Does absolute freedom have limits? Hypotheses and misconceptions that modern man should know about. Initial need and ultimate goal

Absolute freedom

Dreams of absolute freedom of the individual have been diligently cultivated throughout most of the history of world civilization by a variety of thinkers. In fact, every philosopher talked about the essence of freedom and its purpose. Some found freedom impossible, others harmful, others considered it achievable only under certain conditions.

As a result of these philosophical disputes, which usually affect the organization of state government, a strong conviction arose in society that absolute human freedom is possible in principle. Through revolutions or social reforms, sooner or later one can come to the establishment of individual freedom in the state, up to the liquidation of the state itself as an obstacle to maximum liberation.

Most likely, the widespread support for the idea of ​​absolute freedom is due to its external attractiveness and temptation. If, however, to abandon pleasant illusions and consider this idea from a critical standpoint, then its significant shortcomings will be revealed.

It is incomprehensible how a person can gain freedom from his body. It is hard to imagine freedom from conscience, responsibility, duties, discipline. Such freedom causes untold harm to the “free man” himself and to those around him. In the light of these facts, the possibility of absolute freedom seems doubtful.

The absolute implies abstraction, but freedom is never abstract. It is invariably concrete, correlated with a certain situation, and therefore relative. If in some conditions the restriction of freedom is nothing more than a simple restriction and oppression, then in another situation it is the only way to expand human capabilities. It is no coincidence that the well-known writer and scientist I. A. Efremov put into the mouth of one of the heroines of his novel “The Hour of the Bull” the assertion that the desire for the absolute has always been the biggest mistake of man. The writer saw in the future of mankind a rejection of absolute freedom.

So, absolute freedom is impossible, a person will always remain a prisoner of something. However, it is not uncommon to hear of pleasant slavery. For example, love is called "sweet captivity", and it is difficult to doubt the correctness of these words. There are many similar situations when a person finds himself in a kind of captivity, but at the same time does not try to gain freedom, because it is in this state that he feels like a real person.

In other words, you can gain enough freedom to stop being a despicable slave. But at the same time, there is no need to strive for an illusory absolute. Outstanding thinkers of the past sought to determine the acceptable limits of individual freedom.

In the era of antiquity, simultaneously with the flourishing of slave-owning democracy, freedom was understood as equality in rights and before the law. A person in a democratic polis has ample opportunities to engage in arts, gymnastics, philosophize, run a household, and trade.

The founder of democracy, Solon, believed that freedom opposed slavery and that a truly free person could not work under duress. The Athenian strategist Pericles, under whom Hellenic democracy reached its highest point of development, considered the most serious achievement of his policy to give people the freedom to do interesting and favorite things and at the same time to improve spiritually, to show their talents to the maximum.

Ancient Greek thinkers believed that only democracy can give a person true freedom.

In the ancient world, there were heated debates about freedom and democracy between thinkers, each of whom understood the essence of free life and democratic government in his own way. The Sophists, whose philosophy preceded the ideas of the Socratic stage, were supporters of democracy, believing that it alone gives a person real freedom. Some sophists, including Alcides and Antiphon, demanded the expansion of democratic foundations and the abolition of slavery. A free life was understood as clothed with civic duties, but in no way slavish. Alcides stated that "nature did not make anyone a slave", therefore, he contrasted the slavery invented by man with the natural order of things.

Socrates, who believed in the need to influence the will of the people in politics, opposed democracy because he considered it a decadent regime. He was dissatisfied with the electoral system and the regime's use of merchant support, as commerce "destroys the soul." Plato called the republican aristocracy the ideal state and also criticized the democratic regime.

Aristotle was the first to accurately describe the shortcomings of democracy. The philosopher opposed what is now called ochlocracy - the power of an ignorant crowd, which is manipulated behind the scenes by swindlers and rhetoricians from politics. Aristotle considered the ideal state structure to be a polytea (polity), in which an extensive class of average owners rules. In general, the polytea copies the positive aspects of the public life of Athens under Pericles.

In Europe, during the bourgeois revolutions and the formation of the institutions of capitalist democracy, slogans demanding freedom were first clearly heard in England in the 16th-17th centuries. and France in 1789–1793. Freedom was understood in the broadest sense, although mostly the people demanded political freedoms. People longed for freedom of voice, action, religion, freedom from monarchism, and even freedom of mind. Freedom of mind meant freedom from church ideology, the opportunity to engage in science on the positions of atheism.

