Feeling of freedom. Remember, you are the most important person in your life.

How we protect our sense of freedom

If persuasive messages are intrusive, then they can be perceived as an intrusion into the sphere of freedom of individual choice and thereby intensify the search for ways to protect against them. So, if a persistent seller convinces me to buy his product, my first reaction will be to maintain my own independence: I would rather leave the store ...
Such resistance can manifest itself in a variety of and interesting forms... Suppose I am walking down the street and I am politely asked to sign some kind of petition. I do not really understand the essence of what I am offered to sign. But at the moment when they explain to me what's what, a certain person stops nearby and begins to openly "press" neither me, demanding that I not sign anything. In order to resist pressure and preserve my freedom of choice, I am more likely to sign the proposed petition ...
Of course, people can (and do) succumb to social pressure ... However, when this pressure becomes so pronounced that it threatens our sense of freedom, we not only resist the pressure, but also tend to act in the opposite direction.
There is another aspect of the need for freedom and autonomy ... All other things being equal, when faced with information that contradicts their beliefs, people seek, if possible, to find counter-arguments. In this way, they can protect their own opinions from the undue influence of others and protect their own sense of autonomy.
Questions and tasks: 1) How, according to the psychologist, do people protect their inner freedom and autonomy? 2) Have any situations happened to you, like those that are described in the snippet? What did you do in such cases?

Conclusions for chapter II

1. Science and philosophy have come a long way in comprehending society and the social essence of man. Overcoming the one-sidedness of previous approaches, modern researchers define the essence of man as a unity of natural, social and spiritual, consider him as a subject of social and historical activity, a creator of culture.
2. Philosophers and sociologists distinguish three levels of consideration of society: socio-philosophical, historical-typological, concrete-historical. At the socio-philosophical level, the search for a social macrotheory capable of embracing all the variety of types and forms of social relations has long been underway. Developed by stages and cyclical, formational and civilizational, local and global models of society.
3. At the historical-typological level, the research distinguishes traditional (agrarian), industrial (capitalist), post-industrial (civilizational) societies. There are also civilizations of the western and eastern types.
4. In modern social science, the concept of social progress is being comprehended deeper than before. The inconsistency of progress is noted, the often high "price" of society for achievements in certain areas. Discussions continue on the criteria for progress. At the same time, many researchers believe that true progress is manifested in the rise of humanism, in the creation of conditions for the free development of the individual.

Questions and tasks for chapter II

1. "The evolution of the primitive herd into a consanguineous community led to profound changes in man himself, to the development of his communicative qualities, the emergence of the rudiments of morality."
"The gradual development of a person's communication skills with his own kind contributed to the transition to a higher level of social organization - a consanguineous community."
Formulate the problem, the various solutions of which are reflected in the above statements. Which of the two points of view seems more convincing to you? If you disagree with any of them, formulate your version of the solution to this problem.
2. Analyze two options for typologizing societies. Determine the selection criteria different types societies. Fill the table.

3. The German philosopher Fichte stated: “A philosopher who studies history as a philosopher is guided by the a priori thread of the world plan, clear to him without any history, and he uses history ... only to explain and show in living life what is clear even without history. "
How do you understand the words "a priori thread of the world plan"? Name the philosophical teachings known to you that contain a similar plan of world history. What, in your opinion, are the advantages and disadvantages of the view of history noted by the philosopher?
4. Expand the connection between social progress and the growth of human freedom. How is the increase in human freedom expressed in modern society?

Preparing for the exam

1. Which of the following characterizes society as a system:
1) millennial history existence;
2) the interconnection of the spheres of public life;
3) variability of forms;
4) unpredictability of future states?
2. Which of the following features is inherent in humans and absent in animals:
1) the action of the mechanisms of heredity;
2) the work of the senses;
3) species specialization;
4) articulate speech?
3. Exclude unnecessary items from the list.
Only a person is (s):
1) upright posture;
2) moral feelings;
3) articulate speech;
4) the use of tools.
4. Go to industrial society characterized by:
1) industrial revolution;
2) the predominance of agriculture over the service sector;
3) the emergence of new information technologies;
4) decrease in social mobility.
5. Are the following judgments about the interaction of society and nature true?
A. Society as a creator of culture develops independently of nature.
B. History knows no examples of the beneficial influence of society on nature.
1) Only A is true;
2) only B is true;
3) both judgments are correct;
4) both judgments are wrong.
6. Based on knowledge from courses in social studies and history, compare the reform and revolution according to the following criteria: 1) the depth and scale of the impact on public life; 2) the role of the masses; 3) predictability of consequences.
7. Write an essay based on the following statement: “History itself can neither compel a person, nor involve him in a dirty business” (J.-P. Sartre).

Chapter III
ACTIVITY AS A WAY OF EXISTENCE OF PEOPLE

§ 17. Human activity and its diversity

Compare the two definitions. The first is from the philosophical dictionary: “Activity is a form of existence of human society; the manifestation of the subject's activity, expressed in a purposeful change in the surrounding world, as well as in the transformation of himself by a person. " The second - from the dictionary of psychology: "Activity is a form of mental activity of a subject, which consists in the motivational achievement of a consciously set goal of cognition or transformation of an object."
It is easy to see that both definitions speak about the activity of the subject in an expedient (consistent with the goal) change (transformation) of the surrounding world. However, a philosophical definition interprets activity in the same way as a form of society's existence, and psychology focuses on mental activity, that is, manifested in the subjective experiences of a person, in his feelings, thinking, and will. As you can see, looking at the activity from different points of view allows you to understand it more fully.

ESSENCE AND STRUCTURE OF ACTIVITIES

Let's turn to the first definition of activity above. As one aspect of human existence, activity reproduces social connections. It realizes the forces and abilities of a person, which are embodied in the products of activity. In this chain of connections, the social essence of the activity.
In the structure of activity, its subject and object differ. Subject of activity - the one who carries out the activity, an object - that's what it aims at. For example, a farmer (subject of activity) works on the land and grows various agricultural crops (object of activity) on it. For the Ministry of Education, as a subject of activity, all educational institutions of the country are an object in relation to which management activities are carried out.
So, the subject of activity can be a person, a group of people, an organization, a government body. The object can be natural materials, various objects, spheres or areas of human life. The subject's activity can also be directed at another person. For example, a coach influences an athlete (trains him). The object of the artist's activity is the audience in the hall (audience). Finally, the activity of the subject can be directed at himself (a person consciously trains his body, hardens it, fosters will, is engaged in self-education, etc.).

Further, in the structure of activity, one can single out the goal of the action, the means of achieving the goal. It was already noted above: a person begins any activity with the fact that he sets a goal for himself.
Target - it is a conscious image of the anticipated result, towards the achievement of which the activity is directed. For example, in the head of an architect, before the construction of a house begins, his image appears. Indeed, is it possible to start building a building without imagining what it will be ( apartment house or an administrative building, a village hut or a temple, a barracks or a palace)? His image can be shown in a drawing, drawing, three-dimensional model, but before that it appears in the mind of the architect.
So, the goal is what is presented in the mind and is expected as a result of a certain way of directed activity.
Can any goal be considered feasible? With silicon, you can set yourself the goal of making an arrowhead, but you cannot make a bow out of it. On space flights at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. one could only dream, but they became the practical goal of the activities of many people only a few decades later, when the necessary scientific and technical conditions appeared. Consequently, the achievable goal of activity may not be any desired image, but only one that corresponds to the real possibilities of the surrounding world and the subject of activity itself. At the same time, a person may or may not know his capabilities, the properties of objects in the surrounding world. The goal is determined the more precisely and becomes the more definite, the better the subject of activity knows what the real means and conditions for its achievement are. "Who is considered smart?" - asked the Syrian thinker of the 13th century. Abu-l-Faraj. And he answered: "The one who strives only for an attainable goal."
In the structure of activities, various actions. So, learning activities includes recording lectures, reading books, solving problems, etc. The activities of cosmonauts also consist of various actions: observing the Earth, adjusting instruments, conducting experiments, repair work, and training. The activity of the farmer involves the implementation of such actions as plowing, sowing, weeding, harvesting. In a separate action, you can also see an end, a means, a result. For example, the goal of weeding is to create conditions for growth. cultivated plants.
When the goal is determined, its achievement or failure of the activity depends on funds. To build a house, you need building materials, machinery, tools and other means of production. To grow a crop, you need seeds, tools, a system of agricultural techniques, etc. To teach students to read and write, you need textbooks, notebooks, effective techniques educational work and so on. The means must correspond to the purpose. When they say: “Fire a cannon at the sparrows,” it means that the means do not correspond to the end.
Is it possible, having set yourself a noble goal, to use dishonest means? This is how the Renaissance thinker Niccolo Machiavelli answered this question:
“The actions of all people, and especially the sovereigns whom you cannot ask in court, are concluded based on the results, so let the sovereigns try to maintain power and win. Whatever means are used for this, they will always be considered worthy and approved, for the rabble is seduced by appearance and success. " He believed that in order to achieve the goal, one can deceive, "if necessary, do not shy away from evil."
So the winners are not judged? End justifies the means? There is another point of view: not any measures are suitable for achieving a noble goal, but only noble ones. A good goal cannot be achieved by unworthy, unkind means. Unkind means lead to the fact that the result differs significantly from the goal: it also becomes unkind. The centuries-old experience of mankind convinces of the validity of these conclusions. (Give historical examples to support this idea.)

