Freedom is a great human value. Only in free choice can personality emerge. Do we always understand freedom correctly, is freedom always associated with a feeling of internal satisfaction and fulfilled duty? Does our soul rejoice in the freedom that takes us away from ourselves? Does a person need such freedom?
In order to answer these questions, from the polysemy of the understanding of the category “freedom” it is necessary to single out one, the only true meaning. Without going into details of the difference between the meaning of a word (generally accepted understanding) and its meaning (personal understanding, which may differ from the generally accepted one), it must be said that the main task of understanding the concept of “freedom” is to single out the only true one from the many meanings.
How to find it? The criterion of fidelity or infidelity is to check the compliance of the category “freedom” with the meaning of life and the tasks of personal development, which is constituted by the question: why is freedom needed? The category of freedom, considered outside the context of the meaning of life and understood within the framework of an absolute, unconditional value, like any philosophical or psychological category, serves other purposes that do not correspond to the meaning of life. If freedom as a virtue does not serve the main goal of life, then it certainly serves its opposite. Then the main desire to achieve freedom is freedom for the sake of freedom or for the sake of one’s own benefits, interests, and ambitions. “Freedom is not absolute in value; it requires its organic combination with truth. Only the unity of freedom and truth ensures the completeness of the ideal” (S. A. Levitsky).
HOW DO WE UNDERSTAND FREEDOM?
To clarify the only correct understanding of freedom, let us trace the path and consequences of different ideas about this phenomenon.
The most common understanding of freedom, which is quite consistent with adolescence and even adolescence, is the understanding of freedom as the opportunity to do what you want. It is clear that the path of satisfying desires is unlikely to correspond to the tasks of personal growth. Moreover, desires are different. Satisfaction of desires puts freedom at the service of both high aspirations and primitive desires.
Can freedom, understood as the ability to do whatever one wants, make a person free? Not at all. Moreover, freedom understood in this way, on the contrary, leads to dependence on one’s own desires, the consequences of which can be traced in various deviations called sin or passions. Passions are shackles that bind a person, preventing him from being free, although a perverted (turned away from the truth) mind understands them as a manifestation of freedom. Freedom of alcoholism, drug addiction, criminalization, various addictions - to the computer, games, food, etc. Freedom is understood as the satisfaction of any of their desires by those who want to use this gift madly and irresponsibly.
Freedom is always inherently associated with responsibility. This is its main property. Understood as the opportunity to do what you want, it excludes responsibility, which leads to various consequences. Professor A.I. Osipov says about the misunderstanding of freedom that a shift in emphasis from spiritual freedom to external harmful to humans. Freedom will bring harm to morally unhealthy people who do not know how to use it, as well as to those around them. If you give external freedom to an unstable, unformed person, it will corrupt him and lead to arbitrariness.
POWER OF FREEDOM
Another understanding of freedom comes down to the possibility of control, ownership, for example, of natural laws, other people, as well as the possibility of subordinating them to oneself.
Freedom is always limited by limits beyond the control of a person at all levels: physical, cultural, family-personal, spiritual (each person has his own capabilities). Forcing these limitations to “work” for oneself is an illusion of a modern person who does not want to reckon with the limits of his limitations. We know what the attitude and actions to transform and use nature in one’s own interests, without taking into account the consequences for the environment and other people, lead to - we live in this time, a time of ecological and spiritual crisis. The ability of a person to subordinate to his will and his desires, to manage, to subjugate natural, cultural and bodily patterns is a manipulative approach to what limits human desires.
The ability to control a situation has a positive meaning only when it enables the individual to rise above the situation, which means to rise from lower to higher, from evil to good, from worse to better. All this presupposes a person’s struggle with his inner evil. Only on this basis the ability to dominate a situation has a positive meaning and is the main criterion of a mature personality. So understood, spiritual freedom is fully consistent with the task of personal development, in the language of psychology, the task of forming a hierarchy of motives as the predominance of higher motives over lower ones. This is gracious dominion. On this occasion, I. A. Ilyin says: “To free oneself... means to become master of his passions "(highlighted by I. A. Ilyin - I.K.).Freedom must save. If it does not save, then it destroys.
FREEDOM EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL
There are two types of freedom: external and internal (spiritual). External freedom, or secular freedom, is human rights, democracy, etc. This type of freedom is dealt with by sociology, politics, etc. Another type of freedom is spiritual freedom. The essence of spiritual freedom is independence from one’s own passions and vices.
Modern man understands freedom externally, in a narrow utilitarian sense; he ignores the essence of spiritual freedom; therefore, he ignores his own personality, which can receive freedom on completely different grounds. What is the true meaning of freedom, leading to the formation of personality, if by the formation of personality we mean its elevation and transformation?
The main meaning of the gift of freedom lies in the questions: “Who do you want to be with? Who do you want to serve? Good or evil? Truth or lies? God or...?” It is impossible to forcefully determine a person’s aspiration. Only the person himself freely determines this. This is the great Gift of Freedom, corresponding to the meaning of life and the tasks of the individual. Another understanding of freedom is incorrect, if only because it excludes from it its main indispensable attribute - responsibility - without which freedom turns from a virtue into a vice.
FREEDOM AS A CHOICE
Another interpretation of freedom as the possibility of choice deserves attention. This understanding is reflected in the idea of pluralism of opinions and external freedoms, which complicate the search for truth and often confuse with their plurality so that a person can easily make a mistake. I. A. Ilyin correctly showed the consequences of external spiritual freedom: “This would mean: give me external freedom of spirit, so that I destroy and distort my internal freedom. Or even shorter: give me freedom of spiritual death! Freedom cannot be replaced by freedom of choice, since every choice presupposes doubts, duality, and hesitation, which freedom cannot include. The category of spiritual freedom consists in a simple preference for the good, the good, excluding doubt and division. How free is a person who can not be angry, not judge, not envy, humble himself and love!
STARTING POINT
In order to make a free choice (to prefer the good), you need a starting point, a criterion of what is good and what is bad. To look for it in your subjective world, as suggested by modern “humanists” who put man on a pedestal, would be wrong and dangerous. It is possible to recognize oneself as the center and point of reference only if a person is perfect. If this is not so, then recognizing your subjective world as a point of reference means recognizing different values as values, sometimes far from the truth or even the opposite of it.