The ideas of anarchy as a policy of absolute freedom even at the turn of the XVIII-XIX centuries. have not yet taken over society. The thinkers and ideologists of the new (bourgeois) democracy for the most part did not oppose the state, did not demand liberation from state power. However, at the same time, prominent economists in different countries, such as A. Smith, subsequently (XVIII-XIX centuries) advocated the need for freedom of enterprise, which consists in limiting state intervention in the economy.

If the state stops dictating its conditions to producers, then the market will automatically, through self-regulation through competition and the play of supply and demand, come to a stable state. The call of economists, expressing the sentiments of the capitalists, received the French name lassez faire - "let it go as it goes." Often this principle is translated as "do not interfere with action."

The origins of these ideas go back to the teachings of T. Hobbes and J. Locke on natural law and the contractual state. According to these teachings, people are naturally endowed with various rights that they intend to exercise. But if everyone begins to consider only their own rights, then there will be a war of all against all. To prevent this from happening, people agreed that they would retain their basic rights, while the rest would restrict in the interests of each other.

Fundamental rights, equal for all people without exception, society has secured in its laws. Hobbes was convinced that enlightened absolutism was the most correct regime, while Locke relied on a constitutional monarchy. French educator and encyclopedist J.-J. Rousseau developed and deepened the theory of the social contract, along the way explaining the content of the true meaning of freedom, which was defined as "obedience to the law that we ourselves have established."

Following the logic of Rousseau, it is necessary to recognize that a person, entering into a social contract, significantly limits his individual freedom. The educator himself was sure that a person simply loses it. But in return, they acquire civil liberty and the right to own everything that this person possesses. Rousseau did not oppose private property as such, but criticized only the large property of feudal aristocrats and capitalist oligarchs, thereby expressing the interests of the petty bourgeoisie and the poor.

During the revolutionary events in France, the main elements of liberal democracy were formed, which were embodied in the "Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen". Adopted on August 28, 1789, this document served as the first printed propaganda of the ideas of liberalism. The failure of the revolutionary upheavals in France marked the collapse of bourgeois democracy in the form of liberal ideology, which turned out to be disgraced in the full sense of the word. Just as it was in ancient times, democracy was considered by many to be a dead end path of political development.

Symbol of freedom on the Parisian barricades by E. Delacroix

According to the apt expression of E. Frome, the world began "flight from freedom", which formed two currents. The first was represented by right-wing conservatives who insisted on the revival of the aristocracy. Right ideologues were represented by A. Tocqueville and E. Burke. The English economist A. Pyg subjected liberalism to pejorative criticism, arguing that a democratic regime turns any country into an "assistance state", i.e., a dependent state.

The second trend was represented by left-wing political doctrines, in which the idea of ​​the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat sounded more and more clearly. K. Marx was the leading exponent of the ideas of the left current. He completely denied the possibility of a "pure" democracy, since it is a regime that only increases the possibilities of the ruling class. The concept of democracy in Marxism is opposed to democracy, which "does not contradict dictatorship and individual personality" (V. I. Lenin).

End of the 19th century marked by the triumph of far from liberalism Marxist and anarchist views on the freedom of the individual. The followers of K. Marx, like the followers of M. A. Bakunin, were inclined to believe that the state is an instrument of dictatorship and oppression, and therefore in the future it will be in the historical museum on a par with a stone ax.

But the Marxists were more sensible about the essence of freedom than the Bakuninists and other anarchists, since they called for the immediate destruction of the state in the course of a social revolution. Marxism reasonably concentrates on class exploitation as a restriction on the freedom of the working masses. In general, this doctrine recognizes the political freedom of the majority, in contrast to the pro-bourgeois doctrines that preached economic freedom for enterprising people.

In the first half of the 20th century, in response to the social upheavals brought by the two world wars, many fundamentally new teachings about the freedom of the individual and the freedom of peoples in general were born in the West. As a result, by the end of the 20th century many models of democratic government have been developed, and variants of liberal democratic systems have proven to be the most effective. Today it is obvious to most philosophers that there is no freedom outside of society and without society.

Freedom outside the state is also impossible, since the state machine ensures the regulation of various social processes. Man, as Aristotle said, is "a social being, a political animal." Nature itself has programmed us to strive to interact with society as efficiently as possible. Democratic political systems are most suited to this goal because they provide legitimacy to the political system and promote the active participation of the people in the formation, management of the state, and control of the elected government.