NEEDS AND INTERESTS

Scientists-psychologists study the experiences of a person, prompting him to activity. Such experiences of a person are called motive. The word "motive" is of French origin and literally means "an incentive, a reason for any action." In psychology, a motive is understood as what prompts a person's activity, for the sake of which it is performed. Needs, social attitudes, beliefs, interests, drives and emotions, ideals of people can act as motives.
The needs of a person are manifested in the motives of activity. And a need is a need experienced and realized by a person for what is necessary to maintain his body and develop his personality.
The need is usually directed towards an item. For example, hunger is the need for food, the subject of need is food. The inability to cope with any task generates the need for the knowledge that is necessary to solve it. The subject of need in this case is knowledge.
Human needs can be divided into three groups:
1. Biological needs(the experience of the need for breathing, food, water, normal heat exchange, movement, self-preservation, preservation of the genus and other needs associated with the biological organization of a person, his belonging to nature).
2.Social needs, generated by society. They embody the need of the individual, for example, in diverse relationships with other people, in self-realization, self-affirmation, and public recognition of its merits.
3. Ideal needs: cognize the world in general and in its particulars, to be aware of their place in it, the meaning and purpose of their existence. The need for knowledge was noted in antiquity. The philosopher Aristotle wrote: "All people naturally strive for knowledge." Many people devote their leisure time to reading, visiting museums, concert halls and theaters. For some people, their ideal needs boil down to entertainment. But in this case, they are diverse: someone is fond of cinema, someone dances, and someone football.
Biological, social and ideal needs are interconnected. Basically, biological needs in humans, in contrast to animals, become social. Indeed, on hot days, many people are thirsty, but no one (if he is not in extreme situation) will not drink from a puddle on the road. A person chooses a drink that quenches his thirst and makes sure that the vessel from which he drinks is clean. And eating for a person becomes a need, the satisfaction of which has many social facets: culinary subtleties, and the setting, and the setting of the table, and the quality of the dishes, and the design of the dish, and a pleasant society that shares his meal are important.
For most people, social needs dominate over ideal ones. The need for knowledge often acts as a means to acquire a profession, to take a worthy position in society.
In some cases, it is generally difficult to separate the biological, the social, the ideal. An example is the need for communication.
The given classification of needs is not the only one in the scientific literature. There are many others. One of them was developed by the American psychologist A. Maslow. He identified the following basic needs:
physiological: in the reproduction of the genus, food, respiration, clothing, housing, physical movements, rest, etc .;
existential(from the Latin word literally meaning "existence"): in the safety of one's existence, comfort, constancy of living conditions, in job security, insurance against accidents, confidence in the future, etc .;
social: in social relations, communication, affection, caring for others and attention to oneself, participation in joint activities with others;
prestigious: self-esteem, respect from others, recognition, achievement of success and appreciation, career development;
spiritual: in self-actualization, self-expression.
According to Maslow's theory, the first two types of needs are primary (congenital), and the next three are secondary (acquired). The needs of each subsequent level become urgent when the previous ones are satisfied.
Along with the needs, the most important motive for activity is social attitudes. They mean the general orientation of a person towards a certain social object, expressing a predisposition to action in a certain way with respect to a given object. Such an object could be, for example, a family.
Depending on the estimate of the value family life, its usefulness for oneself, the individual may be predisposed to creating a family, preserving it, or, on the contrary, not disposed to create and preserve family ties. His actions, his behavior depend on this.
An important role in the motives of activity is played by beliefs - stable views of the world, ideals and principles, as well as the desire to translate them into reality through their actions and deeds.
In the formation of the motives of activity, a special role is played by interests. This word is also of Latin origin, meaning literally "to have meaning, important." The interests of people are based on their needs, but are directed not so much at the objects of needs, as at those social conditions that make these objects more or less accessible, primarily material and spiritual benefits that ensure the satisfaction of needs. The interests of people consist in preserving or transforming those conditions (institutions, orders, norms of relationships, etc.) on which the distribution of goods depends. These interests depend on the position in society of certain groups of the population. Each person belongs to several social groups. For example, a young person belongs to young people who have their own interests that differ from other groups (to get an education, a profession, to have material conditions for creating a family, etc.). He also belongs to any ethnic group and has common interests with other members of this group (the possibility of developing a national culture, language). As a member of other groups, a person has corresponding social interests. This means that interests are determined by the position of various social groups and individuals in society. They are more or less realized by people and are the most important incentives to different types activities. Various interests interact in society: individual, group, interests of society as a whole. According to their focus, interests are divided into economic, social, political, and spiritual. They find a generalized expression for the actual needs of people.
Their ideals are connected with the interests of people. The social ideal is it is an image of a perfect society, which reflects the interests and aspirations of a particular social group, its idea of the highest justice and the best social order. A moral ideal - it is an idea of an exemplary person worthy of imitation, the peculiarities of his personality, behavior and relationships with people. The moral ideal, as a rule, is closely related to the social ideal.
Needs, interests, ideals are recognized by people, that is, they characterize conscious activity. People think over activities, exercise self-control over their actions. However, the unconscious is also manifested in activity, which means mental life that takes place without the participation of consciousness. Examples include stereotypes of automated actions in the process of solving problems or intuition, which will be discussed below.
In human activity, it is of great importance will, that is, the ability to act in the direction of a consciously set goal, while overcoming their own desires and aspirations, opposite in their direction.

ACTIVITIES

Exists different classifications types of activities. First of all, let us note the division of activity into practical and spiritual.
Practical activities aimed at transforming real objects of nature and society. It includes material production activities (transformation of nature) and social transformation activities (transformation of society).
Spiritual activity associated with a change in the consciousness of people. It includes: cognitive activity (reflection of reality in artistic and scientific form, in myths and religious teachings); value-oriented activity (positive or negative attitude of people to the phenomena of the surrounding world, the formation of their worldview); predictive activity (planning or anticipating possible changes in reality).
All of these activities are related. For example, the implementation of reforms (social transformative activity) should be preceded by an analysis of their possible consequences (predictive activity). And the ideas of the French enlighteners Voltaire, C. Montesquieu, J.-J. Rousseau, D. Diderot (value-oriented activity) played an important role in the preparation of the French Revolution of the 18th century. (social transformative activity). Material production activity contributed to the knowledge of nature, the development of sciences, i.e., cognitive activity, and the results of cognitive activity (scientific discoveries) contribute to the improvement of industrial activity.

In the variety of human activities, one can distinguish constructive and destructive. The results of the first - cities and villages, blossoming gardens and cultivated fields, handicrafts and cars, books and films, cured sick and educated children. Destructive activity is, first of all, wars. The dead and crippled people, destroyed dwellings and temples, devastated fields, burned manuscripts and books are the consequences of local and world, civil and colonial wars.
But the administrative activity of people in power can also be destructive. The Russian writer ME Saltykov-Shchedrin satirically portrayed a boss who decided to do as much harm as possible in the area entrusted to him, so that “later benefit would come out of him.” His program: "First he will abolish science, then the city will burn, finally, the population will frighten." And every time he will shed tears and say: "God knows that I am doing this harm for their own benefit." And in our time there are figures who, in the name of a utopian goal, or for profit, or in order to leave a mark on history, are ready to destroy proven forms of social life, break good traditions, cause irreparable damage to nature by their actions. Regarding destructive activity, the people say: "To break is not to build." But often destructive activity is generated not by evil will, but by the limited ability to achieve the desired positive result. "The great reformer," says V. G. Belinsky, "comes not in order to destroy, but in order to create, destroying."

CREATIVE ACTIVITY

Let's imagine that the designers are tasked with creating a new car model. How to make your car safer? How to reduce fuel consumption? How to increase the durability of assemblies and parts? How to prevent pollution of the atmosphere from exhaust gases? How to reduce the consumption of metals and other materials in the manufacture of a car? These questions need new answers, the search for which is a creative activity.
What is creation? It is customary to use this word to denote an activity that generates something qualitatively new that has never existed before. It could be new target, a new result or new means, new ways to achieve them. Creativity is most clearly manifested in the activities of scientists, inventors, writers, artists. Sometimes they say that these are people of creative professions. In fact, not all people professionally engaged in science make discoveries. At the same time, many other activities (teacher or entrepreneur, gardener or cook) involve elements of creativity. In the broadest sense of the word, creative is in general all the activities of people that transform the natural world and social reality in accordance with their goals and needs.
Creativity lies not in the activity where every action is completely regulated by the rules, but in that, the preliminary regulation of which contains a certain degree of uncertainty. Creativity consists of activities that create new information and involve self-organization. The need to create new rules, non-standard techniques arises when we are faced with new situations that are different from similar situations in the past.
An important place in creative activity takes a combination, variation of existing knowledge, known methods action. The need that prompts activity can be a source imagination, fantasy, that is, the reflection in the human mind of the phenomena of reality in new, unusual, unexpected combinations and connections. Imagination allows you to stay ahead of practice, to anticipate possible changes. It is known that the "loophole", the first aerobatics figure, was performed by the pilot P. Nesterov, first in his imagination, and then on an airplane in the air. Fantasy is a necessary component of a person's creative activity, which is expressed in the construction of an image or a visual model of its results in cases where there is not enough information about the conditions and means of achieving the goal.
The most important mechanism of creativity is intuition - knowledge, the origin of which is not realized. In this case, a person can say: "I cannot prove that I am right, but I feel that it is necessary to act this way." Thus, the unconscious in human activity is manifested in intuition. The solution to a complex scientific problem, over which a researcher has been struggling for years, often comes as if suddenly, at an unexpected time, even when the human brain is busy solving completely different problems.
But the unconscious in creativity, as a rule, is associated with conscious efforts aimed at solving emerging problems. Before a happy thought "illuminates" a scientist or military leader, inventor or poet, a lot of work is spent on finding a solution, analyzing its various options, and accumulating suitable material. Psychologists believe that on the way to the correct solution there is a conscious study of the problem and an unconscious accumulation of images, a clear awareness of the problem and the unconscious finding of its solution. Discovery does not arise from scratch, it relies on past experience and accumulated knowledge. But the key to the solution can be an unconscious part of the previous experience, its "by-product".
There are other views on the nature of creativity. Thus, the Russian philosopher N.A. Berdyaev considered creativity an addition, the creation of a new one that did not exist in the world. He connected the secret of creativity with God, who created the world out of nothing.
Modern science recognizes that any person, to one degree or another, has the ability to be creative. However, abilities can develop or stall. What should a young man do to develop in himself Creative skills? Of course, to master the culture: language, knowledge, ways of activity. The experience of previous generations, captured in culture, includes the experience of creative activity. But you can assimilate it only through your own involvement in such activities. One must learn to ask questions; solve non-standard, difficult tasks; consider various solutions; collate disagreeing points of view; communicate with art; develop imagination, fantasy; do not believe any statement, but, in doubt, check its truth; apply various means in solving the problem; to look for their best combination and remember the words of the great Russian composer PI Tchaikovsky: "Inspiration is such a guest who does not like to visit the lazy."
Basic concepts: activity, motives of activity, needs, interests, creativity.
Terms: goal, means to achieve the goal, action, unconscious.