You can recognize yourself as sick, damaged, and in need of help only by comparing yourself, your real state with what a person should and can be. Everyone is well aware that there are absolute values that do not depend on man, given to us by God through the revelations of the Testaments. One has only to begin to live according to the Commandments, and a person is immediately convinced of his inconsistency with the image of God. Then a person begins to understand that he needs God’s help, that he is not a “thing in itself.” If the Commandments are learned, that is, embodied in a person’s life and actions, and are part of his subjective world, then such people are called saints. And if a person has not even reached the conventional level of morality, then what will determine his choice? If he does not distinguish between good and evil? Then his choice can be determined by anything. For example, his own benefit, passions, desire for pleasure, etc. Then we will say that this is his free choice. However, no one wants to deal with such a person. But can such behavior be associated with the concept of freedom, if, of course, freedom is understood in a single connection with responsibility? A person who has not mastered absolute truths, who does not want to see their reality, but strives for external freedom, can be simply dangerous.
We can and should sing the hymn to freedom only if we understand it correctly. Otherwise, the medicine can quickly turn into poison, after drinking which you can choke, without ever understanding why, exactly, do we need such freedom?
WHAT DOES PLURALISM CARRY?
Now is the time for all kinds of freedoms or their declarations, a time for pluralism of opinions and points of view. In this regard, many new “folk wisdom” appear: “You have your own truth - I have mine”, “You have your own opinion - he has his own”, “Everything in the world is relative.” Such an ideology of many “truths” leads to an understanding of the essence of absolute values as relative, depending on someone’s opinion, the desire to agree with them or not and, as a result, to their denial. Absolute values are the spiritual laws of life, the violation of which leads to various serious consequences. Everyone can trace this both from their personal experience and from historical experience. Are not the wars, cruelty, and violence that permeate the history of mankind the consequences of violating the laws of spiritual life? Aren't our illnesses and spiritual disorders the result of violating these laws?
Absolute values are the measure by which the act of free choice can be carried out. The need to compare ourselves and our behavior with what we should be is easy to see even from a psychological point of view. For the normal development of a child, constant contact with an adult is necessary - the bearer of norms and values. An adult reflects the child’s behavior in his assessments, judgments, and relationships. Without an adult, the development of a child’s personality is impossible. Likewise, an adult needs to communicate with other people in order to verify, learn, and correct himself every time. Without another, like a mirror reflecting me, personal development is impossible. Another is someone who is outside of a person, he is not part of my subjective world, but is a mirror in which I am reflected and recognize myself. Likewise, absolute values reflect our behavior in the form of pangs of conscience, feelings of dissatisfaction, and mental anguish. Then conscience begins to work, a necessary condition for the existence of which is freedom. Another understanding of freedom turns this gift into a boomerang, which, instead of hitting the target, cuts off the head of the one who sent it with its return. In this context, the meaning of the famous proverb becomes clear “To the free man there is freedom, to the saved man there is paradise” .
© All rights reserved
Freedom as a condition for personal self-realization. Human freedom and its limiters (internal - from the person himself and external - from society). Choice and responsibility for its consequences. Civic qualities of the individual.
Liberty- a word with multiple meanings. There are extremes in the understanding of freedom:
The essence of freedom– a choice associated with intellectual and emotional-volitional tension (burden of choice).
Social conditions for the realization of freedom of choice of a free person:
· on the one hand – social norms, on the other hand – forms of social activity;
· on the one hand – the place of a person in society, on the other hand – the level of development of society; socialization.
Liberty- a specific way of being of a person, associated with his ability to choose a decision and perform an action in accordance with his goals, interests, ideals and assessments, based on awareness of the objective properties and relationships of things, the laws of the surrounding world.
Responsibility– an objective, historically specific type of relationship between an individual, a team, and society from the point of view of the conscious implementation of mutual requirements placed on them.
Types of responsibility:
· Historical, political, moral, legal, etc.;
· Individual (personal), group, collective.
· Social responsibility is a person’s tendency to behave in accordance with the interests of other people.
· Legal responsibility – responsibility before the law (disciplinary, administrative, criminal; material)
Responsibility- a socio-philosophical and sociological concept that characterizes an objective, historically specific type of relationship between an individual, a team, and society from the point of view of the conscious implementation of mutual requirements placed on them.
Responsibility, accepted by a person as the basis of his personal moral position, acts as the foundation of the internal motivation of his behavior and actions. The regulator of such behavior is conscience.
Social responsibility is expressed in a person's tendency to behave in accordance with the interests of other people.
As human freedom develops, responsibility increases. But its focus is gradually shifting from the collective (collective responsibility) to the person himself (individual, personal responsibility).
Only a free and responsible person can fully realize himself in social behavior and thereby reveal his potential to the maximum extent.
Philosophical solving the problem of the relationship between freedom and necessity in the activities and behavior of the individual has a huge practical significance for assessing all human actions . If people do not have freedom, but act only out of necessity, then the question of their responsibility for their behavior becomes meaningless.
WITH freedom of the individual in society certainly exists, but it is relative. Everything comes from this relativity of freedom. democratically oriented legal documents. For example, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights emphasizes that these rights, in the course of their implementation, should not infringe on the rights of other individuals. Thus, the relative nature of freedom is reflected in responsibility of the individual to other people and society as a whole. The relationship between freedom and responsibility of the individual is directly proportional: The more freedom society gives a person, the greater his responsibility for using this freedom - this is where they manifest themselves civic qualities of the individual. Otherwise, anarchy, destructive for the social system, occurs, turning social order into social chaos.
“Rights and freedoms” - 4.5. Assessment of the admissibility of the restrictions on human rights provided for by the draft. Human rights. A generally recognized norm of international law. Fundamental principles for ensuring the protection of human rights (continued). Human rights expertise. 3.2.b. Analysis of norms in various acts of international soft law.
“Human activity” - Beliefs. Activity consists of actions. In the structure of activity, a distinction is made between SUBJECTS and OBJECTS. Activity structure. Affective action. Achieving the goal. Needs. Interests. Personality orientation. Actions are made up of actions. An object is something towards which an activity is directed. Goal-setting is inherent only in human activity.
“Human Rights and Freedoms” - Human Rights. Human rights are the rights of an egoistic person, separated from human essence and community. Don't violate your rights and everything will be fine. Medvedev examines books that are written about human rights. The European Court talks about human rights.
“Human Behavior” - Behavior on the street. What to do if you fall through the ice? When Christmas tree elements burn, toxic smoke is dangerous. Choose a route that is not short, but safe. A steep bank can be a good slide. When meeting a criminal, speak calmly and slowly, confidently. Never walk on ice alone! Life and health are more valuable than any thing.
“People's needs” - The need for love. Official position. Company policy. Family life. Social connections. Avoidance and evasion. 3 basic needs. Working conditions. Valence. Responsibility. Success. Hygiene factors. Physiological needs. Motivating factors. A theory of the relationship between personal perception and interpersonal behavior.