The Acropolis of Athens - a symbol of Hellenic freedom

The main forms of democratic regime developed by society are called plebiscitary and representative democracy. Plebiscitary, or direct, democracy is based on the principle of mandatory direct participation of the people in making the most important political decisions. The functions of representative bodies of power are reduced to a minimum, however, as is the number of these bodies themselves. At the same time, the power is maximally controlled by society, and this primarily applies to representative bodies. The positive side of this form of democracy is that it promotes the development of political activity and ensures the legitimacy of power.

Representative, or representative, democracies are found in many more countries, including Russia. State government, according to the concept of this regime, is representative. In other words, it is carried out by elected persons representing the interests of a particular group of their voters in the authorities. It must be competent and fully responsible to society. The participation of other citizens in governance is allowed, but it has many restrictions, since the law provides for the necessary fullness of power functions only for people's representatives.

Today there are very few countries that would not proclaim democratic principles as the basis of their domestic policy. Be that as it may, democracy is understood differently in different countries, in accordance with the political views prevailing in society.

Scientists distinguish two central trends in the development of the public administration system in our era. Regardless of the fact that the country declares itself democratic, its management system can be either etatist or de-etatist, that is, directly opposite in terms of the orientation of management methods.

Etatism (fr. etat - state) is expressed in strengthening the role of the state and state structures in the life of society. De-etatism, or anti-etatism, comes down to limiting state intervention in the lives of citizens. As a trend in the domestic political development of the country, etatism and de-etatism have certain advantages, and therefore are chosen in accordance with the current situation.

The right choice determines the progressive development of democracy, the preservation of its institutions and the strengthening of statehood as a whole. The etatist trend is beneficial when, under the current conditions, the needs of society are directed to the need to mitigate social confrontations, eliminate stagnation in the public sector economy, and establish control over negative spontaneous processes in society and the economy.

The deetatist trend is beneficial when its choice is driven by social needs to combat bureaucratization, to limit the expansion of the public sector of the economy to the detriment of the private sector, and to increase the political activity of citizens and provide them with greater opportunities for self-government.

An incorrectly chosen line of development leads to the fact that the trend turns out to be detrimental to the democratic regime. De-etatism results in the growth of anarchist sentiments in society, and statism leads to the infringement of the private sector of the economy, limiting the independence of citizens and paternalism as an ostentatious concern for workers.

Thus, democracy can easily degenerate into authoritarianism, ochlocracy, plutocracy and other decadent regimes in which the civil freedom of the individual is limited in every possible way. In order to maintain the viability of the democratic regime and its most important institutions, it is necessary to create suitable conditions for this. The latter differ in content, methods and principles into three groups. Firstly, these are socio-political conditions, which necessarily include civil society and the rule of law.

Civil society is a collection of real citizens who actively participate in the political life of the country and maintain public order primarily through their own efforts. The rule of law is a jurocracy (the rule of law) that guarantees a wide range of rights and freedoms to citizens.

Conditions for the Existence of Democracy

Secondly, the condition for the existence of democracy is the culture of citizens (especially political and legal) as a guarantee of the successful construction of civil society.

Thirdly, specific economic conditions: stable and progressively developing commodity production, pluralism of forms of ownership (state, cooperative, municipal, private), and also, according to some political scientists and economists, free competition of commodity producers. Economic freedom is important because democracy itself is to some extent a "political market" in which various parties compete.

It often happens that one comes across the opinion that the restriction of freedom in the state is easy to calculate by the nature of the government of the country - prohibitive or liberal. In this case, the prohibition is defined by the formula "everything is prohibited, except for what is expressly permitted." Liberalism, which should not be confused with liberalism, implies following the formula "everything is allowed except what is expressly prohibited."

In fact, the use of these formulas can lead to a dead end, since the very assessment of the correctness of the trend in the development of the regime, based on such reasoning, is categorically wrong. A truly sensible political administration invariably shows rigidity in those matters where absolutely everything should be prohibited, except for what is expressly permitted. Consequently, freedom is not philistine liberalism based on the principle of permissiveness. Freedom is the exact knowledge of a conscious citizen and member of society, what can and cannot be done.

Group 1: Vlasovets Christina, Dzidziguri Tamara, Kapustina Yanina, Kobeleva Christina, Pyatkova Daria, Shafikova Yana.

