their freedom. [38] John Gray argues that the core belief of liberalism is tolerance. Liberals allow others to do as they wish, in exchange for the same freedom in return. This idea of freedom is more personal than political in character. [39] William Safire points out that liberalism is attacked from both the right and the left: from the right for defending such practices as abortion, homosexuality, and atheism, and from the left for defending free enterprise and individual rights over the collective. [40]
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, libertarians consider freedom to be their chief political value. [41] Their approach to realizing freedom includes opposition to any governmental coercion, beyond what is necessary to prevent people from coercing one another. [42]
According to republican theorists of freedom, such as the historian Quentin Skinner [43] [44] or the philosopher Philip Pettit, [45] one's freedom should not be regarded as the absence of interference in one's actions, but rather as non-domination. According to this view, going back to the «Roman Digest», to be a liber homo, a free man, means not being subject to the arbitrary will of another, that is, not being subordinate to someone else. They also cite Machiavelli, who argued that one must be a member of a free, self-governing civic association, a republic, if one wishes to enjoy personal freedom. [46]
The prevalence of this view of freedom among parliamentarians during the English Civil War led to the creation of the liberal conception of freedom as non-interference in Thomas Hobbes's «Leviathan».
Socialists regard freedom as a concrete situation rather than as a purely abstract ideal. Freedom is a state of being in which people have the agency to pursue their creative interests unhindered by coercive social relations, in particular those they are forced to engage in as a necessary condition for survival within a given social system. Thus, freedom requires both the material economic conditions that make it possible and the social relations and institutions that foster it. [47]
The socialist conception of freedom is closely tied to the socialist view of creativity and individuality. Under the influence of Karl Marx's concept of alienated labor, socialists understand freedom as a person's capacity to engage in creative work in the absence of alienation, where «alienated labor» refers to work one is forced to perform, while unalienated labor refers to people pursuing their own creative interests. [48]
For Karl Marx, meaningful freedom is attainable only in a communist society, characterized by abundance and free access. Such a social order would eliminate the need for alienated labor and would allow people to pursue their own creative interests, giving them the opportunity to develop and make full use of their capacities. This is consistent with Marx's emphasis on the ability of socialism and communism to progressively shorten the average length of the working day in order to expand the «realm of freedom», or free time, for every individual. [49] [50] Thus, Marx's conception of communist society and human freedom is radically individualistic. [51]
Although many anarchists view freedom somewhat differently, they all oppose authority, including the authority of the state, capitalism, and nationalism. [52] For the Russian revolutionary anarchist Mikhail Bakunin, freedom meant not an abstract ideal but a concrete reality, grounded in the equal freedom of others. In its positive sense, freedom consists in «the fullest development of all the faculties and abilities of every person through education, scientific training, and material well-being». Such a conception of freedom «is eminently social, because it can be realized only in society», rather than in isolation. In its negative sense, freedom is «the rebellion of the individual against all divine, collective, and individual authority».[53]
Some authors suggest that a virtuous culture must exist as a precondition for freedom. Benjamin Franklin stated that «only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters». [54] Madison likewise stated: «To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people is a chimerical idea». [55] John Adams acknowledged: «Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other
The French sociologist Alexis de Tocqueville, in his work Democracy in America, expressed a fear about the future establishment of a new form of despotism that would kill freedom:
 |
I want to imagine under what new features despotism may be produced in our world:
I see an innumerable multitude of men, alike and equal, constantly circling around in pursuit of the petty and vulgar pleasures with which they glut their souls. Each of them, withdrawn into himself, is almost unaware of the fate of the rest; his children and his private friends constitute for him the whole of mankind. As for the rest of his fellow citizens, he is close to them, but he does not see them; he touches them, but he does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone, and if a family still remains to him, one may at least say that he has lost his country. Above these men rises an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, thorough, regular, provident, and mild. It would resemble parental authority if, like parental authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood. It likes to see the citizens enjoy themselves, provided they think of nothing but enjoyment. It readily works for their happiness, but it wishes to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness. It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances. Why should it not entirely relieve them from the trouble of thinking and the labor of living? It is thus that it every day renders the exercise of free choice less useful and more rare; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range, and gradually deprives each citizen of the use of his own faculties. Equality has prepared men for all this, having predisposed them to endure it, and to look on it as a benefit. After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd. I have always thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom, and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people. Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions: they feel the need of being led, and they long to remain free. Unable to destroy either one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a single, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization with that of popular sovereignty; this gives them some respite. They console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. |
 |
Rousseau wished to say that freedom is the natural, native state of man, which he loses with civilization. In reality, the conditions of natural, organic life give no grounds for freedom whatsoever.
In the biological world, iron laws prevail: those of instincts, of the struggle among species and races, of the cyclical repetition of vital processes. Where everything is completely conditioned by necessity, one cannot find a single breach, a single crack through which freedom might break in. Wherever organic life takes on a social character, it is totalitarian through and through. Bees have communism, ants have slavery, and in the animal pack there reigns the absolute power of the leader (the «chieftain»).