“Rights and freedoms of citizens” - the Constitution of the Russian Federation was adopted by popular vote on December 12, 1993. Russia has been proclaimed a democratic federal legal state with a republican form of government. General characteristics of the Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993. Citizenship in the Russian Federation. Constitution of the Russian Federation. Topic: Rights and freedoms of man and citizen under the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
Ivan Kochetov.
IN a survey about “is it possible to achieve freedom through restriction” and, most importantly, “is restriction a necessary means to achieve freedom?” has been exciting the minds of philosophers for a long time. Freedom and restriction are antonyms, the comparison of which prompts us to think about an even more global question, on which, in fact, all philosophy is built - this is the “union of opposites.” It would seem that it would be easier to put the ingredients in a blender and turn on maximum speed... But will you eat it? Your mind and your stomach show an enviable unanimity: they want to grind and process food on their own. This is what happens with spiritual food. The reality is that satiety cannot be determined without knowing hunger, good without knowing evil, and freedom without knowing limitations. Summarizing all of the above, the thesis cannot be understood without knowing the antithesis.
Background of the issue
To understand the issue of limitations in more detail, let us consider the idea of will that prevailed in the Aeon of Osiris.
The Christian religion perceives the saying “do what thou wilt” no more and no less as a call to worship the Devil, since there are God’s Commandments, God’s Law, which sets “natural” restrictions before a person, going beyond which means distortion or perversion of one’s own Will .
The 4th century Christian theologian St. Augustine spoke of the so-called “Freedom of Will,” the recognition of which was necessary in order to absolve God of any accusation of creating sin, considering the origin of sin primarily as the result of the will of man; since affirmation of the will of the Devil would mean his power and equality with God. Thus, the will was given to man so that virtue would be true and not forced. It would seem that this is a sound position, but it served as a reason for man’s distrust and neglect of his own will, while the will that came from outside was almost always considered divine, refracted into the idea of an “external” Christian God. This worldview instilled indecisiveness and passivity in people, and this continued for more than 2000 years until the Aeon of the Crowned Child began.
About the Will of the God-Man
In Thelema, unlike Christianity, everything is more complicated, since man himself is proclaimed the Creator. It is argued that in every person there is an uncreated Fortress (Holy Guardian Angel) which is not subject to earthly laws and is indescribable in the categories familiar to us. Let's say we recognize that there are three levels of the world: material, mental and divine. The material is well known to us, we interact with it and it surrounds us. The psychic world, obviously, should be sought in man, and if so, then why do we strive to seek the spiritual world outside of ourselves? In fact, man is similar to the world in that he extends to all known “worlds,” unlike animals.
♦ The will of the material component of a person is called instincts.
♦ The will of the mental part of a person is nothing more than Desire, it is quite diverse and does not have to contradict the True Will at all; on the contrary, in a harmonious, naturally developing person it is a full-fledged continuation of the spiritual Will.
♦ The will of the spiritual part of a person is called Will (with a capital letter), or in Greek - Thelema.
It should be noted that for full-fledged magical work it is necessary to exercise with all the presented categories, subordinating them to the higher, spiritual component. The body should not be your enemy, it should be your friend, because only by becoming such can it become an integral part of the whole person.
Thus, introducing an objective divine Source into man, we are faced with the problem of the absence of a personal stratification of will in the world; all will is entirely within the competence of the individual, but only relates to different levels of being.
Temptation and reality
To a person who is familiar with Thelema only by hearsay, it may seem that the phrase from the Book of the Law “Do what thou wilt” implies total licentiousness and permissiveness. “How to do this, what you want, then the world will begin to be a mess?” - this is one of the most common opinions regarding this quote. But the fact is that Thelema is really for spiritually prepared people who will not violate someone else’s Will, because they know their own.
Crowley's teaching is attractive due to its apparent ease of execution. People with pronounced aesthetic thinking flock to it like bees to honey, but having sat down on this elixir, they gradually begin to understand that the development of their own Will requires a colossal amount of effort from a person, since it is associated with limiting momentary desires.
Having learned and, most importantly, felt this, the image of Crowley begins to acquire an insidious coloring in the eyes of the neophyte of Thelema: how was it necessary to think of using elements of various esoteric movements, under the sauce of absolute freedom, to present all the same restrictions that are present in most religions?!
The point is, in order to achieve something, it is necessary to consciously cut off secondary desires, switching to all those actions that bring a person closer to his Holy Guardian Angel, just as a gardener cuts off the stepsons of plants so that the fruits become ripe and weighty.
External limit
External restrictions can be met with hostility if they are not consistent with the true aspirations of the person whom they restrict. However, there are cases when external limitation is perceived as a positive, friendly force; for example, in order to purchase a plot and not spend money on a fence, you need to buy the very central plot so that your neighbors can build a fence on all sides instead of you. So, in everything related to external restrictions, mutual consent of the parties is important.
Internal limitation (self-limitation)
Self-restraint is the only path of the Thelemite, if, of course, he strives for spiritual development, which involves various practices associated with him and necessary for the knowledge of his True Will.
But let's imagine a purely theoretical situation that there is an absolutely free world, which is inhabited by absolutely free people who fulfill their True Will and live in cosmic harmony. Suddenly, among their society a man appears who, either out of ignorance, or out of his own narrow-mindedness, does not comply with his True Will.
Question: what will happen to such a person in this utopian society? There may be two options here:
First. If he finds himself in it suddenly, then he either will not survive in it, or will be immediately pushed “to the sidelines” by other Wills.
Second. If such a person lives in such a society from its very foundation, and the next day, suddenly, no matter what, everyone except him begins to act in accordance with the True Will, then, most likely, such a person, contrary to his desire, will be surrounded on all sides by “fences” "alien True Will.
Thus, an external limitation from someone else’s Will will not even teach him, it will oblige him to observe the law of cosmos.
Saturn and Uranus
Saturn is the planet of limitations. Uranus is the planet of Freedom. Uranus is behind Saturn. Both of these planets rule Capricorn and Aquarius. In this connection, the same question arises: how to achieve freedom through limitation? What needs to be limited for this and how to do it?
The principle of limitation is inherent in the very essence of life: if our body did not have skin, we could not prevent external forces that threaten us, such as hostile microorganisms, cold, or excessive heat, and the like; we simply wouldn't survive. If there were no principle of limitation, the Universe would be formless matter, a kind of primordial energy soup.
In the Universe, Saturn is responsible for the principle of limitation, without which the material world would turn into a chaotic cloud. Saturn structures not only spatial quantities, but also temporal ones.
Uranus, rotating at a greater distance from the Sun than Saturn, seems to destroy the old boundaries of the septenary, revealing the planets responsible for collective life, the collective unconscious and the spirit of the era.