Freedom in human activity

Freedom is the independence of social and political subjects (including the individual), expressed in their ability and opportunity to make their own choice and act in accordance with their interests and goals.

Freedom of the individual is undoubtedly an important value for civilized mankind. The desire for freedom permeates the entire history of mankind. The category of freedom is one of the central themes of philosophical reasoning. Almost all political leaders vow to lead the masses they lead to true freedom, but each puts his own meaning into this concept. ( Pyatkova Daria)

1 . A person cannot be absolutely free. Freedom is above all respect for the freedom of another.

A free man observes the laws of society, he himself does not violate
ethics in interpersonal relationships. One of the limiters here is the rights and freedoms of other people. There has always been a certain structure. (Tribal, state, etc.), and a person had to obey the rules. For example:The Aztec tribe, the social system of the Indians were divided into castes of free people and slaves. Slaves could be not only prisoners of war, but also debtors who fell into slavery, as well as poor people who sold themselves and their families. But those so-called "free people" were subordinate to their master and carried out all his orders.

People have always strived for freedom, but they have always understood that there can be no absolute, unlimited freedom. First of all, by the fact that the complete freedom of one would mean arbitrariness in relation to the other. We can give an example from our days: some person wanted to smoke in a public place. Lighting a cigarette, he fulfilled his desire, acted freely. But his freedom in this case, infringed on the rights of other people. (Vlasovets Christina).

2. Every person can say thoughtlessly - yes. But to become free means to renounce all laws, traditions, completely clear the mind and free oneself from one's weaknesses.

People should have the right to freedom of thought, speech and press. Every opinion that exists in society must be respected. A person who boldly expresses what he thinks can certainly be called free. Even if his thoughts are wrong. To be free is to be able to make your own decisions. In general, one must strive to become free, within one's capabilities, from habits, from fears, from stupidities, from weaknesses.(Jijiguri Tamara).

3. "I live in a society of absolute freedom."

Absolute freedom is a state when a person is completely free, becomes the creator of his life. In addition, this absence of any restrictions and constraints is permissiveness. But in our society there are limits. There are things that a person chooses himself (there are few of them), but in most cases a person is guided by various factors that contribute to the decision and actions of a person. For example: the choice of religion, the choice of a future profession, the choice of products in the store (but not without the participation of various factors). A person independently embarks on the path that he considers necessary. Example: in the future, he needs a profitable profession in a certain area, he will strive to get what he wants and achieve results on his own, without anyone's help, as a free person, because he himself made the choice - to earn well. Also, at the birth of a child, parents come up with a name on their own, without a strict parting word from the state. Coming to the store, we ourselves decide what to buy: what kind of bread to buy (white or black), which manufacturer, etc. But in the end, there are very few actions that a person performs without any restrictions. To use the same examples: everyone needs a profitable profession in order to ensure their existence in the future. Based on this, if a person does not work on himself, forcing himself to fulfill the assigned duties, he will not achieve results, he will not be able to provide for himself, therefore he does not have the opportunity to do or not do what is required of him. Coming to the store provides the need to purchase the right products. We would be happy to spend money on something else that our heart desires, but our body requires food, therefore a person wants, does not want, but goes. There are many such contradictions, which, by all their consequences, indicate that a person does not have absolute freedom. Thus, there will almost always be restrictions that prevent a person's absolute freedom. There are a number of contradictions: why can freedom for one person mean violence for another person? Why will freedom always depend on other factors? And this contradicts the very concept of freedom. ( Kapustina Yanina).

4. Determine the reasons for the impossibility of the existence of absolute freedom.

No matter how much people strive for freedom, they understand that there can be no absolute freedom. one)Complete freedom of one would mean arbitrariness in relation to the other.2) A person cannot be absolutely free.One of the restrictions is the rights and freedoms of other people.The individual is absolutely free in his inner life. => Man cannot be free from society. All our lives we have restrictions on freedom: education, work, the upbringing of our children and the rules of behavior in society.Every individual is endowed with a certain degree of freedom. However, when realizing his interests, he must take into account the interests of other individuals - the same members of society as he is. This is the restriction of the freedom of the individual to a certain extent. Freedom is the ability and possibility of a consciously-volitional choice by an individual of his behavior. It implies a certain independence of a person from external conditions and circumstances. 4) Freedom is always relative, that islimited to certain limits.For example, the rules of conduct in society, compliance with laws. If we are completely free and do what we want, then we will subsequently receive either an administrative violation or a criminal punishment.We are constantly subject to the laws that exist in our country. 5)The goals of human activity are formulated in accordance with the inner motives of each person.Freedom is inseparable from responsibility, from obligations to society and its other members.

