Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
As always in the case of such questions, it is worth starting with the fact that freedom is usually divided into negative (freedom from) and positive (freedom for).
Let's start with the question of whether positive freedom can be unlimited — this means that a person has the opportunity and can do whatever he wants. Has the right to everything. It seems to me that this question was answered by Thomas Hobbes when he discussed the natural state.
For Hobbes, the state of nature is a theoretical situation where people are outside of any state or even society, and therefore they are not limited by laws, personal connections, general rules of behavior, or public morality. In other words, each person in such a situation has unlimited positive freedom. It is no accident that Hobbes calls the state of nature a war of all against all. The fact is that it immediately becomes obvious that one boundless positive freedom will contradict any other such freedom. Everyone who has this freedom will understand that not only can they do anything to their neighbors, but they can also do the same.
Can negative freedom be unlimited? This means that the person will be released from any kind of coercion. In other words, it won't do anything that it didn't decide to do itself. Such unlimited freedom is part of a libertarian utopia. What is a plus-the negative freedom of one person does not contradict the negative freedom of another. What is the disadvantage — there are not enough practical cases, in practice, even in developed countries, a person in the course of his life faces coercion and what can formally be considered as such. Yes, and immediately there are theoretical situations when people will massively refuse to work, vaccinations, secondary education, etc., justifying their decision with the right to unlimited negative freedom.
Nevertheless, a high level of negative freedom is a much more realistic personal and social goal than a high level of positive freedom.
To sum up, any kind of limitless freedom simply won't appeal to a large number of people. This is often why different political groups struggle not to increase freedom for their own group members, but to reduce freedom for members of other groups. Whatever the rhetoric. Such is realpolitik.
It depends on what kind of freedom she's talking about. In our time, it is customary to separate two understandings of freedom, as “freedom from” and “freedom for” – which Alexey correctly noted. Ignoring the principle of “freedom for” often becomes a platform for criticism of the liberal branch of ideologies that put” freedom from”, negative freedom, at the forefront.
In a situation of unlimited freedom “from”, a person has no prerequisites to make decisions. He finds himself in a situation in which he is not able to act, because decisions are made for some reason, but we are freed from these reasons, because they determine our choice, making it unfree! To argue against this, one must adopt the position of essentialism and postulate a universal “human nature” that will replace the contexts of oppression if they are destroyed. This, however, is very difficult to do in our era, because in many ways postmodern criticism is based precisely on the destruction of such a naive approach to understanding a person. Thus, unlimited “freedom from” is flawed, because it is, simply put, chaotic. And a person does not act randomly, but because of something and for something, and the reverse situation is impossible.
How can we combine these two types of freedom, and even think about them not in an abstract way, but practically, that is, as they are really given to a person? G. Hegel tried to give an answer to this question. As you might guess, Hegelian freedom is a synthesis of positive and negative freedom. This image of freedom presupposes that a person defines himself in a positive content, that he has moral boundaries, but this positive definition is not accidental, but is permeated by reason and in fact draws the foundations of his freedom from objective and rational principles. A person restricts himself to something external, but these restrictions become allied to him. In a sense, in this external world, man discovers an extension of himself. The limitation of self-will is not thought of as a limitation of one's will, but as a continuation of one's will. The voluntary restriction of one's will becomes a reflection of oneself.
The societies in which we live can impose their own traditions and customs on individuals, while preserving their freedom. If we recognize these limitations as something reasonable, as something that makes us like humans, then we recognize these external limitations as something that makes us more perfect. Therefore, such self-restriction of freedom appears justified.
A person's freedom is his choice, and if he chooses freedom, his inner freedom, then he is always free, free from everything. A person is born free and always is. We are not always aware of what freedom is, but we are always free. No law restricts you and only you limit yourself. You always have a choice and you always make it. Don't imply freedom and permissiveness. With respect.