Perhaps there is no astrologer who would not wonder: why the first ruler of Capricorn is Saturn, and the second is Uranus, the highest planet, which at first glance is the opposite of Saturn; and in Aquarius, in turn, Uranus is placed as the first ruler, and Saturn as the second? In this connection, the image of a typical office worker is presented, who spends all weekdays in the office (Saturn), and on weekends hangs out in nightclubs (Uranus). The position of Uranus above Saturn tells us that the values of freedom are more universal, more transpersonal than the values of restriction, but without them it is impossible to fully experience freedom, since contrast is necessary in life.
Ethicist and Aesthetician Søren Kierkegaard
In “Harmonious Development” by the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, he talks about two psychological types of people: ethics and aesthetics.
Here's what he writes:
“My “Either-Or” does not primarily signify the choice between good and evil, but the act of choice by which good and evil are chosen and rejected together. The essence of the matter is not in the choice itself between good and evil, but in good will, in the desire to choose, which naturally lays the foundation for good and evil.”
So, according to Soren, the ethical choice is above good and evil, since it is precisely this choice that determines the definition of these categories. He goes on to say that “it’s not even a matter of choice, but of the spiritual baptism of a person’s will in the font of ethics.” Thus, Will is seen here as the basis of an ethical worldview and, collectively, as the driver of human spiritual development.
Next, he contrasts the ethical view of the world with the aesthetic one. The aesthetic principle is what is contained in a person from birth and remains throughout his life, and the ethical principle is what allows a person to consciously ennoble himself, this is what helps him become what he should become, and This requires will and the ability to concentrate. Thus, an ethicist is a person capable of concentration.
By making an ethical choice, which for the Thelemite is following his true Will, a person does not turn into another being, but only determines his vector of development, therefore nothing should prevent him from revealing himself aesthetically.
A “pure” esthetician, at best, is a hedonist who has subordinated his life to pleasure. And if he is not even able to enjoy his momentary inclinations, then he is truly an unhappy person. His thoughts are momentary; he does not have the opportunity to contemplate his will on such a grand scale as an ethicist who contemplates eternity.
Yes, and more. Kierkegaard must not be misunderstood; as if the life of an esthetician is directly related to receiving sensual pleasures. Not so simple. An ethicist can also devote his life to sensual pleasures, but unlike an esthetician, he will consciously make such a choice and concentrate only on this goal, in order to thereby differ from all other “wild-growing” people without definite plans for this incarnation.
In Crowley's works
So that no one limits his practice, as a result of which he feels unfree, he needs to limit himself independently, since only through self-restraint can one achieve internal and external freedom. If freedom is spent unconsciously, then it is devalued; and if we truly regard it as a fundamental value, we should not devalue it. In the 37th chapter of Liber Aleph, Aleister Crowley explains the paradox of the relationship between freedom and limitation using the example of a person’s struggle with the elements, pointing out that overcoming harsh environmental conditions allows one to strengthen the Will.
Another property of limitation is concentration. Concentration is the essence of magic. "Whoever is not capable of concentration cannot be a magician." Aleister Crowley developed many different spiritual practices, drawing even more from Eastern traditions. All of them are aimed at concentration and are directly related to certain restrictions.
Proof of the possibility of harmonious coexistence of freedom and limitation is Crowley's life itself. It never ceases to amaze how a person who was passionate about mountaineering, chess, travel, and who practically researched magic and yoga, found time to write many books and poems. The only way to do this is to ethically subordinate your life to a spiritual discipline that is fundamentally magical.
About knowing God through detachment from Him
When we say that we know God, we are moving away from Him imperceptibly, for all knowledge presupposes the creation of a certain internal image, which has nothing to do with the direct deification of man. For this reason, self-knowledge should be placed at the forefront of spiritual development, which will bring us closer to that incorruptible part of our soul, called the Holy Guardian Angel, which is not subject to either life or death. Here is what Crowley writes about this in The Equinox of the Gods: “Note that Knowledge is Daath, the child of Chokmah and Binah and the crown of Microprosopus; but Daath is not one of the Sephiroth, its place is in the Abyss. This symbolism points to the fact that Knowledge is an impossible thing by its very nature, for it implies duality and, therefore, is relative.” So, in direct union with God there can be neither knowledge nor self-knowledge, for these are only instruments of our Will, for it is said: “where I am, there is no God” (Liber AL 2:23).
Since we touched upon the Tree of Life, it is worth saying that it clearly shows that when we try to study the secret and inexpressible Lord, we actually perceive not Him, but His reflection in the sefira of Knowledge. God the Dog is the image of God that has formed in our mind, therefore, when trying to cognize God logically, we interact not with Him, but with His image. In fact, this is not even an image, but a complex of ideas and ideas that further separate us from Him. The name of God, reflected in our mind, turns into a Dog. Truly, you can know God only by becoming Him.
The Dog is a rational reflection of the secret and inexpressible God, His non-existent image, which various kinds of theologians (not only Christian ones) are trying to obtain in a rational way. Receiving Knowledge (Daat), they find themselves in the Abyss, tormented by the dogs of reason.
To prevent this from happening, to prevent White Magic from turning into Black, God into a Dog, and Love into possession, the practitioner must learn to concentrate, especially during rituals. After all, the essence of restrictions is in concentration, that is, in the focus of the volitional impulse.
Restriction symbols
The first and most lasting symbol of limitation for Western civilization was the biblical Paradise - a place of perfect organization, where the first couple felt absolute harmony with the world around them; animals and plants. Moreover, according to the myth, their harmony was possible only because they did not know good and evil and did not know that they walked naked in the Garden of Eden. This myth is so firmly rooted in people’s minds that it has given rise to the belief that it is possible to achieve love and harmony only by isolating oneself from the world around us and “seeing” it. However, not a single philosopher, as far as I know, has proposed a single convincing theory or practice through which one could abandon the already existing “knowledge of good and evil,” since it has an initiatory property - having known it, it is impossible to abandon it; behind the one who knows this, all bridges burn down.
The myth of Paradise gave birth to a completely earthly phenomenon called a monastery. A monastery is a place of spiritual solitude, reliably protected from worldly life. The theorist and practitioner of monastic life, Abba Dorotheos, spoke of the monastery as a place of complete and unconditional submission to his mentor. Anyone coming to the monastery had to wear the same clothes for all monks, and wear a kukul on their head - a special hood that symbolized the baby’s headdress. Thus, when taking tonsure, the monk renounced not only his own will, but also his “adult life.” It is not surprising that Crowley had a negative attitude towards Christian monks, calling them “spiritual castrati,” since renunciation of the world also implied renunciation of sex life. Contemplating the world in opposites striving to merge in the embrace of love, with all his teaching he affirmed the sacredness of sexuality. For the whole world is sex, all philosophy is sex, since it presupposes a union of opposites. The teachings of Thelema reveal to us that self-knowledge largely depends on how much a person expands the world known to him and his ideas about it. This is the desire for universality and true theosis. When the original “I” becomes a point in the middle of the endlessly expanding space of the knowable, only then does a person become like God like Hadit and Nuit.