Human freedom in all its manifestations is the basis of modern democratic regimes, the main value of liberalism. It finds expression in the legislative consolidation of the fundamental rights and freedoms of a citizen in the constitutions of states, in international pacts and declarations. In modern society, a tendency to expand human freedom is more and more clearly revealed.(Kobeleva Kristina).

5 . The Parable of Buridan's Ass.

1) The problem of Buridan's donkey is that it was easy or impossible to solve this problem. Two bundles of hay were exactly the same, but the donkey could not choose, because, choosing one haystack, he lost the other. The greed of the mind killed the donkey, because he wanted two piles of hay at once. However, refusing treats can also be considered a choice.

If you look at this problem logically, then any sane donkey will not starve to death, although it is impossible to guess which mop he will choose. Perhaps he will choose one haystack, and then, when it runs out, he will spread to another.

Thus, the donkey will never choose the third option (starvation), because it is worse than the other options.

2) The parable tells us that it is easier to give up everything than to own only half. A part less than a whole has ruined many talented people. Having reached one, a person rarely stops, he needs more and more. This tells us about the impossibility of freedom. ( Shafikova Yana).

absolute freedom?

What is freedom? Have you ever wondered about this question? Let's digress a little from the topic of marketing and think about it.

Absolutely free man

freedom - an idea that reflects such an attitude of the subject to his actions, in which he is their determining cause, and they are not directly conditioned by natural, social, interpersonal-communicative and individual-generic factors.

In high school, starting from the 5th grade, I was one of the leaders of the volunteer detachment, and there, of course, we analyzed such a thing as “freedom”. At that time, I understood by this word only the phenomenon of “absolute freedom”.

I thought about this issue for a long time and, at that moment, I came to the conclusion that only the monarch or emperor has absolute freedom.

But absolute freedom is freedom completely from everything, right? This includes laws, morality, physical needs and much more. But the ruler is undoubtedly also a man, therefore, he is not free at least from physical needs.

From this we can conclude that absolute freedom does not exist. It is possessed only by God Himself and no one else.

Does freedom of speech exist?

The freedom of a person in the modern world is similar to the freedom of a person solving a crossword puzzle: theoretically, he can enter any word, but in fact he must enter only one in order for the crossword puzzle to be solved.

Albert Einstein

I think many people know about such a form of freedom as freedom of speech. In some countries it is allowed less, in some more. This is a consequence of the fact that in any state there are restrictions on morality, but everywhere they are different.

For example, France, a country where the border of freedom of speech is quite wide.

The news was about what happened in Paris, it happened on January 7, 2015, very recently. Three masked men with machine guns and grenade launchers attacked the editorial office of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo (“Charlie Hebdo”).

The reason for this was several cartoons released that insulted Islamic beliefs. These cartoons were released despite long-standing warnings from the Muslim population of Paris.

Here, of course, freedom of speech is shown, but it is also clearly seen that such a wide framework can lead to disastrous consequences.

Take, for example, our great country, Russia. In our law it is forbidden to offend confessions. Accordingly, we do not have such situations. So sometimes limited freedom of speech is much better and safer than unlimited.

How beautiful is the United State!

Sheep people do not like freedom, even if they bleat about it all day. Even if they sing or pray for her, if she becomes their main desire, their cherished dream. Deep down they know that if they get it, nothing good will come of it.

Bernard Werber

An absolutely free person does not accept any moral values, therefore, he does not have any rules of conduct, his any interaction with the outside world turns into a “catastrophe”. But what if there is not one such person, but hundreds, thousands, millions? What would our planet be like then?

As an example, I would like to cite Yevgeny Zamyatin's dystopia "We". The protagonist, D-503, at the very beginning of the work spoke about how wonderful the United State is and how good it is to live in captivity, because there are no violations, no arbitrariness.

Those who refused to obey were publicly executed and a great feast was held on this day. Everything was created there in order to make it easier to observe order, it was impossible to retire anywhere in your cell, because it was made of glass.

Absolutely everything was on schedule and documents, nothing more than what was permitted could not be done. Only the Benefactor was absolutely free.