1. For the architect, the goal appears in the form of a conceived structure. And what could be the purpose of statesman, teacher, commander? Argument your answer.
2. The American writer E. Hemingway (1899-1961) said: "Every person is born for some business." Do you think the word "deed" here means action or activity? Explain your point of view.
3. Think about the meaning of a famous parable.
A passer-by, seeing three workers rolling wheelbarrows with bricks, asked what they were doing. "Don't you see," said the first, "I'm driving a brick." “I earn my family's bread,” replied the second. And the third said: "I am building the Cathedral." Did they have the same activities? Or the same actions in three different activities?
4. How do you understand the expression “bury talent in the ground”?
5. Think about whether you are able to fulfill the conditions of creative activity, which were highlighted by Academician V. I. Vernadsky:
conduct a detailed analysis;
to see the general behind the particular;
not to be limited to the description of the phenomenon, but to deeply investigate its essence and connection with other phenomena;
not avoiding the question “why?”;
trace the history of ideas;
collect as much information as possible about the subject of research from literary sources;
study general patterns scientific knowledge (think about how a person learns the world around him);
to link science with other areas of knowledge, with social life;
not only to solve problems, but also to find new, unsolved ones.
Try, observing these conditions, prepare and discuss the problem "How can the school improve the preparation for creative activity?"

Work with the source

Soviet philosopher A. L. Nikiforov on the relationship between activity and behavior.

Human activity performs two important functions: firstly, by influencing the surrounding world and transforming it, it serves as a means of satisfying the material and spiritual needs of the individual; secondly, it is a means of expression and development of knowledge, skills, abilities of the individual. Both of these functions are fused together in every act of human activity. We build houses, grow bread, make clothes and launch rockets into space. Changing and adapting the external world to meet our needs, in the process of changing the world around us, we simultaneously express our tastes, inclinations, our perception of the world and our attitude to it. Therefore, all products of our activity bear the imprint of the personality of a person of a certain historical era, a representative of a certain culture. The first of the named functions of activity is performed by activity, the second - by behavior. Activity and behavior are not separate acts, but two sides of a single human activity.
A good example illustrating the unity of behavior and activity in the activity of an individual is provided by the use of language. Linguists are known to distinguish language, which is a system of interrelated concepts (symbols), functioning and developing according to certain laws, and speech - the use of language by individuals in specific situations. In order to be understandable, speech must be built according to the universally significant laws of the language, however, along with this, it always has an individual character and expresses the characteristics of the speaking subject. Therefore, although we all speak the same language, we speak differently. The use of language and its rules is an activity on which the speaker's behavior is superimposed, so speech arises.
Questions and tasks: 1) What, according to the scientist, is the difference between activity and behavior? Why should they be considered as two sides of a single human activity? 2) Which of these two concepts does each of the following words refer to: purpose, deed, deed, means, operations, results, crime? 3) Illustrate the relationship between activity and behavior using the example of three food sellers (or another example of your own).

Try doing a little case study yourself. Ask different people about the meaning of the words "spirit", "spiritual". You will be surprised at what different meanings your interlocutors will put into these words. Some people will associate them with religion, church (for example, "sacred music"). Cultural professionals are more likely to note that spirituality is synonymous with creativity for them. Most people associate the concepts of "spirit", "spiritual" with ideas of higher goals and meaning human life, about the moral character of the person.
The ambiguity of interpretations, on the one hand, testifies to the importance of the named concepts, and on the other hand, it complicates their scientific definition. In this paragraph, we will try to consider the social meaning of the concepts of "spiritual activity", "spiritual values", "the spiritual world of man." We have to find out what place spiritual activity occupies in the general structure of activity, how scientists study various aspects of the spiritual life of society, how spiritual values affect the development of the individual.

CREATION AND EXPLORATION OF SPIRITUAL VALUES

We will proceed from the definition of activity already known to you as a conscious, purposeful activity of people aimed at changing nature and society. As a result of social activities, objects are created that satisfy the various needs of people: tools of labor, food and clothing, government and cultural institutions, works of art, architectural ensembles, scientific works. That side of human creative activity, which is aimed not at the processing of the "substance of nature", but at the processing of "people by people", that is, ultimately on from

2 5 312 0

What associations do you have when you hear the word "freedom"? The first thing that comes to mind is the ability to do what you want without limits.

Freedom presupposes choice. So why don't we do what we love?

Why do we get up and go to work in the morning, listen to and endure inappropriate comments from the management, worry about what people will think of us, and so on. What prevents us from being free, and is freedom really the ability to do what we want? Let's figure it out.

Interpretation of the concept from different sources

To answer this question, let us consider how the etymology interprets the concept of the word "freedom".

In ancient documents, this word is found only as an adverb, as an adjective.
The Old Russian words "freedom" and "freedom" are compared with the ancient Indian word "svapati", which means his own master ("svo" - his own, "pati" - master, master).

If we briefly consider the history of the development of the concept of the word freedom, then it changed its definition from freedom in creative expression to freedom to go beyond the usual and see not only a solution to a problem or the result of a goal, but also see many options for behavior in a given situation.

American psychologist Rollo Rhys May defined freedom as a unique opportunity for a person to see a wide range of possible options for action in any situations that happen to a person.

And this choice is the wider and more varied, the more developed the self-awareness of this person and his ability in imagination to choose the desired behavior for specific situation.

The more opportunities a person has to change the situation, the wider the choice of ways to respond to what is happening, the more free it is.

A person is able to project what is happening on himself. But if he does not see opportunities due to the fact that he does not know something or is afraid, then he misses these opportunities, and misses them consciously. Not wanting to get rid of unnecessary addiction, but preferring to sit and regret.

Those people who live according to such principles and do not want to change anything,. And they will willingly praise their living conditions, so as not to seem to you not taken place in your career, business, personal life. This is also an addiction, a fear of what people will say. Another self-deception.

Not everyone can take responsibility. It is much easier to blame others for your problems, or for your failure.

But if a person strives for freedom, then he will free himself from such addictions step by step.

There is such an aphorism: “ There is a monument to freedom (statue of liberty), but, unfortunately, there is no monument to responsibility».

What is true freedom

Freedom is a state of a person in which she (person) is the main initiator of his actions, not dictated by any other factors.

Freedom has a few more definitions:

In ethics, the word freedom is understood as voluntary adherence to moral norms and principles. The concept of freedom of conscience corresponds to the philosophical and ethical understanding, and allows a person to independently form his own worldview, without violating generally accepted norms and principles.
Philosophy defines this word as an opportunity for a person to express their will, based on knowledge of the laws of the evolution of society and nature.
In the concept of law, freedom is when all actions of an individual are subject to the laws enshrined in a legislative document (this includes freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.).

Even Immanuel Kant argued that a person can be free only when he obeys not another person, but a generally binding law.

The article "Two Concepts of Freedom" by Isai Berlin is considered a classic of free-thinking. In it, political freedom is divided by the author into negative and positive.

Summarizing his reasoning, we can conclude that negative freedom- this is a person's freedom of action, in which other people do not interfere. A positive freedom Is the ability of a person to perform any actions independently, based only on his own interests, without taking into account the interests of other people.

Based only on these definitions, we can conclude that a completely free person cannot be due to three reasons:

A person's actions should not infringe on the interests of other people.
They must comply with the moral standards of society.
They should not violate the laws of the state in which he lives, and even more so be a threat to the life of others, here the law acts as a restriction.

So is freedom a myth, a ghost? Not really. A person cannot exist outside of society. Therefore, it is worth considering the freedom of a person without separating him from society.

According to Marxism, personality and society are a single whole, and the essence of a person is determined by the social conditions in which he is.

By changing these social conditions, adapting them to himself, a person changes himself. It is necessary to consider the real conditions in which a person lives, and not artificial or hypothetical, in which not a single subject will find himself for the entire period of his life.

Each person should voluntarily participate in the development of the society in which he lives.

As an example, different levels of development of states. They try to get into some states and obtain citizenship, while they flee from others without looking back. The reason is the number and level of the provided opportunities. These factors determine the level of external freedom of a person.

Four parts of freedom can be roughly distinguished:

Political.
Economic.
National and state.
Individual rights.

People experience fears that fetter their inner freedom. The fear of losing money, fame, power can be ignored. People with such fears are addicted, and, most likely, this is a deliberate addiction. Therefore, they are unlikely to be attracted by inner freedom. It's like trying to persuade someone with an alcohol addiction to undergo treatment. He understands that it is necessary, that it is for his good, but he still drinks on and does not try to change anything.