Limitation as a way to understand Art
Those who consciously and voluntarily take up the study of one or another type of creativity are closely faced with the limitation, since all academic methods of teaching it are based on introducing archetypal images conveyed about works of art within the limits of rational understanding. Due to this introduction, the object becomes subject to study, but at the same time it moves away from the person, as if ceasing to be felt as part of his unified essence. Thus, before any art is learned, we must consciously place a barrier between it and ourselves, which must subsequently be broken down by the expanding personality. This applies equally to painting, music, and writing, but this rule is felt especially strongly in the highest art - magic.
Optics limitation
The phenomenon of the need for limitation can be most clearly seen using the example of optics.
In order to obtain an image, it is necessary to limit the light entering the photosensitive material, otherwise there will be only one chaotic flare. The first method of limitation that creates an image has been known since the Renaissance - the camera obscura. The principle of its operation is to cut off scattered light and transmit only those rays that come from a certain angle through a tiny hole. The appearance of the camera obscura is associated with the emergence of perspective in painting. There is an assumption that Leonardo da Vinci was the first to use a camera obscura in painting for sketches from life.
The next step in optics was the invention of a lens, which gave a brighter image and could not only focus, but also scatter light; Then the lenses were combined into groups in order to overcome distortions that arose due to the refraction of light and significantly expand the possibilities of obtaining images.
What is all this for? It’s just that every person, in addition to two eyes, also has a spiritual eye, which can begin to see only if its owner learns to focus his attention, cutting off chaotic thoughts. Carlos Castaneda writes about this in his “Wheel of Time”: “The ultimate goal of a warrior is to, through deep discipline, focus his unwavering attention on the wheel of time and make it turn.”
Love and Limitation
For Crowley, Love is an irreversible desire for mutual fusion, in which the individual ego dissolves, giving birth to a fundamentally new, universal essence. Any action that slows down or interferes with this process is nothing more than Black Magic, which is generated by the dogs of reason.
The idea that love always exists among limitations can be found in Aleister Crowley’s “Liber Aleph” in the chapter “Legenda De Amore”. Crowley gives a strikingly novel interpretation of the legend of Adam and Eve. It turns out that their love was largely based on the prohibition of eating an apple from the Tree of Knowledge, which expressed a restriction; when they ate the fruit from it, their serene love was broken.
Love requires separation; division into transmitting and receiving sides, that is, male and female. Any division presupposes the construction of certain boundaries, that is, limitation. Side by side with love there are limitations that it overcomes and, thus, exists due to the very process of overcoming! Which ultimately leads to annihilation and the transformation of two opposite sides into absolute Nothing. Love, like a spark, like lightning, illuminating space requires a difference in potential. In the Book of the Law, Nuit says: “For I was divided for the sake of love, for the possibility of unity. The pain of separation is nothing, the joy of dissolution is everything.” (Liber AL I:29-30)
In addition to all of the above, I will say that in classical Western astrology it is generally accepted that the only planet that forms a harmonious conjunction with Saturn (the planet of limitation) is Venus - the planet of love and preference.
Love as overcoming
What makes a person equal to the world? Only that its nature extends not only to the material world, but also to the psychic world, is what distinguishes it from bacteria; and not only on the psychic world, but also on the spiritual world - which distinguishes it from animals. Man lies in the harmonious coexistence of levels of being, the task of uniting which is to overcome. The essence of overcoming is love, since it is the only force capable of erasing boundaries, bringing a person closer to integrity and chastity. This is an uncontrollable and inevitable desire for absolute merging with the desired. The final stage of true love is death and the transition to a new level. Any artificial resistance to this is Black Magic. The result of true love is dissolution.
The birth of God in oneself means that for the first time a bridge has been laid between the psychic world and the spiritual, that this border is no longer perceived as something insurmountable. God initially resides in every person; the only question is whether a person strives to gain integrity, or whether he is satisfied with everything in the corruptible world that his soul thinks about.
Thus, upon reaching the psychic level, any further knowledge of the world is inseparable from self-knowledge, since the spiritual world, except in man, is not represented anywhere else. For, as Macarius of Egypt said, “there is nothing more beautiful than the human soul, neither in heaven nor on earth.”
© Ivan Kochetov, 2011
Introduction
1. Freedom in human activity
1.1 The concept of “freedom”
1.2 Why freedom cannot be absolute. Boundaries of freedom
1.3 Freedom and necessity
1.4 Freedom and responsibility
1.5 "Freedom from" or "freedom to"
Conclusion
Bibliography
Introduction
Freedom refers to universal human values inherent in all peoples in all eras. It is human nature to strive for freedom - this is a natural desire for independence, independence, readiness to be responsible for one’s actions.
The desire for freedom is one of the most powerful human feelings. With freedom, a person associates the implementation of his plans and desires, the ability to freely choose life goals and ways to achieve them. But freedom was not always recognized as the natural right of every person. Attempts to solve it were carried out throughout the development of philosophical thought. Fatalist theologians viewed human life through the prism of divine predestination. In this sense, everything that happens to a person was interpreted as fatal inevitability. The idea of freedom as a form of one's own behavior, the possibility of conscious choice of goals and means of activity, was rejected. At the same time, theological doctrines also contained more progressive ideas related to the recognition of the freedom given to us by the Almighty, which consists in the possibility of choosing between good and evil.
Currently, in philosophy, personal freedom is considered as a historical, social and moral imperative, a criterion for the development of individuality and a reflection of the level of development of society. In addition, philosophers have always been attracted by the problem of the relationship between freedom and necessity, determining the boundaries of human freedom, the degree and forms of its dependence on external forces. Consequently, the topic of freedom does not lose its relevance today. Purpose of the work: acquaintance with the various meanings and aspects of the concept of “freedom”; analysis of problems related to personal freedom and identification of different approaches to solving these problems.
The work consists of an introduction, main part, conclusion and list of references.
1. Freedom in human activity
1.1 The concept of “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. Aristotle, who could not imagine a society without slavery, argued that freedom lies only in the nature of noble people, and a slave has a slave nature. True, he added, sometimes noble people fall into slavery because of monetary debts, but this is unfair. Aristotle failed to recognize that slavery contradicts the idea of natural rights, since according to it all people are considered free-born.