After D-503 had a soul and fell in love with I-330, his world changed. He gradually ceased to obey "non-freedom", broke more and more rules, helped to generate a revolution. In his diaries, in addition to the usual description of what happened, he said how good it would be if the revolution happened and everything returned to the old "savage" order.

But he was still afraid that it might not work out. Actually, that's how it happened. The uprising resulted in many casualties, and the little freedom that people had (personal watches and fantasy) was completely destroyed by the "Great Operation". They made robots out of people who did not doubt their Benefactor and the United State.

After such a zeal for freedom, the life of the state only worsened. Without the imagination of the developers, new technologies will not be able to be produced and the state will be destroyed.

What is freedom?

Freedom consists in being dependent only on laws

Voltaire

Everyone has the right to choose their education, life partner, work and much more. That is, we can say that he has the freedom to choose his actions and the further development of life.

His freedom of choice is limited only by the law of a particular country in which the individual lives. Simply put, a “free” person, according to modern concepts, is a person who is not limited by anything but the law.

From the foregoing, we can conclude that there was not, is not, and never will be absolute freedom. Freedom can manifest itself only in a constant choice (what to do, what to say, write, and so on), and it is limited by law.

There is no other way, because then arbitrariness will reign in the world and nothing will remain of humanity at such a pace. I think people will continue to strive for such a system of the state, which will keep it within the framework, so as not to destroy the country because of "excessive freedom."

Most likely, it will be an autocracy. Freedoms will continue to be limited, but power is concentrated in the hands of one person, and when issuing laws, the opinions of different segments of the population will be taken into account, which is quite beneficial.

What do you think about freedom? What freedom do you think is best?

1.2 Why freedom cannot be absolute. Limits of freedom

No matter how people strive for freedom, they understand that there can be no absolute, unlimited freedom. You cannot live in a society and be absolutely free from it. First of all, because the complete freedom of 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 at night wanted to listen to loud music. Turning on the tape recorder at full power, the person fulfilled his desire, 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's pay attention to one more side of the issue. Such freedom would mean for a person unlimited choice, 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. Not deciding which armful to prefer, the donkey starved to death.

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 its inner life the individual is absolutely free. He himself chooses not only a variant of activity, but also formulates general principles of behavior, looks for their foundations. 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 inner motives of each person. Such freedom can only be limited by the rights and freedoms of other people. Awareness of this by the person himself is necessary. Freedom is inseparable from responsibility, from obligations to society and its other members.

Consequently, the freedom of the individual in society, of course, exists, but it is not absolute, but relative. All democratically oriented legal documents proceed from this relativity of freedom.

That is why the Declaration of the United Nations "On 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 relationship between the freedom and responsibility of the individual is directly proportional: the more freedom society gives a person, the greater his responsibility for the use of this freedom. Otherwise, anarchy, destructive for the social system, turns the social order into social chaos.

Thus, a person cannot be absolutely free, and one of the restrictions here is the rights and freedoms of other people.

With all the differences in the above points of view, it is clear that it is, of course, possible to ignore the need, the prevailing circumstances, the conditions of activity, and the stable trends in human development, but this will be, as they say, “more expensive for yourself”. But there are such restrictions that most people cannot put up with and are waging a stubborn struggle against them. These are various forms of social and political arbitrariness; rigid class and caste structures that drive a person into a strictly defined cell of the social grid; tyrannical states, where the life of the majority is subject to the will of a few or even one, etc. There is no place for freedom or it appears in an extremely curtailed form.

For all the importance of taking into account the external factors of freedom and its boundaries, even more important, according to many thinkers, is internal freedom. 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 outside forces for everything.”

Thus, the goals of human activity must be formulated in accordance with the inner motives of each person. The boundary of such freedom can only be the rights and freedoms of other people. Freedom can be won, 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 will - but at the same time without oppressing others, without restricting 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 substitution of one of them for another has been a stumbling block for thinkers for more than two millennia.

The philosophical solution to the problem of the relationship between freedom and the need for the activity and behavior of the individual is of great practical importance for assessing all the actions of people. If people do not have freedom, but act only out of necessity, then the question of their responsibility for their behavior loses its meaning.

Different views on this problem are reconciled by the point of view according to which necessity is seen as the impossibility of changing by people the objective socio-economic conditions of their life, but at the same time they have considerable freedom in choosing the goals and means of their activities.