In the eighteenth century, nature was viewed romantically — or rather, theologically. The Church's teaching about the primordial nature of man was projected onto it, and the biblical lost paradise was placed in Polynesia. But in our time, biology is not for nothing at the foundation of all the newest ideologies of slavery. Racism has its roots in the biological world and, being a worthless philosophy of culture, is closer to natural or animal reality than to Rousseau.
Rousseau, in essence, wished to say: man must be free, or: man is created to be free — and in this lies the eternal truth of Rousseau. But this is not at all the same as saying: man is born free.
Freedom is a late and delicate flower of culture. This in no way diminishes its value. Not only because the most precious things are rare and fragile. Man becomes fully human only in the process of culture, and it is only in culture, at its heights, that his highest aspirations and possibilities find their expression. Only by these achievements can one judge the nature or purpose of man.
Moreover, even within the world of culture, freedom is a rare and late guest. Surveying the ten or dozen higher civilizations known to us, out of which, for the contemporary historian (Toynbee), what once seemed a single historical process is composed, we find freedom, in our sense of the word, in only one of them — and even then only in the last phase of its existence. I have in mind, of course, our civilization and our time, leaving for now undetermined the boundaries of "ours" in space and time.
All other cultures may astonish us with their grandeur, captivate us with their refinement, amaze us with the complexity and rationality of their social institutions, even with the depth of their religion and thought, but nowhere shall we find freedom as the foundation of social life.
The individual is everywhere subordinated to the collective, which itself determines the forms and limits of its own power. This power may be very cruel, as in Mexico or Assyria, or humane, as in Egypt or China, but nowhere does it recognize the autonomous existence of the individual. Nowhere is there a special, sacred sphere of interests forbidden to the state. The state itself is sacred, and the highest absolute demands of religion coincide with the claims of state sovereignty.
Greece is no exception. Neither our grateful love for her, nor our recognition of the singularity of her supreme culture, nor even the generations of our forebears who fought for freedom with Plutarch, rather than the Gospel, in hand, can conceal the basic fact: our freedom was not secured in Greece.
The Greeks fought and died for freedom; but by freedom they understood either the independence of their own city-fatherland, or its democratic self-government. This was freedom for the state, to which neither the individual nor a minority group could lay claim. We are often deceived by the ease and freedom of life in the classical period of Athenian democracy — in the brief hundred and fifty years separating the Greco-Persian wars from the Macedonian conquest. But this freedom was the result of disintegration, more a license than a law of life. The new commercial and industrial classes undermined the strength of patriarchal village morals, the science of the sophists dissolved the ancient faith; in the resulting emptiness it became easier to live, that is, to enjoy life without hindrance from outdated norms. The «bourgeois» freedom of Athens recalls the fate of freedom in post-revolutionary France. Within a century and a half all the moral foundations of democracy proved to be undermined, and Athens, like all of Greece, became easy prey for Philip.
But even in the period of Athens's greatest freedom fall the trial and execution of Socrates, the banishment of Anaxagoras and Protagoras, and — what is far more terrible — the social utopia of Plato. The greatest of the philosophers of Greece was the theorist of an absolute, totalitarian state. Perhaps only in Sophocles's «Antigone» does the dawn of our freedom glimmer: a prophecy, a foreshadowing of a wholly different spiritual era.
The exceptional, singular nature of freedom should not trouble us. Only a crude biological or sociological way of thinking, operating with quantities, with recurrences, with average values, can see a defect in singularity. Yes, freedom is an exception in the chain of great cultures. But culture itself is an exception against the background of natural life. Man himself, his spiritual life, is a strange exception among living beings. But then life itself, as an organic phenomenon, is also an exception in the material world. Of course, here we enter the realm of the unknown, but there is much to be said for those theories which hold that only on the planet Earth could favorable conditions have arisen for the emergence of organic life. But what does Earth mean within the solar system, what does the Sun mean within our Milky Way, what does our «galaxy» mean within the Universe?
One of two things: either we remain at the outwardly convincing, «natural-scientific», point of view, and then we arrive at a pessimistic conclusion. Earth — life — man — culture — freedom — such insignificant things, hardly worth speaking of. Having arisen from the chance play of the elements on one speck of dust in the universe, they are doomed to vanish without a trace into the cosmic night.
Or we must overturn all our scales of evaluation and proceed not from quantities but from qualities. Then man, his spirit, and his culture become the crown and purpose of creation. All the countless galaxies exist in order to produce this miracle — a free and rational corporeal being, destined for royal dominion over the Universe.
продолжение следует...
Часть 1 The Philosophy of Freedom: Concept, Types, Economic Freedom, and Freedom in Religion
Comments