And if a person is afraid of losing his home, job, family, health, these are already important and significant components of life. Here freedom appears as a necessity. The need to make independent decisions, and be ready to be responsible for them. Realizing that the decision could have been wrong, that it was not possible to take into account all the risks.

Absolute responsibility for one's life lies only with a person, and this can be called true freedom.

What is expressed

Freedom is expressed in the ability to choose the best for oneself from all options, while not affecting the interests of other people, without violating the law and following one's principles of morality and ethics.

The feeling of free will makes it possible for a person to feel himself the creator of his life.

Only if a person feels that he is influencing the world by his actions, he can change this world and make it the way he wants.

This feeling of freedom of choice makes a person the author of his destiny. A person, influencing the world and receiving feedback on his actions from it, learns new things, gains experience, learns the world, himself, lives. With a sense of freedom, a person develops an understanding that he is responsible for his life.

How to feel free

A person feels as free as he can afford it.

For the most part, a person himself drives himself into a framework, from which he then tries to get out. From childhood, prohibitions and all kinds of restrictions remain: don't do this, you can't do that. Already from birth, a person is not free. First, he depends on his parents, then on the school, university, friends, environment. He is trying to get his life experience, but he is being imposed on a "ready-made", proven path. But what about development, which is possible only through the acquisition of personal experience.

The concept of "freedom" begins when and where prohibitions appear.

Freedom ends there and then, where and when absolutely everyone

You can do everything. Everything is allowed - it's chaos.

Without "prohibitions" no one will understand what "freedom" is. Even a word

This will not happen.

And what is a "ban"? This is the possibility of performing some actions and the impossibility of doing others.

Under the circumstances.

To realize the possibility of "prohibition" it is necessary to have a choice and principles of control of this.

There are at least two options. One and zero, plus and minus, top and bottom, right, left ...

Absolute freedom is the possibility of arbitrary choice from the existing circumstances. But man

He always chooses not "arbitrarily", but at the level of understanding the interests of oneself, a loved one.

If there are infinitely many possibilities, then the meaning of the concept of "freedom" disappears, -

There is an accident.

If opportunities are limited, then the meaning of the concept of "freedom" is transformed into

Awareness of the limitations and the right to direct their choice to what

Preferred. Awareness of the need.

In this world, everything and everyone has a purpose. The goal is where everyone and everyone strives.

According to individual wishes, preferences and preferences.

Freedom is realized in choosing the direction of movement towards the goal. Real or

If there is no striving for the goal, then the concept of "freedom" loses its meaning.

Freedom begins with the awareness of the right to choose the goal and the way of implementation, the achievement of this goal, that,

Often referred to as the raison d'être ().

If there really are deterministic causes and effects, then

It is a mistake to speak of "absolute freedom"! In this case, everything is predetermined by something.

Freedom in its "pure" form can only exist where there are no reasons.

And where is there no reason? Where there is chaos or where there is only one creature

Desireless.

Such a being already has everything. And this creature is at the same time and

The cause and effect of everything. It can do anything. Because all that It can is

This is Everything! From one to infinity.

For such a Being, the concept of freedom, lack of freedom, well,

Bad, cause, effect have no meaning.

Freedom for everyone else is predetermined by chance and necessity.

The need to limit actions and the randomness of the choice of movement.

The manifestation of a choice of opposing aspirations generates a sense of freedom.

What a person depends on determines his lack of freedom. What a man is from

Does not depend, creates an illusion of freedom in a person.

And what does a person not depend on? Only from what he does not need.

Dostoevsky wrote: "Freedom means not restraining oneself, but it means

To control yourself. "" To control yourself "is how? To force yourself?

Self-control is the ability to limit yourself through inhibitions.

Then what does "freedom" of choice have to do with it?

"Freedom is not something that you have been given. It is something that cannot be taken away from you." Voltaire.

Prohibitions are imposed by external circumstances and other people.

And this is called "freedom" - avoidance, overcoming prohibitions?

Zhongli Quan believed that "Freedom begins when you stop

Push yourself into the frame of someone else's ideas. "

That is, to feel freedom, you need to have frameworks and restrictions.

Freedom exists only in our ideas about this word and at the same time it does not

It can exist without realizing the existence of prohibitions.

"Freedom is to depend only on laws."

Voltaire.

Freedom of choice is predetermined by a person's knowledge of prohibitions. External and

Internal.

"A free person cannot even want to become a master, that would mean

Loss of freedom "- N. Berdyaev.

Berdyaev is mistaken in the premise that there is supposedly someone "on his own" really

"free".

What is "freedom of choice"? This is an illusion. Everything has its predetermined predeterminations and movement frameworks. Determined by the "freedom" of circumstances and the desires of other objects.

The concepts of "chance" and "chaos" reflect real, true and absolute "freedom"! They choose from what is and is possible ...

Freedom, as something substantial and essential, is a complete fiction in the literal sense! There is a sense of freedom, not "freedom"!

Everything in this world is regulated and determined in a natural sense.

"Accidents" exist only in the heads of people, which arise as a reflection of illusions

Mind's interpretations of the sensations of external influences.

Freedom is the belief in the absolute possibility of choice and the independence of this choice from everything!

A sense of the game of all subjects and objects of the world.

Freedom is the feeling of being able to choose from the available circumstances. Which can be random.

If the possibilities of choice are limitless, then the meaning of freedom disappears.

The belief that there is always an opportunity to change the goal of your path creates a feeling of freedom in a person!

What associations do you have when you hear the word "freedom"? The first thing that comes to mind is the ability to do what you want without limits. Freedom presupposes choice. So why don't we do what we love? Why do we get up and go to work in the morning, listen to and endure inappropriate comments from the management, worry about what people will think of us, and so on. What prevents us from being free, and is freedom really the ability to do what we want? Let's figure it out.
Tip 1

Interpretation of the concept from different sources

To answer this question, let us consider how the etymology interprets the concept of the word "freedom".

In ancient documents, this word is found only as an adverb, as an adjective.
The Old Russian words "freedom" and "freedom" are compared with the ancient Indian word "svapati", which means his own master ("svo" - his own, "pati" - master, master).

American psychologist Rollo Rhys May defined freedom as a unique opportunity for a person to see a wide range of possible options for action in any situations that happen to a person. And this choice is the wider and more diverse, the more developed the self-awareness of this person and his ability to choose in his imagination the desired behavior option for a specific situation. The more opportunities a person has to change the situation, the wider the choice of ways to respond to what is happening, the more free it is. A person is able to project what is happening on himself. But if he does not see opportunities due to the fact that he does not know something or is afraid, then he misses these opportunities, and misses them consciously. Not wanting to get rid of unnecessary addiction, but preferring to sit and regret.

Those people who live according to such principles and do not want to change anything are afraid of responsibility. And they will willingly praise their living conditions, so as not to seem to you not taken place in your career, business, personal life. This is also an addiction, a fear of what people will say. Another self-deception.

Not everyone can take responsibility. It is much easier to blame others for your problems, or for your failure.

But if a person strives for freedom, then he will free himself from such addictions step by step.

Of course, a psychologically immature person is incapable of making decisions and responsibility, therefore freedom and infantilism are rather antonymic words, and freedom and responsibility are synonymous words. There is such an aphorism: "There is a monument to freedom (statue of liberty), but, unfortunately, there is no monument to responsibility."
Tip 2

What is true freedom

Freedom is a state of a person in which she (person) is the main initiator of his actions, not dictated by any other factors.

Freedom has a few more definitions:

In ethics, the word freedom is understood as voluntary adherence to moral norms and principles. The concept of freedom of conscience corresponds to the philosophical and ethical understanding, and allows a person to independently form his own worldview, without violating generally accepted norms and principles.
Philosophy defines this word as an opportunity for a person to express their will, based on knowledge of the laws of the evolution of society and nature.
In the concept of law, freedom is when all actions of an individual are subject to the laws enshrined in a legislative document (this includes freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.).

Even Immanuel Kant argued that a person can be free only when he obeys not another person, but a generally binding law.

The article "Two Concepts of Freedom" by Isai Berlin is considered a classic of free-thinking. In it, political freedom is divided by the author into negative and positive.

Based only on these definitions, we can conclude that a completely free person cannot be due to three reasons:

A person's actions should not infringe on the interests of other people.
They must comply with the moral standards of society.
They should not violate the laws of the state in which he lives, and even more so be a threat to the life of others, here the law acts as a restriction.

So is freedom a myth, a ghost? Not really. A person cannot exist outside of society. Therefore, it is worth considering the freedom of a person without separating him from society.

According to Marxism, personality and society are a single whole, and the essence of a person is determined by the social conditions in which he is.

Another thing is what a person can get from interacting with society. If a society is developed and cares about people, it can provide many opportunities for a person to choose. Choose the type of activity, what he wants to do, what he wants to wear, eat, watch, listen to, where to work, live. Each person should voluntarily participate in the development of the society in which he lives. As an example, different levels of development of states. They try to get into some states and obtain citizenship, while they flee from others without looking back. The reason is the number and level of the provided opportunities. These factors determine the level of external freedom of a person.

Four parts of freedom can be roughly distinguished:

Political.
Economic.
National and state.
Individual rights.

However, this does not mean at all that a person should act here as a consumer of goods. No, the person still has to take care of his development, about his inner freedom, get rid of inner fears.

Absolute responsibility for one's life lies only with a person, and this can be called true freedom.
Tip 3

What is expressed

Freedom is expressed in the ability to choose the best for oneself from all options, while not affecting the interests of other people, without violating the law and following one's principles of morality and ethics.