With particular force, the desire for freedom, liberation from the shackles of despotism and arbitrariness, manifested itself in New and Contemporary times. All revolutions wrote the word “freedom” on their banners. Few political leaders and revolutionary leaders did not vow to lead the masses they led to true 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 idea of natural rights played a big role in the struggle against various forms of personal dependence of some people on others: slavery, serfdom, vassalage. As humanity progressed, the idea of freedom constantly expanded: the number of free people, the scope of their freedom, free choice, and self-determination grew.
In the history of social thought, the problem of freedom has always been filled with different meanings. More often it came down to the question of whether a person has free will, or whether all his actions are determined by external necessity. The extremes in solving this problem amounted to voluntarism and fatalism. According to the first approach, a person is free, free to do as he pleases. This is his generic quality. From the position of fatalism, everything in the world is predetermined, and every human action, even his willful action, is only an unconscious link in the chain of cause and effect.
In everyday life, a person is faced not with abstract necessity, not with fatalism in the form of fate and fate, but with the pressure of circumstances external to him. These circumstances are the embodiment of the concrete historical conditions of human existence. People are not free to choose the time and place of their birth, the objective conditions of life, the presence of their natural existence, expressed by the concreteness of their materiality and physicality. But, on the other hand, human existence is not a one-dimensional line from the past to the future. These are always alternatives that involve a choice that is characterized by both different means of achieving the set goals and different results of achieving the set goals. Accordingly, a person is free in what consequences will come from his choice and to what extent he is responsible for them. Knowledge of the ratio of choice and responsibility, the objective basis of this or that direction of one’s life, the conditions in which it is realized, gives philosophical content to the concept of freedom. This is understanding and awareness of the need. Marxist philosophy defined freedom this way: freedom is a conscious necessity.
In real life, freedom exists in the form of the need to choose. And a person is not free to change the social framework of choice; they are given to him, on the one hand, as an inheritance from the entire previous history of the development of mankind, on the other hand, by the existing existence of a specific sociality in which the subject of choice exists.
Some modern philosophers believe that man is “doomed” to freedom, because... transformation of the world is a way of human existence and thereby creates an objective condition for freedom. Objective - independent of the will and consciousness of a person. The emergence of the idea of freedom and social thought occurs only when consciousness sets in. First of all, this is an awareness of the profound fact that the paths of man and the paths of nature are different. Then - the realization that in general there is a variety of goals and ways to achieve them. Therefore, a person who lives and does not know that it is possible to live differently exists, as it were, outside the problem of freedom and necessity. The problem arises for him when he learns about the existence of other life paths and begins to evaluate and choose them.
Philosophers identify stages in the development of the idea of freedom. The first stage of awareness of freedom is manifested in its definition as a conscious necessity, when a person begins to reflect on his life or the lives of others and understands that due to limited material or spiritual capabilities it cannot be changed. Then he voluntarily submits to the need to live as he lived before. The second stage in the development of the idea of freedom is the opportunity and ability to choose. The more material or spiritual means a person has at his disposal, the more opportunity he has to choose. The highest stage of development of the idea of freedom, according to modern philosophers, is the following: when all the existing options for choosing a person are not satisfied, and he has the power to create, create a new opportunity that did not exist before.
Thus, freedom is the independence of social and political subjects (including individuals), expressed in their ability and opportunity to make their own choices and act in accordance with their interests and goals.
1.2 Why freedom cannot be absolute. Boundaries of freedom
No matter how much people strive for freedom, they understand that there cannot be absolute, unlimited freedom. You cannot live in society and be absolutely free from it. First of all, because complete freedom for one would mean arbitrariness in relation to the other. The freedom of each member of society is limited by the level of development and the nature of the society in which he lives. For example, someone wanted to listen to loud music at night. By turning on the tape recorder at full power, the man fulfilled his desire and acted freely. But his freedom in this case infringed on the right of many others to get a good night's sleep.
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 him in an extremely difficult position in making a decision. The expression “Buridan’s donkey” is widely known. 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 prefer, the donkey died of hunger.
But the main limiters of his freedom are not external circumstances. Some modern philosophers argue that human activity cannot receive a goal from the outside at all; in his inner life the individual is absolutely free. He himself chooses not only an activity option, but also formulates general principles of behavior and looks for reasons for them. Therefore, the objective conditions of people’s existence do not play such a big role in their choice of a model of action. The goals of human activity are formulated in accordance with the internal motivations of each person. The limit of such freedom can only be the rights and freedoms of other people. Awareness of this by the person himself is necessary. Freedom is inseparable from responsibility, from duties to society and its other members.
Consequently, personal freedom in society certainly exists, but it is not absolute, but relative. All democratically oriented legal documents proceed from this relativity of freedom.
That is why the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights emphasizes that these rights, in the course of their implementation, should not infringe on the rights of other individuals. Consequently, the relative nature of freedom is reflected in the responsibility of the individual to other people and society as a whole. The dependence between freedom and responsibility of the individual is directly proportional: the more freedom society gives a person, the greater his responsibility for using this freedom. Otherwise, anarchy, destructive for the social system, occurs, turning social order into social chaos.
Thus, a person cannot be absolutely free, and one of the limiters here is the rights and freedoms of other people.
Despite all the differences in the above points of view, it is clear that it is, of course, possible to ignore the necessity, prevailing circumstances, conditions of activity, sustainable trends in human development, but this will be, as they say, “more expensive for yourself.” But there are restrictions that most people cannot accept and fight stubbornly against them. These are various forms of social and political tyranny; rigid class-caste structures that drive a person into a strictly defined cell of the social network; tyrannical states, where the will of a few or even one is subject to the life of the majority, etc. There is no place for freedom or it appears in an extremely reduced form.
Despite the importance of taking into account the external factors of freedom and its boundaries, in the opinion of many thinkers, internal freedom is even more important. So, N.A. Berdyaev wrote: “We will be freed from external oppression only when we are freed from internal slavery, i.e. Let’s take responsibility and stop blaming external forces for everything.”
Thus, the goals of human activity must be formulated in accordance with the internal motivations of each person. The limit of such freedom can only be the rights and freedoms of other people. Freedom can be achieved, but the most difficult thing is to learn to live as a free person. Live in such a way that you do everything according to your own will - but at the same time without oppressing others, without limiting the freedom of others. Awareness of this by the person himself is necessary.
1.3 Freedom and necessity
The opposition of the philosophical concepts of “freedom” and “necessity,” the denial or replacement of one of them by the other, has been a stumbling block for thinkers for over two thousand years.
