Why can't there be absolute freedom? . Absolute freedom Absolute freedom examples

WHY IS ABSOLUTE FREEDOM IMPOSSIBLE

Freedom in human activity

Personal freedom in its various manifestations is today the most important value of civilized humanity. The importance of freedom for human self-realization was understood in ancient times. The desire for freedom, liberation from the shackles of despotism and arbitrariness has permeated the entire history of mankind. This manifested itself with particular force in the New and Modern times. All revolutions wrote the word “freedom” on their banners. Few of them political leaders and the 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 category of freedom is one of the central ones in the philosophical quests of humanity. And just as politicians paint this concept in different colors, often subordinating it to their own specific political goals, so philosophers approach its understanding from different positions. Let's try to understand the diversity of these interpretations.

No matter how much people strive for freedom, they understand that there cannot be absolute, unlimited freedom. First of all, because complete freedom for one would mean arbitrariness in relation to the other. For example, someone wanted to listen to loud music at night. 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. It is in this regard that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where all articles are devoted to the rights and freedoms of the individual, the latter, which contains a mention of responsibilities, states that in the exercise of their rights and freedoms, each person should be subject only to such restrictions that have their own to ensure recognition and respect for the rights of others. Arguing about the impossibility of absolute freedom, let us pay attention to one more aspect of the issue. Such freedom would mean for a person unlimited choice, which would put him in extreme difficult situation in decision making. 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 died of hunger. Even earlier, Dante described a similar situation, but he spoke not about donkeys, but about people: “Placed between two dishes, equally distant and equally attractive, a person would rather die than, having absolute freedom, take one of them into his mouth.” A person cannot be absolutely free. And one of the limiters here is the rights and freedoms of other people.

1. Differences in the understanding of the concept of “LIBERTY” “freedom, equality, fraternity” From the very first eras of history, people have strived for freedom. Uprisings, riots, revolutions took place under the slogans of giving people freedom (“Freedom, equality, brotherhood” - the slogan of the Great french revolution 1789)

1. Differences in the understanding of the concept of “FREEDOM” Political leaders and leaders vowed to lead their followers to true and complete freedom. However, each of them understood the essence of freedom in his own way. Maximilian Robespierre The category of FREEDOM is an important philosophical issue and researchers interpret it from different positions.

2. Impossibility of “Absolute Freedom” Absolute freedom of a person is impossible for several reasons: Absolute freedom of one means arbitrariness in relation to another. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights emphasizes that in the exercise of his human rights and freedoms, each person should be subject only to such restrictions as are designed to ensure respect for the rights of others.

2. The impossibility of “Absolute freedom” Since freedom is, first of all, the freedom of choice from the many available alternatives, then absolute freedom would imply the need to choose from a theoretically countless number of options, and therefore choice would be practically impossible.

3. Freedom is a recognized necessity A person becomes free, having learned the restrictions imposed on him by nature and society, and builds his life adapting to this. Friedrich Engels “Freedom does not lie in imaginary independence from the laws of nature, but in the knowledge of these laws.”

4. Freedom and responsibility Modern society opens up many options for a person to choose from. The life of society is built on the basis of existing morality, traditions, and legal norms. Nevertheless, each person chooses his own path. But a person who is free to choose must also be aware of responsibility for the choice made. Responsibility is both moral and legal.

5. “Freedom from” or “freedom to” Freedom is the absence of coercion from other people. Freedom is the ability to choose an option and implement (ensure) the outcome of an event. The absence of such a choice and the implementation of choice is tantamount to a lack of freedom - unfreedom.

6. What is a free society? A free society is a society that provides a person with the greatest possible number of choices, a society with the absence of oppression, a society that gives individuals space for free development, which encourages and supports this development in every possible way. A society in which “the free development of everyone is a condition for the free development of all.”

Sets of presentations, including the entire annual program (all topics), as well as testing materials (tests) and lesson-by-hour annual planning in history, social studies, MHC, you can download on the website

Homework 1.Study paragraph 16 2.Questions on page 163 (orally) 3.Tasks on page 7 (written) 4.Repeat paragraphs 7 to 15

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, in its own inner life the individual is absolutely free. He himself chooses not only the option of activity, but also formulates general principles behavior, 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, sets in, transforming 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. This various shapes social and political tyranny; rigid class and 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, higher value, according to many thinkers, has inner 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 everything external forces».

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 hardest thing is to learn to live a free man. 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

Opposition philosophical concepts“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.

The philosophical solution to the problem of the relationship between freedom and necessity in the activity and behavior of an individual has a huge practical significance to evaluate 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 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 where his free will is expressed. But what kind of forces are these, 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 peace 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.

SELF-TEST SURVEYS

1. How was the concept of “freedom” connected with the political struggle in Modern and Contemporary times?

In New and Contemporary times, the desire for freedom, liberation from the shackles of despotism manifested itself with particular force. All revolutions wrote the word “freedom” on their banners. Few of the political leaders and revolutionary leaders did not vow to lead the masses under their leadership to true freedom.