The feeling of free will makes it possible for a person to feel himself the creator of his life. Only if a person feels that he is influencing the world by his actions, he can change this world and make it the way he wants. This feeling of freedom of choice makes a person the author of his destiny. A person, influencing the world and receiving feedback on his actions from it, learns new things, gains experience, learns the world, himself, lives. With a sense of freedom, a person develops an understanding that he is responsible for his life.
Tip 4

How to feel free

A person feels as free as he can afford it. For the most part, a person himself drives himself into a framework, from which he then tries to get out. From childhood, prohibitions and all kinds of restrictions remain: don't do this, you can't do that. Already from birth, a person is not free. First, he depends on his parents, then on the school, university, friends, environment. He is trying to get his life experience, but he is being imposed on a "ready-made", proven path. But what about development, which is possible only through the acquisition of personal experience.

You can only feel free by choosing your own path, and following it without deviating. Gradually freeing ourselves from addictions that deprive us of opportunities to improve our both material and spiritual sides of life.
Tip 5

When freedom is considered violated

The line of freedom is very thin, to violate a person's freedom is sometimes enough just to watch him closely.

You paid attention when you are watching someone, and at the same time you look him directly in the eyes, then literally in a few minutes the object will get angry and begin to show more aggressive behavior towards you.

Therefore, people cannot look intently into each other's eyes. This is possible only when people are united by love. In this state, the gaze takes on different features. This concerns external freedom, but a person controls his internal freedom himself.
Tip 6

Who most often violates freedom

If we talk about external freedom, then it can be violated by people living nearby or making decisions of national or global importance.

Freedom of speech and religion may be prohibited. There can be a war or a revolution in a state. It is unlikely that in such a situation a person will feel comfortable and free. There are many factors in life that affect it. But only understanding the meaning of responsibility for the decisions made can save a person from illegal, immoral and cynical actions.
Tip 7

What the lack of freedom threatens

The lack of a sense of freedom is dangerous for a person by personality degradation, stopping any activity.

Not feeling the desire to create their own destiny and acquire new life experience, learn and know themselves, a person simply loses interest in life.

Without a sense of freedom, a person will only exist. Conclusion

Conclusion

In order to expand freedom of will and, as a result, freedom of choice, a person must constantly work on his self-development, learn, learn new things. Only by comparing himself yesterday with himself today, a person can trace the degree of his development. What is a ceiling for one person can only be a floor for another. You should not be equal to other people's successes, you have your own.

The meaning and purpose of history (collection) Jaspers Karl Theodor

1. The goal is freedom

In all the contradictory aspirations of our time, there seems to be one requirement that unites everyone. All peoples, all people, representatives of all political regimes unanimously demand freedom. However, in the understanding of what freedom is and what makes it possible to realize it, everyone immediately disagrees. Perhaps the deepest contradictions between people are due to their understanding of freedom. What one sees as the path to freedom, the other considers the exact opposite of this. Almost everything that people strive for is done in the name of freedom. In the name of freedom, they even take the path of slavery. The possibility of giving up freedom by force of a free decision seems to others to be the highest freedom. Freedom breeds enthusiasm, but freedom breeds fear. Sometimes it even seems that people do not want freedom at all, moreover, they strive to avoid the very possibility of freedom.

From the moment the understanding of the great crisis of the West penetrated into the minds of people, from the French Revolution of 1789, anxiety for human freedom seized all of Europe. The most prominent people saw the possibility of losing freedom. If Hegel could still calmly regard world history as a history of freedom in consciousness and reality, then people who experienced a deeper emotional shock were horrified at the possibility that freedom would be completely lost by people. Now this question has completely passed into the sphere of politics and social structure: such great minds as Burke, Benjamin Constant *, Tocqueville, Max Weber, were primarily concerned with the problem of freedom. Our contemporaries, a number of thinkers in all countries of the world - W. Lipman, Ferrero, Hayek, Repke * - implore people to share their anxiety. These include economists, historians, and writers not affiliated with any party; they appeal to all people to save that unique, genuine universal good, without which a person ceases to be a person.

The philosophical concept of freedom. It is customary to talk about political freedom, public, personal, economic, religious freedom, freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, press, assembly, etc. Political freedom is in the foreground in discussions. Already here there is no unanimous answer to the question of its essence.

If by freedom we mean the participation of all citizens in the expression of the will of the whole, access for them to knowledge and activity, then history shows: only in the West were attempts made to gain political freedom. But here, too, their implementation in most cases ended in failure. These attempts help us to understand what caused the disappearance of freedom in Athens, in Rome. In our time, the most pressing question for Europe, for all mankind, is whether our path leads forward to freedom, or again to its disappearance for an indefinable time.

Everything that happens, of course, depends on the people. There is nothing that can be considered inevitable. All human activity, primarily spiritual, consists in finding our way among the possibilities open before us. What will happen depends on us, on each of us, although an individual person never prejudges the course of historical development.

The concept of political freedom becomes purely external and distorted, if its basis is not a deep meaning of freedom, which should be considered the sphere of genuine human existence and behavior. Let's try to give a philosophical definition of this essence of freedom.

1. Freedom is overcoming that external which all the same subjugates me to itself. Freedom arises where this other is no longer alien to me, where, on the contrary, I recognize myself in another, or where this externally necessary becomes a moment of my existence, where it is cognized and received a definite form.

However, freedom is at the same time overcoming their own arbitrariness. Freedom coincides with the internally present necessity of the true.

Being free, I want not because I want to, but because I am confident in the justice of my desire. Therefore, the claim to freedom means the desire to act not arbitrarily or out of blind obedience, but as a result of understanding. Hence the claim that, in anchoring at the origins of all things, we proceeded in our desires from our own origins.

However, it is easy to make a mistake. Arbitrariness again appears as a claim to the right to have one's own opinion; and the premise here is that every opinion is valid because someone defends it. However, opinion is not yet understanding. And freedom requires overcoming what is just an opinion.

This overcoming is accomplished through the limitations that we, as individuals, impose on ourselves in our coexistence with others. Freedom is exercised only in the community of people. I can be free to the extent that others are free.

Retreating to justified understanding, what is just an opinion disappears in the struggle of love between neighbors.

At the stage of a certain socio-political state, opinion turns into the consciousness of objective truth through a public clash of opinions, in the recognition of different opinions, but only in their movement and delimitation.

Freedom requires two things: the depth of human communication between individuals in their own selves and conscious activity in the name of freedom of social conditions through joint understanding and the formation of will.

However, absolute truth, and thus complete freedom, is never achieved. Truth along with freedom is on the way. We do not live in eternal perfect harmony of souls, but in a temporary process of never ending necessity of transformation.

2. Freedom demands that nothing be overlooked. Everything that has being and meaning must acquire its right. The condition for freedom is the ultimate latitude. Therefore, the content of freedom is revealed in life, full of polarities and contradictions.

Each position is opposed by a position opposite to it. Freedom is everything, if possible. She is ready to perceive everything that comes from the outside, not only as an opposite, but also to introduce it into herself. Freedom is the mind of unlimited openness; the ability to listen and freedom are, in this genuine open space of the broadest consciousness, the determination of a historic decision. Therefore, freedom seeks these fruitful polarities, where one side would perish without the other.

Freedom is lost where polarities are abandoned in favor of limitation - whether in a social arrangement that forgets its own boundaries, whether in extremes that partly deny this arrangement, or in any one pole that sees itself as a whole.

On the contrary, we regain freedom where we are open, where we preserve the possibilities given to us in the tension of opposites, where in the course of changing situations we make a decision based on our historical sources, and we perceive being in its new content with an open mind.

3. If freedom coincides with the necessity of the true, it always remains fragile; for we never have the assurance that we are fully in possession of the ultimate truth. Our freedom is determined differently, it is not causa sui. If she were such, man would be a god. True freedom is aware of its limits.

In its subjectivity the individual person has the knowledge of the origins: that I am not free by my own nature, on the contrary, exactly where I feel myself truly free, I know that I am presented to myself by some kind of transcendental basis. I may not be for myself - this is that mysterious border, which corresponds to the possible experience of giving to oneself. Therefore, the existence that we can be only together with the transcendence, thanks to which we exist. Where existence is confident in itself - where freedom becomes clear to itself - it simultaneously becomes confident in transcendence.

In objectivity a free community of people, the freedom of the individual is linked to the freedom of everyone else. Therefore, political freedom cannot be the final and guaranteed state. Freedom is on the way here too.

4. Freedom seems impossible - polarities give rise to alternatives: I have to make a specific decision at any given moment - to understand why and in the name of what I live. I cannot be everything and must take one side, fight against what I myself admit is inevitable.

Indeed, freedom is a person's path through time. He moves towards freedom, claiming freedom. Therefore, movement and dialectics are inherent in freedom.

This movement is apparently possible in thinking thanks to reason. Reason we call omniscient openness, which in every act of reason is something more than reason. Reason gives us an idea of the truth, using the forms of rational thinking for this. Through their deployment, the mind tries to establish a system of unity of all that is imaginable. However, at the same time he aspires to the contradictory. Thus, reason is the driving force that brings reason to the point where it is defeated. Reason accepts opposites, however, going beyond the sphere of reason, it is also a force capable of uniting them. Reason seeks not to allow final separation in anything. He wants to overcome the alternatives of reason. Thus, the mind connects what it simultaneously brings to the last degree of polarity: peace and transcendence, science and faith, the structuring of the world and the meditation of eternal existence. Therefore, reason is the highest dialectic - with the help of consciousness, reason brings the actual dialectic to its final conclusions.

However, the overcoming of opposites is limited by specific alternatives of the real situation. This constantly happens where thinking cannot remain in itself, where its expression in time and space is required. Only those who are able to make a decision are free here. Making a decision, a person takes upon himself the lack of freedom he has chosen. Having refused various possibilities, he freely implements his decision, but at the same time limits himself. Through this realization, freedom receives content, but receives it on the path to non-freedom.