A philosophical solution to the problem of the relationship between freedom and necessity in the activity and behavior of an individual has enormous practical significance for assessing all people’s actions. If people do not have freedom, but act only out of necessity, then the question of their responsibility for their behavior becomes meaningless.
Different views on this problem are reconciled by the point of view according to which necessity is seen as the impossibility of people changing the objective socio-economic conditions of their life, but at the same time they have significant freedom in choosing the goals and means of their activities.
Freedom as a perceived necessity - This is how many philosophers interpreted freedom - B. Spinoza, G. Hegel, F. Engels. What is behind this formula?
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. But what are these forces, what is the nature of necessity? There are different answers to this question. Some see God's providence here. 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 such an interpretation of the relationship between Divine predestination and human freedom, i.e. God designed the Universe so that all creation would have the great gift of 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. Consequently, the World itself must return to God, since it itself 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. laws independent of human consciousness. 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 is rigidly and unambiguously determined; 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.
1.4Freedom and responsibility
Freedom is inseparable from responsibility, from duties to oneself, to society and to its other members. Personal responsibility has two sides:
External - as an opportunity to apply certain social sanctions to the individual: the individual is responsible to society, the state, and other people while observing the duties assigned to the individual, he bears moral and legal responsibility;
Internal - as the individual’s responsibility to himself: the development of a person’s sense of duty and conscience, his ability to exercise self-control and self-government. The main means of internal responsibility are a person’s conscience and honor. Conscience- is an internal “judge”, a guarantor of true freedom and independence of the individual. Honor a person expresses the degree of awareness of his dignity.
Modern society provides a person with a variety of means to help get rid of a depressed state. Among them there are those (alcohol, drugs) that inexorably destroy the human body. When making his choice, a person who knows about such a danger can neglect it, but then he will inevitably face retribution, and he will have to pay with the most precious things - his own health, and sometimes life. In other words, a truly free person will not be a slave to his momentary moods and passions. He will choose a healthy lifestyle. In this case, in addition to the perceived danger, a person is encouraged to act one way and not another by certain social conditions. There are norms of morality and law, traditions and public opinion. It is under their influence that a model of “proper behavior” is formed. Taking into account these rules, a person acts and acts, makes certain decisions. A person’s deviation from established social norms causes a certain reaction from society. Negative deviation also causes social sanctions, i.e. punishment for disapproved actions. Such punishment is also called a person’s responsibility for his activities and its consequences.
But the concept of “responsibility” is associated not only with external forms of influence on a person; responsibility is the most important internal regulator of his activities. Then we talk about a sense of responsibility, duty. It manifests itself, first of all, in a person’s conscious readiness to follow established norms, evaluate his actions in terms of their consequences for others, and accept sanctions in case of violations. Research shows that most people tend to accept responsibility for their actions. However, situations arise when the sense of responsibility becomes dull. Thus, a person in a crowd is capable of such actions - offensive shouts, resistance to law enforcement officials, various manifestations of cruelty and aggression that he would never have committed in a different situation. In this case, the influence is exerted not only by the massiveness of the speeches, but primarily by the anonymous nature of people’s activities. At such moments, internal constraints are weakened and concerns about public evaluation are reduced.
It should be noted that responsibility as a social and personal factor arises only when a person is free in his thoughts and actions. If there is no freedom, if all human actions are forced, dictated by “iron” necessity, then there is no responsibility. A person is not responsible for what is imposed on him against his will, in addition to or even contrary to his free choice. In accordance with this, the concept of responsibility can be formulated.
Responsibility is a social, philosophical and sociological concept that characterizes an objective, historically specific type of relationship between an individual, a team, and society from the point of view of the conscious implementation of mutual requirements placed on them.
The formation of personality also involves instilling in it a sense of responsibility. Responsibility can manifest itself in various characteristics of a person’s behavior and actions. Responsibility is a self-regulator of an individual’s activity, an indicator of the social and moral maturity of an individual. This is discipline and self-discipline, organization, the ability to foresee the consequences of one’s own actions, and the ability to make a forecast. This is self-control, self-esteem, a critical attitude towards oneself. The choice made by a person, the decision made, means that the person is ready to take full responsibility, even for what he could not foresee. The inevitability of the risk of doing “the wrong thing” or “the wrong thing” presupposes that a person has the courage necessary at all stages of his activity: both when making a decision, and in the process of its implementation, and, especially in case of failure.
Thus, freedom is associated not only with necessity and responsibility, but also with a person’s ability to make the right choice, with his courage and with a number of other factors.
1.5 "Freedom from" or "freedom to"
What kind of person do we usually consider free? The first thing that comes to mind is someone who is not forced to do anything, is not forced to do what he does not want, and is not under the pressure of circumstances. “Today I am free because I don’t have to run to a tutor”; “I want to rent an apartment in order to free myself from the care of my parents and finally feel free” - one can cite many more phrases and statements in which exactly this understanding of freedom is manifested. However, philosophers believe that this is only the starting point of freedom. True liberation begins with self-restraint. “Freedom for” is good will, subject to the moral law. Man, through free effort, is prevented from evil and turns to good. I. Kant believed that such free choice stands above natural necessity.
Thus, from considering external limiters of freedom, we moved on to the internal prohibitions that a person sets for himself. Back in the 3rd century, Clement of Alexandria stated: “Neither praise, nor blame, nor honor, nor punishment will be fair if the soul does not have the ability to strive and resist and if the vice is involuntary.”
The main thing is not what the external circumstances of a person’s life are. Another thing is more important: how they are refracted in his consciousness, how a person projects himself into the world, what goals he sets for himself, what meaning and meaning he gives to the surrounding reality. This is what predetermines the choice from a variety of possible behavior options. From this, some modern philosophers conclude: human activity cannot receive its goals from the outside, nothing external to consciousness can motivate it, man is completely free in his inner life.
A truly free person himself chooses not only an action, but also its reasons, the general principles of his actions, which acquire the character of convictions.
The result of reasoning on this issue can be the following diagram:
FREEDOM
possibility of choice, perceived necessity, boundaries of freedom:
Rights and freedoms of other people
responsibility +
patterns of natural and
human social environment
2. What is a free society
So, in the previous chapter we saw how differently, sometimes diametrically opposed, the concept of “freedom” is interpreted. Reflecting on different approaches, accepting some and unconditionally rejecting others, we agree that truly free activity cannot exist in the absence of choice. Freedom means the state of a person who is able to act in all important matters on the basis of choice. What kind of society can provide such a choice?
It is obvious that societies where arbitrariness and tyranny of individuals or groups of the population dominate, where the rule of law is violated, where the state exercises complete (total) control over the lives of its fellow citizens, cannot in any way be classified as free. Does this mean that only a society where state intervention in the life of an individual will be minimal will be free?