Freedom as a recognized 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 the expression of his free will. 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 predestined for them. What then is the freedom of man? She is not. “The foresight and omnipotence of God 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 of free will, but everything depends on the foreknowledge of God,” argued the religious reformer Luther. This position is advocated by the supporters of absolute predestination.

In contrast to this view, other religious leaders suggest such an interpretation of the relationship between Divine predestination and human freedom, i.e. God conceived the universe in such a way that all creation would have a great gift - freedom. Freedom, first of all, means the possibility of choosing between good and evil, moreover, a choice given independently, on the basis of one's own decision. Of course, God can destroy evil and death in an instant. But at the same time He would simultaneously deprive the world and freedom. Consequently, the World itself must return to God, since it itself departed from Him.

The concept of "necessity" can have another meaning. Necessity, according to a number of philosophers, exists in nature and society in the form of objective, i.e. independent of human consciousness, laws. In other words, necessity is an expression of a natural, objectively determined course of development of events. Supporters of this position, unlike fatalists, of course, do not believe that everything in the world is rigidly and unambiguously defined, they do not deny the existence of accidents. But the general regular line of development, deviated by accidents in one direction or another, will still make its way.

Let's turn to examples. Earthquakes are known to occur periodically in seismically hazardous areas. People who do not know this circumstance or ignore it, building their homes in this area, may be victims of a dangerous element. In the same case, when this fact is taken into account in the construction of, for example, earthquake-resistant buildings, the probability of risk will sharply decrease. In a generalized form, the presented position can be expressed in the words of F. Engels: “Freedom lies not in the imaginary independence from the laws of nature, but in the knowledge of these laws and in the possibility, based on this knowledge, to systematically force the laws of nature to act for certain goals.”

Thus, the interpretation of freedom as a recognized necessity presupposes the comprehension and consideration by a person of the objective limits of his activity, as well as the expansion of these limits due to the development of knowledge, the enrichment of experience.

- Absolute freedom and complete permissiveness

Freedom is a very complex philosophical concept, which in any case will always remain a myth. We will seek a reasonable understanding of FREEDOM, therefore we will immediately call it absolute, that is, ideal freedom for all people. We will first of all proceed from the fact that ABSOLUTE FREEDOM is the absence of any restrictions and constraints, which we can express in words: everything is possible. However, we immediately understand that when everything is possible, we are talking about COMPLETE PERMISSIBILITY, if you want licentiousness and self-will. Thus, ABSOLUTE FREEDOM - this is COMPLETE PERMISSIBILITY. Although intuitively any person will say that COMPLETE PERMISSIBILITY is something not just bad, but sometimes terrible and inhuman. Take the existing political system. What kind of freedom do we have in a democratic state? Can we say that there are laws? No. When people recognize money above all values, the law is sold and bought, as well as honor, and dignity, and love, and friendship, as principles and beliefs, stereotypes, knowledge, decency and freedom. But all this is also bought, because each person begins to doubt that it is possible to value anything higher than himself and the benefits that he seems to be worthy of. As a result, people believe that money gives them freedom, but in fact, money brings promiscuity, cynicism and indifference. In addition, they are able to completely change the stereotype of thinking in any person who changes beyond recognition as soon as he becomes the owner of even not very large sums. This happens because the consciousness that concentrates on money sees in them the meaning and benefit for themselves and the body. Therefore, it may neglect previous values ​​if they contradict a new, more convenient form of existence. Modern states are designed so that to live in them
worthy, without having money, it is almost impossible.
A person in such a state becomes dependent on the existing order and is forced to find ways to survive. It is precisely the fact that it is very difficult to survive in society without struggle and constant tension and is the cause of increased irritation and exacerbation of selfishness. As a consequence, we have the freedom to earn our living. Any methods flourish here, including those that have nothing to do with the concepts of a person, a person, and even an individual. This is COMPLETE PERMISSIBILITY. COMPLETE PERMISSIBILITY is unlimited freedom from any social and human norms and rules. Here we say that the state and the governing bodies of society are helpless to change anything, moreover, the dependence of the state on the money in the hands of people deprives the state of any meaning. Thus, those who are in power are only forced to defend themselves from the encroachments of those who want to take this power away from them. Let's return to the concepts of ABSOLUTE FREEDOM - COMPLETE PERMISSIBILITY. We will call ABSOLUTE FREEDOM, the freedom of a person's consciousness from anything: logic, feelings, instincts, opinions of other people, stereotypes of thinking and selfishness. ABSOLUTE FREEDOM is the freedom to choose and determine the individual's place in society, the freedom to do anything for people, finding impeccable solutions aimed at striving for the perfection of oneself and the people around. Let's go into the contexts of human formations. Capitalism, as a monetary system, gives only the illusion of freedom, because everything depends on money, and some are not free, because they have money, while others, because they do not even have the opportunity to have it. Socialism also gave only the illusion of freedom, firstly, because there was money there too, which caused inequality among people, and secondly, because the state limited freedom, constantly directing people's consciousness to the wrong place. Communism is generally an incomprehensible system. It existed as a goal, but no one had any idea about it. We went to the victory of communism, not knowing where we were going and whom we were defeating. It was an illusion of purpose.
Absolute freedom will be determined by the concept of meaning and general meaning.
Today we have chaos, because everyone invents a meaning for himself and changes it at his own discretion, if conditions change. For example, a person can devote his life to revenge for his murdered father, or maybe skating. Here, the narrowness of consciousness is the result of illiterate upbringing, parents should tell the child the meaning, and society should be interested in parents correctly determining the meaning of their children and comparing it with the general meaning.
The reason for COMPLETE PERMISSIBILITY is, of course, a reflex and an incorrect understanding of freedom.