Freedom cannot be owned. There is no isolated freedom. Therefore, the individual sacrifices his frozen empty freedom in the name of that freedom that can be won only together with others.

Such freedom arises only with change of a person. It cannot be created through institutions forcibly introduced into a community of unchanged people; it is associated with the nature of communication between people who are ready to change. Therefore, freedom, as such, cannot be planned, but people in the course of the correct planning of specific tasks together acquire freedom.

Bringing people to freedom means bringing them into a state where they will open up to each other in conversation. However, this is not yet free from deception, if at the same time some unspoken ulterior thoughts remain, if reserves remain, which they resort to, internally interrupting communication with the interlocutor, if the statement, in essence, contains an attempt to conceal, deceive or cheat ... Genuine communication is sincere and honest. Truth is born only in complete mutual openness.

It is incompatible with truth, and thus with freedom, both a calm philistine existence within the framework of accepted conventions, and submission to dictatorial power, when for everyone there is only one established worldview and one can express one's thoughts only with appropriate phrases that penetrate even private letters; just as incompatible with truth and freedom is the fanatical pathos, with which the possession of truth is declared aggressively and offensive to others, and which, in essence, is aimed only at humiliating others. In this fanatical emphasis on truth, the lack of it manifests itself precisely in the lack of communication.

In reality, however, no one possesses the ultimate absolute truth. Seeking the truth means constantly being ready for communication and waiting for this willingness from others. With someone who really strives for the truth, and therefore for communication, you can talk about everything with complete frankness, and he himself can talk about everything, but in such a way as not to offend and at the same time not spare the one who really wants him listen. The struggle for truth under conditions of freedom is the struggle of love.

Do we know, after all this reasoning, what freedom is? No. However, this is due to the very essence of freedom. To the reproach that all the above provisions did not understand what freedom is, one should answer: freedom is not an object. It does not have a real existence in the world, which we, observing, could explore. Freedom as a subject of scientific knowledge does not exist. Therefore, freedom cannot be defined by a firmly established concept. However, what is not available to my objective knowledge, I can grasp mentally, bring in the movement of thought to conceptual presence - and then talk about freedom as if it really exists. This, of course, inevitably leads to an intertwining of many misunderstandings.

Power and political freedom. Theoretically, thinking about the desirable and reasonable, we easily forget about the main reality, about the power that is present in our life every day, albeit in a latent form. It is impossible to bypass the power. However, if there is no such human existence where power is not present as an inevitable reality, regardless of whether each individual person is aware of it or not, if power, as such, is evil (Burckhardt), then the question arises: how to take away the power really necessary sphere, how to transform it into a moment of order, acting to the limit, outside of which it has almost no need to manifest itself? In other words, how to eliminate the evil inherent in power?

The answer to these questions is provided by the struggle between legality and violence that has been going on in history since time immemorial. Justice must be carried out by law, on the basis of some ideal law, on the basis of natural law. However, this ideal law finds its real embodiment only as the historical law of a society that creates laws for itself and obeys them. Freedom of a person begins from the moment when adopted laws come into effect in the state in which he lives.

This freedom is called political freedom. A state in which freedom based on laws operates is called legal state. A state governed by the rule of law is a state in which laws are adopted and amended only through legal means. In democracies, this is the will of the people, their activities or participation, expressed directly or indirectly through their representatives, periodically elected through free elections, invested with their confidence. We call a state free if it has sovereignty in relation to other states. However, speaking of political freedom, we mean the freedom of the people, which is the internal freedom of its political state. External freedom of the state can be combined with internal despotism and lack of freedom. External lack of freedom of the state usually, although not always, entails, along with the loss of sovereignty, internal lack of freedom. For if a state power that enslaves its subjects strives for political freedom, it can, within the framework of a dependent state, allow this only to the limit beyond which its enslaved subjects become independent members of an all-encompassing state.

The strength of internal political freedom initially grows, however, only from the political self-education of the people, constituting themselves as a political nation. Departing from this state, such a nation can awaken and liberate other peoples. However, these liberated peoples remain politically disciples and must humbly abandon the proud consciousness that they are the creators of their freedom.

This all sounds very simple; it seems that it is enough for people to show due understanding and goodwill in order to live in conditions of ideal freedom by virtue of natural law and the legality arising from it. However, firstly, the law is always specific for each given historical situation - that is why the laws change in accordance with the changed conditions; secondly, it is necessary to curb the authorities, which are always ready to break the law - hence the law-based violence directed against crime.

Where violence reigns, we experience fear: where law reigns, we live in peace. The actions of the authorities cannot be foreseen, they are arbitrary, the individual is defenseless and completely dependent on them. The law can be foreseen, it introduces order, the individual finds in it the protection of his existence. In conditions of legality, spontaneity, freedom and peace reign. In conditions of violence, silence and secrecy, coercion and restlessness reign. In a state governed by the rule of law, trust prevails, in a state of violence - a general distrust of each other.

Trust needs a solid footing, an unbreakable foundation, something so respected by everyone that any violator can be declared a criminal and expelled from society without any difficulty. This invincibility of trust is called legitimacy.

Max Weber distinguishes between three types of legal authority: traditional(belief in the holiness of long established traditions), rational(belief in the legality of the existing order and those who are called to exercise power in them) and charismatic(belief in holiness, heroism or the unattainable perfection of someone). The bearer of power is in these three cases: established by law ruler, summoned by tradition (for example, by inheritance) lord and charismatic leader.

Ferrero put forward, perhaps, a somewhat schematic, but penetrating into the essence of our time, an alternative: freedom based on legitimacy - despotism and fear within the framework of illegitimacy (and he considers a charismatic leader as a kind of the latter). Ferrero sees the basis of legitimacy in the inheritance of monarchs or in the majority of votes in popular elections. The bearer of the legitimate authority can rule, fearlessly relying on the consent of the people. A ruler who does not rely on legality experiences fear of the people, the violence he implements gives rise to the violence of others, out of fear he is forced to resort to ever-increasing terror, and this, in turn, leads to the fact that fear becomes the prevailing feeling in a given society. Legitimacy is like a magician who incessantly creates necessary order with the help of trust; illegitimacy is violence that perpetuates violence based on mistrust and fear.

The basis of legitimacy can easily be criticized, seem dubious: for example, inheritance law can be considered unreasonable, because it also gives stupid and spineless people legal power, and election by a majority vote is unconvincing, since it can be caused by a mistake, accident, committed under the influence of a momentary mood due to the manipulation of the masses. Therefore, legitimacy is always in danger. Reason can easily question it. Since, however, the choice can only be between legitimacy and despotism, legitimacy is the only way (especially since it is possible to correct mistakes committed along this way), by standing on which a person can live without fear. Hence the intellect's reverence for the source of legitimacy. Our era sees it in elections and voting.

There are many shortcomings in the foundations of legitimacy, many are unfair and inappropriate. People elected to government posts can be fools, laws unjust and destructive, and outrageous. The legitimacy of power protects the elect and the laws, but not completely. New elections displace people, new legitimate decisions change laws. The fact that both of these acts are carried out in a legal way allows for the necessary adjustments to be made without the use of violence. The consciousness of legitimacy forces one to put up with serious shortcomings in order to avoid absolute evil - terror and fear under a despotic regime. Political freedom is not established as a result of purely rational considerations, it is associated with legitimacy.

For power not to degenerate into omnipotence, legitimacy is necessary. Only in the presence of legitimacy is there freedom, since legitimacy fetters power. Where legitimacy disappears, freedom is also destroyed.

The idea of political freedom gave rise to a number of basic provisions in the Western world, they arose in England and America, were borrowed by France, and after the French Revolution and other states, and underwent philosophical rethinking during the Enlightenment (for example, by Kant).

Let's try to summarize the main points. Political freedom as internal political freedom has the following features: 1. Freedom of an individual person - provided that all people are free - is possible only if it can exist along with the freedom of everyone else.

V legally the single person retains the sphere of his arbitrariness (negative freedom), which allows him to isolate himself from others. However, in morally freedom is manifested precisely in the openness of mutual communication, which is revealed without compulsion on the basis of love and reason (positive freedom).

Only in the exercise of positive freedom, guaranteed by the right to negative freedom, does the thesis acquire its meaning: a person is free to the extent that he sees freedom around him, that is, to the extent that everyone is free.

2. A person has two claims: 1) to be protected from violence; 2) the significance of their views and their will. Protection grants him constitutional state, the importance of his views and will - democracy.

3. Freedom can be won only if power is overcome by law. Freedom fights for power that serves the right. She reaches her goal in legal state. Laws are equally valid for everyone. Laws change only by legal means.

The necessary use of violence is regulated by law. The actions of the police authorities can only be directed against offenders in the forms established by law and excluding arbitrariness. Therefore, there is no need for a political police.

The freedom of the individual is guaranteed as the freedom of the individual, the inviolability of property, home. The restriction of this freedom is permissible only under the conditions established by law that apply to everyone. Basic human rights are preserved even under the law, for example, a person cannot be imprisoned without specifying the reason for the arrest, without being interrogated for a certain short time and providing him with legal means for protest and public defense.

4. To the inviolability of human rights as a person is added his right to participate in the life of society. Therefore, freedom is possible only with democracy, that is, with the possible participation of all in the expression of will. Each person, depending on the level of his political maturity and the persuasiveness of his views, can count on recognition.

When voting during an election, everyone has equal rights. The secrecy of the vote is guaranteed. Nomination of candidates by various groups of the population is not limited. A government is formed through elections at fixed intervals. Therefore, in a democratic state, the government can be overthrown in a legal way without the use of violence, changed in its composition or subjected to various transformations, and in reality this is constantly happening. In a free democratic society, the same people cannot continuously occupy government positions for a long time.