There are many supporters of this point of view. In the economic sphere of such a society, free enterprise based on the principles of competition reigns; in the political sphere, there is a diversity of political parties, political pluralism, and democratic principles of government. This is a free-thinking society. And the point here is not that everyone has the right to say or write whatever they want, but that any idea can be discussed. This process of interaction between people with different knowledge and different points of view is the basis for the development of thought. People's lives are regulated only by democratically accepted laws and generally accepted moral standards. However, not everyone accepts this model of a free society. Some scientists and politicians, expressing the sentiments of a certain part of the population, believe that such unlimited individualism is not good for people.
True freedom involves more than just government non-interference in people's lives. Self-realization of a person is based not only on individual, but also on joint experience, a joint search for solutions, and the creation of a common good. Therefore, freedom is complemented by cooperation, responsibility, justice, i.e. all the values that society should provide. Thus, supporters of this concept believe that the role of society is more significant than they try to imagine. By uniting into a community, people acquire not only new values, but also collective protection, which is sometimes extremely necessary for them.
The state must also play a certain regulatory role. It not only creates and supports institutions that guarantee the freedom of citizens, but must take care of the equal distribution of income and prevent a deepening between the poor and the rich. The ideal of freedom must be complemented by social justice. It is also important that citizens themselves guarantee each other’s freedom by conscientiously performing their civic duties.
Thus, the situation of choice develops not only in the “space” of each person’s personal life. As we know, it also occurs at the level of society as a whole. This is especially evident in the so-called transitional eras. According to a number of researchers, such eras potentially contain a whole range of directions – alternatives – for further development. Which of them will be supported, for example, by the country’s leadership, can significantly affect the life of the entire society. So the choice in this case is associated with a very high responsibility. Examples of such situations and the consequences of decisions made have been preserved for us by the history of the distant and recent past.
Human freedom in all its manifestations is the basis of modern democratic regimes. In modern society, a tendency towards expanding human freedom is becoming more and more clear.
Conclusion
The problem of personal freedom is one of the pressing problems of our time. Liberty- this is the state of a person who is able to act in all important matters on the basis of choice. Freedom of the individual- this is the most important human value; without freedom, human self-realization is impossible.
Philosophers approach the understanding of the word “freedom” from different positions. Fatalist theologians viewed human life through the prism of divine predestination. In this sense, everything that happens to a person was interpreted as a fatal inevitability - idea of freedom as a form of one’s own behavior, the possibility of conscious choice of goals and means of activity was rejected. Currently in philosophy personal freedom is considered as a historical, social and moral imperative, a criterion for the development of individuality and a reflection of the level of development of society. At the same time, freedom is traditionally viewed in its relationship with necessity.
The contrast between the philosophical concepts of “freedom” and “necessity” has been a stumbling block for thinkers for over two thousand years.
« Freedom is a recognized necessity“- these words belong to the German philosopher Hegel. Everything in the world is subject to forces that act immutably, inevitably - these forces also subordinate human activity.
Different views on this problem are reconciled by the point of view according to which necessity is considered as the impossibility of people changing the objective socio-economic conditions of their life, but at the same time they have significant freedom in choosing the goals and means of their activities. Hence, personal freedom in society certainly exists, but it has not absolute rather than relative .
There can be no absolute, unlimited freedom, because complete freedom for one would mean arbitrariness in relation to the other. 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 for the rights of others .
In addition to objective natural necessity, a person is encouraged to act one way and not another and certain social conditions. There are norms of morality and law, traditions and public opinion. Taking into account these rules, a person acts and acts, makes certain decisions. What kind of society can provide freedom to a person, as the right to choose? Societies where arbitrariness and tyranny reign, where the rule of law is violated, and where the state exercises total control over the lives of fellow citizens cannot be classified as free. Freedom can only be ensured by a society where democratic principles exist. Thus, society, social conditions are a necessary condition for individual freedom.
However, we must not forget about the inner freedom of a person, his spiritual self-determination (freedom of spirit, human power over his body and soul). If a person’s life is predetermined by a necessity external to him, then where is true freedom and can a person in this case be responsible for his actions? The main thing is not what the external circumstances of a person’s life are, what is important is how they are refracted in his consciousness, how a person projects himself into the world, what goals he sets for himself, what meaning and significance he gives to the surrounding reality? Conclusion: human activity cannot receive its goals from the outside; nothing external to consciousness can motivate it, a person is completely free in his inner life. A truly free person himself chooses not only an action, but also its grounds, the general principles of his actions which acquire the character of beliefs. Personal freedom, therefore, in the most direct way associated with human responsibility- a conscious attitude, the willingness of an individual to be responsible for himself, for all his affairs and actions, in response to demands made by society, a group, and other individuals.
Thus, freedom is multifaceted; we can talk about external (freedom “from”) and internal (freedom “for”) to act not under coercion, but according to one’s desires, to independently make choices and actions. In any case, it should be remembered that freedom refers not only to what a person lives, but also to how he lives; not only the fact that he exercises freedom, but also the fact that he does it freely.
Bibliography
1. Bogolyubov, L.N. Social studies: textbook. for 11th grade: profile. level / L.N. Bogolyubov, A.Yu. Lazebnikova, A.T. Kinkulkin et al.; edited by L.N. Bogolyubova and others - M.: Education, 2008. - 415 p.
2. Bogolyubov, L.N. Human and society. Social science. Textbook for students of 10-11 grades. general education institutions. At 2 o'clock / L.N. Bogolyubov, L.F. Ivanova, A.Yu. Lazebnikova and others; Ed. L.N. Bogolyubova, A.Yu. Lazebnikova. - M.: Education, 2002. - 270 p.
3. Klimenko A.V. Social studies: Textbook. / A.V. Klimenko, V.V. Romanian. – M.: Bustard, 2004. - 199 p.
Bogolyubov, L.N. Human and society. Social science. Textbook for students of 10-11 grades. general education institutions. In 2 parts, part 1 / Ed. L.N. Bogolyubova, A.Yu. Lazebnikova. - M.: Education, 2002. - P.218.
Berdyaev N.A. About slavery and human freedom. Experience of personalistic metaphysics / Berdyaev N.A. - M.: Respublika, 1995. – P.175.
Rotterdam E. Philosophical works. Martin Luther. About the slavery of will / E. Rotterdam. - M.: Nauka, 1987. - P.461.
Engels F. Anti-Dühring / K. Marx, F. Engels // Collected Works T.20. – M.: Mysl, 1995. - P.116.
Schopenhauer A. Free will and morality / A. Schopenhauer. - M.: Republic, 1992. – P.158.