Not a correct understanding of freedom. Usually, freedom is considered childishly as freedom from something. Freedom is an integral part of a deterministically existing Unified Reality. In fact, it has two qualities-the Freedom to Choose to Go up, and not to go down, which is expressed in O-Co-Knowledge, which is following the Necessity, the Purpose to Go up.
You can, of course, not go, continuing to live according to the animal, living well, reproducing, consuming, surviving.
Freedom must be unlimited, because if freedom is limited, then it is limited freedom 🙂
But can freedom be limited?
It's cool, but it's true!
It is for this simple reason that there is no “from” or “for”at all.
In general, there is no and cannot be any external freedom.
There is an internal one, but not everyone has it!
Most likely, the answer to the question lies in the question itself ::: The particle “Not” = is usually difficult to perceive by the world, so it can be excluded from the logical diet. This is the Higher School of Psychology and Psychiatry. So we memorize and pray, memorize and pray. Plus to this question, it is worth answering what does the particle “without” = safe, security mean in the culture of ecology of thinking and linguistics. So the answer lies in the question itself.
Freedom is an integral part of order, it originated in a place with it and does not exist without it. You can think of freedom as an absolute lack of order, but it will already be chaos. The concept of freedom is relative and can only be evaluated with respect to the absolute-order. Chaos is the absence of the absolute, so freedom is not possible in it.
The value of freedom is very conditional, if we draw an analogy with mechanisms, then for the proper operation of the mechanism, it is necessary to exclude all freedom, except for what is necessary to perform useful work.
In human society, human freedom must be subordinated to love and guided by duty.
Because a person is initially limited by many factors: his own physics, social norms, the specifics of thinking and psychological structure, the debts and responsibilities assumed, parasitic mechanisms and the limits of thinking. Freedom of another person-but this is only if there are appropriate mechanisms of morality.
Freedom is a relative characteristic, meaning the possibility of action. We can talk about freedom only in relation to any energy or information system. For example, a person is not currently free to go outside the Solar system, but has very little freedom to move inside it, but to move from the kitchen to the bedroom, he has a huge freedom. Also with information, a person is not able to think in terms for which there are no names in his culture, but he can discover a new concept for people of his culture, describing it in terms that they understand and giving it a name. But within the existing culture, people use a wide range of terms to interact with each other.
That is, freedom is always the relationship of an element within a system, and the very existence of the system already implies restriction. The breadth of freedom can reach the boundaries of the system, such freedom will be maximum, but not unlimited.
Because there are many individuals who strongly dislike me (yes, the same protesters “for all good things”, but breaking benches in squares or blocking traffic) and with freedom “without banks” their population will begin to decline at a good pace. Well, I don't believe in the possibility of their re-education!
Come on, “decline”, the population of fans of drawing in elevators may not reduce, but they will walk with their faces painted all over the balloon. That would be kosher!
Oh, and let's not pretend that I'm all alone here, such a fan of doing good recklessly!
Boundless freedom is good on a desert island, maybe even in the remote taiga, although there is always a bear in the taiga.
In simple terms, everything has boundaries, because there is ORDER in nature. If we are talking about a society, then it must also have order, and therefore borders, otherwise chaos will arise. In interpersonal relationships, freedom has boundaries, and if these boundaries are violated, conflicts arise. Understanding and respecting these boundaries, both your own and others', leads to the preservation of relationships, peace and harmony. Therefore, any freedom has limits. This is reasonable.
Take the serial killer. For him, freedom is the freedom to kill. Well, he likes this business… For another, freedom is the freedom to go through a red light. So it turns out that very few people will like unlimited freedom.
A person living in a society cannot be completely free.Since there will always be forces that will try to drag you into a game that will have limits and boundaries, you can get unlimited freedom without society trying to influence each other through various tools of control and management of people.
Your freedom has no limits in the form of the rights and freedoms of other citizens, except on a desert island. Or better yet, on an asteroid, under the dome. But we are social animals. Moreover, we are not individually intelligent. Smart are our subcultures, which are easy to break away from in isolation. In short, and this, alas, is not an option…