How are freedom and necessity manifested in human activity? Open Library - open library of educational information The impossibility of absolute human freedom in society.

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.

Talking about impossibility absolute freedom, let us pay attention to one more side 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. 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 here, 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 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. 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, 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

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 the 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 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 specific political goals, so philosophers approach its understanding from different positions. Let's try to understand the diversity of these interpretations.

Why is absolute freedom impossible?

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. That is why 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 his rights and freedoms, each person should be subject only to such restrictions as are intended to ensure recognition and respect 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 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. 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.

Freedom as a perceived necessity

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 the following interpretation of the relationship between Divine predestination and human freedom: “God designed the Universe in such a way 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. The world itself must return to God, since it itself has 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., independent of human consciousness, laws. 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, especially in public life, 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.

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 has manifested itself with particular force in New and Contemporary 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 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.
That is why 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 his rights and freedoms, each person should be subject only to such restrictions as are intended to ensure recognition and respect 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 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. 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 group.

WHY IS ABSOLUTE FREEDOM IMPOSSIBLE

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.
That is why 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 his rights and freedoms, each person should be subject only to such restrictions as are intended to ensure recognition and respect 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 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. 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.

Questions for group 1.

1. Do you think that man has ever been free throughout the existence of mankind?

2. Did you want to be absolutely free people?

3. Determine the reasons for the impossibility of absolute freedom

4. Formulate the principle of limiting human freedom, in which the beginning of the phrase sounds like this: “My freedom ends where...”

5. How do you understand the parable of Buridan’s donkey?

2nd group

FREEDOM AS A COgnized NECESSITY

This is how many philosophers interpreted freedom - B. Spinoza, G. Hegel, F. Engels. What is behind this formula, which has become almost an aphorism? 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 the following interpretation of the relationship between Divine predestination and human freedom: “God designed the Universe in such a way 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. The world itself must return to God, since it itself has 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., independent of human consciousness, laws. 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, especially in public life, 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.

Questions for group 2.

2. How do you understand the meaning of this statement?

3. What is the nature of necessity. What answers did you give to this question?

a) supporters of absolute predestination fatalism)

b) religious figures of a different direction

C) philosophers who deny fatalism.

4. Supporters of the first position proceed from the act of Divine creation of life on Earth. With such an understanding of necessity, is there any room left for human free will?

group 3

FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY

Let's consider another situation. 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 the most dear ones will have to pay - 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 healthy image life. In this case, in addition to the perceived danger, 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. 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.
Deviation of a person from the established social norms causes, as you already know, a certain reaction from society. Negative deviation causes social sanctions, i.e. punishment for disapproved actions. Such punishment is also called a person’s responsibility for his activities and its consequences. (Remember in what cases criminal, administrative, financial and other types of liability arise.)
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 primarily 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.
As psychologists' research shows, 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. By developing a sense of responsibility, a person protects himself from deindividuation, i.e., becoming a faceless being with reduced self-awareness.

Questions for the group.3.

1. How do the two concepts of “freedom” and “responsibility” relate to each other?

2.what is responsibility? Imagine that you find yourself in a dispute between two young people. one states: "Responsibility is a measure of coercion, external influence." Another says: “Responsibility is a conscious feeling, a person’s willingness to consciously follow the norms of law and morality.” Whose side would you take? Why?

3. What is your attitude towards these concepts? How do you act in everyday life? Why?

4. what can unlimited freedom of choice lead to?

Our choice can be conscious or unconscious. Let's take a look a situation of conscious choice. Tell me, what could you do now if you didn't have to go to this lesson? What made you come here? How conscious and how free is your choice? A conscious choice is not always the right one. A person can drink, smoke, use drugs. Is this a conscious choice? Free? (The choice is free, but entails lack of freedom, dependence). But the choice always remains with the person!
The choice is always difficult because it comes with responsibility. Tell me, when choosing is difficult, to whom do you shift the responsibility?
. In our age, do they think that all the information presented on the Internet is freely available to them? If yes, is it good? Can a person be called more free when he has information? If not, is it good that some facts are hidden from us, in particular, for example, from children.

group 4.

"FREEDOM FROM" OR "FREEDOM FOR"

Let's think about what kind of person 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 precisely 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, we have moved from considering external restrictions on freedom to internal prohibitions that a person sets for himself. “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,” asserted the Christian theologian of the 3rd century.

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. Such a person, even in conditions of progressive degeneration of the human race or with the complete stability of a despotic or totalitarian regime in his country, will not reach a state of spiritual decline and will act as if the principles he defends will certainly triumph in the future.
Critics of this position believe that if everyone seeks the basis of their behavior only in accordance with their own motives, without taking into account generally accepted restrictions and prohibitions, then society will lose its integrity and chaos will await people: instead of the desired freedom, they will receive complete arbitrariness.
What is your point of view? Which of these positions and why do you think is correct?

Questions for group 4

1. Make a verbal portrait free man. Describe what this person will be like (gait, movements, facial expressions, speech, etc.)

2. what is freedom “from” and freedom “for”? What are the differences between these approaches in the interpretation of the category of freedom?

4. Remember situations from your own life when you avoided making a choice (did not make a choice). For what reasons? To whom did you shift this responsibility and why? Have you felt the consequences of this decision?