The protection of the individual from violence corresponds to the protection of all from the authority of the individual. Even the greatest services to the state are not the basis for the inviolability of the power of the individual. A person remains a person, and even the best of people can become dangerous if his power is not restrained by certain restrictions. Therefore, the irreplaceable power causes fundamental distrust, and even the one who has the most power must, at least temporarily, step back after the next elections. Under these conditions, there can be no exorbitant exaltation of any statesman, but the one who, in the current situation, unquestioningly transfers his power to another, becomes the subject of universal gratitude and respect.

5. Will is formed in the decisions made during the interview.

Therefore, freedom requires an open, unlimited discussions. In order for this discussion to be carried out in the broadest possible volume on the basis of full awareness, freedom requires familiarization with all the information available to people, with all the data, with the argumentation of the opinions of all parties - and this is a requirement for the entire population.

Therefore, we need freedom of the press, assembly, freedom of speech. You can convince, you can engage in propaganda, but only in free competition. Restrictions are possible only during a war, but even then only the communication of information is limited, and not the communication of opinions. There are also restrictions in criminal law (protection from libel, insults, etc.).

Each person comes to a decision in the course of joint discussion. A political opponent does not become an enemy. Freedom can only be preserved if there is a readiness for joint activities, even with the enemy. In principle, the discussion has no limits at all (the exception is the situation in which the criminal is involved), the parties strive for joint actions on the basis of agreement and compromise.

6. Political freedom is democracy, but it appears in historical data forms and gradations. They exclude the rule of the masses (ochlocracy), which always acts in alliance with tyranny. Therefore, preference is given to the aristocratic stratum, which is constantly replenished from all strata of the population, depending on personal activities, merits and successes, and in which the people see their representatives. This aristocracy does not act as a class or an elite. Forming it through upbringing, testing its merits and making choices that can only to some extent be deliberate are a condition of free democracy. An indispensable requirement of democracy is that this elite should not be fixed and thus not become a dictatorial minority. Free elections should serve as a test of her merits and subject her to constant control, as a result of which those in power replace each other and return, reappear in the political arena or finally leave it.

7. The holding of elections and the formation of the political elite is carried out party. In a free society, there are necessarily several parties, at least two. By its very concept and verbal meaning, the party is a part. In a free society, the party's claim to be unique is ruled out. A party with a claim to totalitarianism contradicts freedom. The victory of such a party destroys freedom. Therefore, free parties want other parties to exist alongside them. They do not seek to eradicate them. The defeated parties at the given moment pass into opposition, but at the same time bear their share of responsibility for the whole. They act in accordance with the fact that at some point, given different election results, they, in turn, will be in power. The presence of an influential opposition is a mandatory sign of a free society.

8.Is connected with the technique of democracy democratic way of life. The absence of one feature would mean the disappearance of the other. The state of political freedom can be preserved only if the consciousness of freedom is constantly alive in the mass of the population, if it is always directed towards all the realities of this freedom and people take care to preserve it. It is known at what price this freedom was won, both in the course of the historical process and in the self-education of the people as a whole.

Democracy is unthinkable without liberalism. It must be associated with freedom; otherwise, it degenerates into ochlocracy or tyranny.

9. Political freedom must create an opportunity for all other human freedoms. The policy is aimed at achieving the goals public order as basics, not in quality the ultimate goal of human life. Therefore, political freedom is simultaneously inherent in two aspects: a passionate striving for freedom and sobriety in assessing the goals immediately facing it. In order for the social order to be able to provide a person with the greatest freedom, the legal order must be limited only to what is essential. The politics of freedom becomes impure if it gives place to other motives as well. And unclean politics becomes a source of unfreedom.

10. A sign of political freedom is separation of politics from worldview. As freedom grows, religious (confessional) and ideological struggles are eliminated from the political sphere.

In politics it comes about what is equally important for all people - about the interests of existence independent of the content of faith - about so understandable to all people that with the help of order, law and agreement, they can satisfy mutual requirements. The question arises, where does something that is not common to all people manifest: worldview, historically formed faith, all those specific tendencies that need their own sphere of action. Here the only thing common to all is that such a sphere exists for them.

It is natural for a person to consider his way of life to be the only correct one, to feel every existence, unlike his own, as a reproach, as an encroachment on his rights, to hate it. And this leads to the desire to impose their own ideas on others and, if possible, to shape the whole world in accordance with them.

Policies based on these kinds of tendencies stand in the way of violence, increase violence. She does not seek to listen to the enemy or negotiate with him - except for appearance - she subdues him.

Politics, the source of which is the human desire for freedom, overcomes its wrongful impulses and is satisfied with a modest goal. It is limited to the interests of existence, seeking to provide people with all the opportunities available to them, if only they do not run counter to what is vital for everyone. This policy is tolerant towards everyone except those who, through their intolerance, contribute to the assertion of violence. It goes by a constant reduction in violence.

Such a policy is based on faith, which strives for freedom. Faith can be infinitely diverse in its content, but what believers have in common is a deep seriousness in understanding the necessary justice and legality of conditions and processes in human society. Only believing people are capable of greatness in humility, only they are reliable in the moral aspect of their political activities.

Since politics touches human life, as it were, on its the lowest level, at the level of its existence in the world - it is true that everything else depends on it, hence the feeling of responsibility and passion in political activity - but it does not directly concern the lofty problems of a person's inner freedom, issues of his faith and spiritual life. It only creates conditions for them.

Let's take an example. Christianity is a matter of faith. A Christian can choose any party, belong to any party as far as worldly matters are concerned. He can vote for communists or capitalists, republicans or monarchists. For this or that ordering of worldly affairs follows not from the biblical faith itself, but from the specific features of the manifestation of this faith determined by the church. A Christian cannot desire only evil. Christianity, which has taken on a political coloration, becomes questionable as a faith.

Meanwhile, since only faith can bring passion into politics soberly limited to its immediate significance, the modern free world was created by believing Christians.

Another example: scientific Marxism gave an extremely fruitful method of cognition, however, as an absolutized total teaching in the field of philosophy of history and sociology, it turned into a delusion - which can be scientifically proven - into a worldview indulging in fantasies. The socialization of the means of production in large enterprises in order to eliminate the appropriation of surplus value by private individuals is a political goal that can be pursued, recognizing it as just and without being a legitimate Marxist.

The principles of faith as the guiding thread of politics are detrimental to the cause of freedom. For the claim to the exclusive possession of truth leads to totality, and thus to dictatorship and to the destruction of freedom. In conditions of political freedom, an instinctive distrust of ideological parties develops, which thereby actually lose their influence. Movements based on a certain worldview or belief are hostile to freedom in their politics. For it is impossible to come to terms with the fighters for the faith. In politics, the whole point is that everyone learns to negotiate and show tolerance, solving those vital issues that can unite all people, regardless of differences in faith, worldview and interests.

11. Preserving freedom presupposes ethos of living together, which becomes, as it were, a self-evident property of human nature; it is an understanding of forms and laws, a natural humanity in communication, attention and willingness to help, respect for the rights of others, a constant willingness to compromise in everyday issues, and rejection of violence against minority groups. Within this ethos, all parties operating in freedom are unanimous. Even conservatives and liberals are in solidarity in their loyalty to these common principles that unite them.

12. Freedom is guaranteed written or unwritten constitution. However, there is no such absolutely reliable mechanism that could guarantee the existence of freedom. Therefore, in a free society, there is always a concern aimed at keeping intact the most essential for it, freedom itself, human rights, the rule of law, to protect them from encroachments and from the majority party temporarily in power. The inviolability of freedom should not be violated by the outcome of elections and the result of voting. Instances are needed that can come into force if the government elected on the basis of a majority of votes for a moment forgets about the basic requirements of universal political freedom (this includes the adoption of repeated decisions after a certain period of time sufficient to reconsider the issue, plebiscites, court sessions establishing the constitutionality of decisions taken ). However, such an instance can be reliable and effective only if it is identical with the political ethos of the people. Both of them must work together to ensure that democracy is not destroyed by democratic means, so that freedom is not driven out by freedom. Not the abstract absolute significance of democratic methods and not the mechanical majority, as such, are in all cases a reliable means for expressing the real, genuine will of the people. If in most cases these democratic methods are effective, then sometimes it becomes necessary to put them within certain boundaries, but this is permissible if and only if the danger threatens human rights and freedom itself. In these cases, in these borderline situations, the principles should be sacrificed in the name of saving the principles themselves.

Tolerance has no place in the face of intolerance, unless it is nothing more than a harmless eccentricity of individuals, which can be treated with complete indifference. There should be no freedom to destroy freedom.

13. There is no such the final stage of democracy and political freedom, which would satisfy everyone. Conflicts constantly arise when an individual experiences limitations, going beyond the guaranteed, equal opportunities for all, when free competition is constrained, unless this happens to prevent obvious injustice, when the inequality of natural abilities and merit of people is not taken into account, when many citizens do not find in the laws of the state, that justice, which they have already laid the foundation in the sphere of their immediate existence.

Democracy means the possibility of promoting everyone, depending on his skills and merit. The rule of law means that these chances are guaranteed, and thus the need to change this legalized guarantee, depending on the situation and experience, is guaranteed, however, without the use of violence, only in legal forms.

The will for justice is never fully satisfied. But when political freedom is threatened, you have to put up with a lot. Political freedom is always achieved at the cost of something and often at the cost of giving up important personal advantages, at the cost of humility and patience. Individual freedom is not limited when politically determined justice is infringed, as long as a legitimate, albeit sometimes prolonged and unsuccessful, struggle for a just cause is possible.