In the existing context, a person considers freedom that he can choose for himself, what is important to him. Some devote their lives entirely to raising children, others to earning money, some spend their years in libraries, some in prisons, and some in monasteries. Can all this be called absolute freedom of choice? Take a man who spends his life in prison. Did he choose this path himself, or was it imposed on him by conditions? Let's consider as freedom such conditions in which any opportunities are available to us. For example, we initially have an apartment in order to live in it, the opportunity to live in isolation, in prison, and we also have access to money and conditions for raising children. Having all this already available, we make a free choice, and this choice can be considered ours. If we are in such conditions when nothing is available to us for various reasons, and we understand that all this will never be available also for various reasons, then our choice will depend not on our desires and not on our aspirations, but on the conditions we have. And here, permissiveness will be those paths that we choose in order to survive in the proposed conditions. And here a person can be infinitely inventive in finding means to achieve his goals, and society will have to put up with his ingenuity, adapting, sometimes to the absurd and contradictory facts of reality. As a result, the lack of freedom of choice is the main reason for COMPLETE PERMISSIBILITY.
But another reason for COMPLETE PERMISSIBILITY is that we do not set goals that are also imposed by the situation in which we live. For example, a person can devote his whole life to career growth and in this desire to miss his children, due to lack of time for their upbringing. Moreover, he is sure that a career is a more important matter in a person’s life than education, but rather he is sure of this because he manages to be an employee better than to be realized as a parent. And here his self-willed choice is selfish in relation to his own children, for whom he must bear responsibility already because he brought them into the world. Thus, first of all, desires and spiritual impulses make us unfree, that is, the inability to think rationally and control ourselves. Let's go into the context of the person who drives the vehicle. He rides alone and is asked for a ride by other people. The driver considers freedom of choice that he is free to choose whether to give them a ride or not. Here, his freedom is limited by selfish feelings and motives that force him to drive by and for a few more minutes mentally justify his choice logically or give him a ride and, giving him a ride, doubt that he is doing the right thing. The brain and consciousness bind us to our stereotype of thinking, which is never completely sure of itself, which means it is never free.
Is it possible to consider the presence of any restrictions in ABSOLUTE FREEDOM. Here we say that ABSOLUTE FREEDOM is reasonable freedom, when a person makes his own will and his own consciousness makes a choice that does not depend on anything but his own mind. If there is reason, then the choice will be reasonable, free and correct. If the choice is selfish, then we will consider it logical and not absolute. And this is PERMISSIBLE. A small child cannot make an independent choice. In any case, we will have to impose our idea of ​​reality on him. It is necessary to lay in him such a consciousness with which he would be able in the future to make independent decisions that would be reasonable both for himself and for those around him. By making mistakes in education, we run the risk of instilling a distorted understanding of all things in a person, which means that we make him dependent on an incorrect stereotype. In any case, there is no ABSOLUTE FREEDOM, there is only COMPLETE PERMISSIBILITY or dependence on an ideal stereotype and absolute consciousness.