2. What can unlimited freedom of choice lead to?

Unlimited freedom of choice will lead to chaos. If many people are given unlimited freedom, they will want a lot and will not know the limit, but on Earth many benefits are themselves limited and must be come to terms with this. In addition, rules and laws will disappear, there will be no punishment for such terrible crimes as theft and murder, etc. And the third scenario is related to the impossibility of absolute freedom. Such freedom would mean unlimited choice for a person, which would put him in an extremely difficult position when making a decision. The common noun expression “Buridan’s donkey” is widely known. The French philosopher J. Buridan (c. 1300 - 1358) is credited with a story about a donkey that was placed between two identical and equidistant armfuls of hay. Not deciding which armful to prefer, the donkey died of hunger. The same could happen to a person.

3. How is freedom interpreted in Christian teaching?

There is no freedom as such in the Christian faith. Christians see God's Providence here. Everything is predetermined for them. “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 religious reformer Martin Luther. This position is defended by supporters of absolute predestination.

4. Show how knowledge of the objective laws of nature influences the conscious activity of people.

It is very important to take into account the objective laws of nature in your decisions so as not to fall into difficult situation. For example, if we know that in a given area there is an active volcano nearby, we will not build our housing here, because... this poses a danger.

5. What is social necessity expressed in?

In the very general view social necessity means that people live in conditions in which they have unequal access to limited resources of material and spiritual consumption.

The main mechanisms of social necessity are relations of property, power (dominance and subordination), social (that is, socially assigned and hierarchized) division of labor, as well as uncontrolled, spontaneous social differentiation. Social necessity is perceived and experienced by many people (primarily the unemployed, economic migrants, those who find themselves at or below the poverty line) as a manifestation of injustice. Social necessity, property stratification of society, as a rule, lead to an increase in social tension, especially in transition period. This is precisely what is typical for Russia at present.

6. Explain the connection between the concepts of “freedom”, “choice”, “responsibility”.

The connection between these concepts is very significant: freedom implies the presence of choices. Freedom of choice implies the individual's responsibility for the choice made.

In general, the term "free society" is used to refer to a society where political and economic ideals actually function. In the theory of a free society, all people have free access to power and the resources they need to realize their potential. A free society is based on three pillars: economic freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Economic freedom is based on the functioning of the market free from any government interference. The only thing that is under the control of the state is the protection of property rights. Prices should be set only by participants in economic interactions based on supply and demand. With economic freedom, every manufacturer has the right to produce what he wants, and every buyer has the right to purchase any product from any manufacturer. Thus, in a free society there should be no monopolies, prices cannot be artificially inflated.

Freedom of speech implies the right of every person to voice his point of view and the absence of censorship. Although this right is used in a number of countries, in reality its implementation is very far from ideal. Freedom of religion means complete freedom to choose a religious denomination, as well as the right not to profess any religion at all.

A person should have the right to unlimited freedom in own life, freedom to pursue his own goals, but only as long as he does not violate the rights of other people. Therefore, the state only needs to ensure the rights of each person, and not infringe on them. Only then is it possible to create a free society.

TASKS

1. Give arguments supporting the conclusion about the impossibility of absolute, unlimited human freedom in society.

A person's life in society is limited by law. And no matter how much we would like to cross the street in an unspecified place, we will be punished, since this is a violation of traffic rules.

2. Which of the two statements below do you think is more true?

“Our life is a line that we must, at the behest of nature, describe on the surface globe, not being able to move away from her for a single moment.”

“The course of things seems inevitable only to those who have betrayed their convictions. History itself can neither force a person nor draw him into a dirty business. Man carries the whole weight of the world on his shoulders: he is responsible for the world and himself.”

3. Explain how you understand the expression: “Freedom is choice.”

Freedom is the absence of any restrictions or restrictions on anything. Accordingly, freedom gives a person the right to choose everything.

4. Describe the various models of a free society. What are your ideas about such a society?

A free society is a society unrestricted by any laws. It would be impossible to exist in such a society; chaos would ensue. Thus, an absolutely free society is an illusion, and any sufficiently educated and thinking person realizes this. It is only possible to strive for freedom, but at the same time it is important to act according to conscience, without losing human dignity, making sure to correlate your actions with the comfort of others.

5. Sometimes freedom is understood as permissiveness. At the beginning of the 20th century. in Russian villages they sang the following ditty:

There is no God, there is no need for a king.

We'll kill the governor

We won't pay taxes

We won't become soldiers.

What consequences can this interpretation of freedom lead to? Concretize your answer with examples.

This interpretation of freedom leads to permissiveness, which gives rise to theft, murder, lies, etc., which was observed in Russian villages at the beginning of the 20th century. at the next strike against the landowner.

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.

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 and 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.