In decisive moments always remain necessary elections, in which all are involved population of the given country. but formal democracy, that is, the right to free, equal and secret voting, as such, is by no means a guarantee of freedom, on the contrary, it is rather a threat to it. Only under the conditions described above - the ethos of living together, self-education in the communication of people for solving specific problems, an unconditional readiness to defend basic human rights, the seriousness of faith - freedom is reliably guaranteed. Freedom, especially if it is given to a people not prepared for this self-education, can suddenly not only lead to ochlocracy and ultimately to tyranny, but even before that contribute to the fact that power will be in the hands of an accidentally rising clique, since the population, in essence, does not know what it is casting its votes for. Then the parties lose their meaning. They are no longer organs of the people, but self-gratifying organizations. They nominate to the highest government posts not the elite, but the routine “parliamentarians” and spiritually dependent people.

How genuine democracy is protected from ochlocracy and tyranny, from the accidental clique and spiritually dependent people, is a vital issue of freedom. It is necessary to create restraining authorities, able to counteract the suicidal tendencies of formal democracy. The absolute sovereignty of the majority who has happened to be in power at a given moment should be limited by something stable, which, however, since its functions are carried out by people, in turn, can only rely on humanity and a genuine desire for freedom inherent in the population as a whole. It must ultimately choose the aforementioned restraining institutions, but in such a way that they do not include parties that might otherwise come to autocracy.

14. It all depends elections. It is known what ridicule democracy is subjected to, what contempt the election results evoke. It is easy to detect obvious errors and distortions; it is also easy to declare the results of elections and decisions taken by the majority of votes, in some cases, absurd.

However, to object to this, one should constantly repeat: there is no other way to freedom, except that which is indicated by the will of the whole people. Only with complete contempt for all people, with the exception of yourself and your friends, can you choose the path of tyranny. This path leads to the self-designation of individual groups, supposedly called upon to rule over slaves, unable to determine their fate and in need of guardianship; the views of these slaves are shaped by propaganda, and the horizon is narrowed by artificial barriers. At best, this can, by the will of fate, lead to a soft dictatorship.

Both are addressing the people: both a democrat and a tyrant. The world has entered an age when those who want to rule over the people must utter certain phrases. The people are addressed both by the demagogue who contemplates crime and deception, and by the one whose intentions are noble, who serves freedom. Which of them will succeed - only the people can decide; thereby he decides his own destiny as well.

However, if this final decision is to be made by the people, then everything possible must be done to help them make the right decision. Tyranny invents such methods that, in the deafening roar of the election campaign, create the appearance of the will of the people, with the help of which people learn a lot (to serve as a suitable weapon of political struggle), but remain unable to make their own judgment. On the contrary, democracy, since the outcome of the elections remained its only legal means, tries to make elections a true expression of the genuine, unchangeable will of the people.

The only effective means for this is to familiarize all people with knowledge, to awaken their will, so that they learn, by thinking, to gradually become aware of it. People should by no means be taught, as in school, only technical techniques and skills (if they learn only this, they will turn only into instruments of slavery, capable of fulfilling fascist requirements: to believe, obey, fight). In order to make an independent judgment, we, people, need to learn to think critically and understand, we need the world of history and philosophy. In the process of constant growth of education, it is necessary to raise the entire population to more high level, lead him from partial knowledge to complete knowledge, from casual minute thoughts to methodical thinking, so that each person rises above dogma and ascends to freedom.

This is the hope that the majority of people will reach a level in their development that will allow them to make the best decision in the course of elections consciously and deliberately.

The second way is the practical self-education of the people through the participation of the majority in solving specific problems. Therefore, the development of a democratic ethos requires free and responsible communal governance.

Only what people learn in their daily practice, what they constantly do in a narrow area of their lives, can make them mature enough for democratic action on an ever larger scale.

The third way is to organize the election campaign itself. The form of elections is of tremendous importance - the nature of voting (roll-call or according to lists), counting of voting results (majority or proportional), direct or indirect elections, etc. There is no single correct type of elections. However, the nature of the elections can predetermine the course of events.

Genuine elections are a decisive factor in preserving freedom and legality, eliminating despotism and terror. A sign of despotism is the elimination of genuine elections, replacing them with the appearance of elections, through which despotism seems to pay tribute to the striving for freedom that is rooted in our time. The elimination of genuine elections is reminiscent of the executions of kings in the past; now the execution is being carried out over the people's sovereignty. The destruction of the origins of legitimacy immediately entails monstrous violence and the destruction of freedom.

As he watched the events of the French Revolution, Tocqueville had a deep understanding of what constitutes submission to the majority. In all those cases when they bowed before the human mind, showed boundless confidence in its omnipotence, in its right to any transformation of laws, institutions and mores, it was, in essence, not so much admiration for the human mind, but before its own mind. "Never before," writes Tocqueville, "have shown such little confidence in reason in general, as was characteristic of those people." They despised the crowd and God almost equally. “True, respectful submission to the will of the majority was as foreign to them as submission to the will of God. Since that time, such a duality of character has become a distinctive feature of almost all revolutionaries. At the same time, they are very far from the respect that the British and Americans show for the opinion of most of their compatriots. They are proud of their reason and trust it, but without arrogance; therefore, there reason led to freedom, while in our country it invented only new forms of slavery. "

WITH long ago argue that one vote in itself is irrelevant. Voting isn't worth the trouble. This whole procedure only causes disappointment in publicity, reduces the meaning of meaningful activity in self-awareness. This is indeed an important problem in shaping the convictions of a democratically minded modern person. Even if we assume that one vote is almost irrelevant, then the decision is still made by the sum of votes, each of which is this one vote. Therefore, in our days, the conviction could also be established: I vote with all seriousness and responsibility, although at the same time I understand how little the voice of one person means. We also need humility, and in that humility, the determination to do our best. The almost complete helplessness of each individual is combined with his desire to ensure that the decisions of these individuals in their totality decide everything.

Chapter 13. Economic Freedom, Personal Freedom Libertarian discourse on economics, as always, begins with the idea of the right of all people to do whatever they want with their life, body and property. People employed in business, commercial or economic

From the book Freedom, Power and Property the author Belotserkovsky Vadim

Freedom and self-government - freedom, power and property Yes, the reader has probably already understood which construction path we mean and consider to be ideal. This, of course, is self-government based on group ownership of the means of production. Aldous Huxley in Science,

From the book Ethics of Transformed Eros the author Vysheslavtsev Boris Petrovich

2. FREEDOM AS THE ROOT OF SATANIC EVIL AND FREEDOM AS LIKE GOD This is not the usual form of evil due to the erroneous judgment of the assessment, which Socrates recognized as the only one (“they do not know what they are doing”); but this is not the same form of evil as the resistance of the "flesh",

From the book Simple Right Life the author Kozlov Nikolay Ivanovich

Goal Step two: Formulate a positive goal. This is more difficult. It is simple to set a negative goal: “I don’t want what I have!” Yes, what do you want? If you feel bad in the city, you can go to the railway ticket office and ask: "Please, one ticket from Moscow!" Ok but you

From the book The Philosophy of Solitude the author Khamitov Nazip Valentinovich

Chapter 3 Freedom-loneliness and freedom-love 1 The life of a Genius constantly fills him with loneliness and constantly frees him from loneliness. The loneliness of the Genius in relation to humanity is the most complete and, at the same time, the most illusory. No one is so united with the idea of humanity and

From the book Open yourself to the Source by Harding Douglas

36 PURPOSE What is the purpose of life? As I see it, and as the great mystics of all great religions see it, the purpose of life is simple: conscious merging with the Source. As Meister Eckhart said: "God is in, I am out." He said, "Put on your jumping shoes and jump into God."

From the book THE very BEGINNING (The Origin of the Universe and the Existence of God) the author Craig William Lane

Purpose If at the end of life's ordeals, death awaits us with open arms, then why live at all? It turns out that human life has no higher goal! Many people think that at the end of the twentieth century, mankind is on the verge of either a nuclear catastrophe, or a worldwide

From the book The Esoteric World. Semantics of the sacred text the author Rozin Vadim Markovich

Purpose Since a person receives the gift of immortality, he does not live simply to die. God created us for a certain purpose: that we become His children. I really like the words of the catechism: “What is the main goal of man? Love God and rejoice in Him forever. " Our final

From the book Philosophy. Book three. Metaphysics the author Jaspers Karl Theodor

Christian mystery or Zen freedom Esoteric culture (Daniil Andreev. "Rose of the World") Esoteric consciousness (Zen teachings) Esoteric freedom (Krishnamurti's teachings) Doctor Nikita Danilov Memories of a participant in an esoteric seminar Vadim Rozin the best

From the book Favorites the author Dobrokhotov Alexander Lvovich

2. Since freedom exists only through and against nature, it must fail as freedom or as existence - Freedom is only if there is nature. There would be no freedom without resistance to it and without some basis in itself. For example, the fact that for

From the book Philosophical Dictionary the author Comte Sponville André

The goal is the ideal or real object of the conscious or unconscious aspiration of the subject; the final result to which the process is deliberately directed. As a philosophical problem, the concept of "purpose" has arisen in Greek philosophy at least since the era of Socrates.

From the book Freedom of Servants the author Viroli Maurizio

Purpose (But) What we strive for, what we strive for, what we want to get, what we wish to succeed in. The Stoics distinguished between an end goal (telos) and a simple goal (skopos). The target is something external to the action - this is the target the archer is aiming at. The ultimate goal wears

From the book Aristotle for everyone. Complex philosophical ideas in simple words author Adler Mortimer

From the author's book

Chapter 9. Purpose as the first principle of practical thinking and the use of means as the beginning of actions: purpose as the first in the order of intention and the last in the order of execution (Reflecting on ends and means)