Absolute freedom is impossible. Why can't there be absolute freedom?

home

Remember:

What is the expression of necessity in nature? What did the slogan of freedom mean during the French Revolution?

Personal freedom in its various manifestations is today the most important value of civilized humanity. The importance of freedom for human self-realization was understood in ancient times. The desire for freedom, liberation from the shackles of despotism and arbitrariness has permeated the entire history of mankind. This has manifested itself with particular force in New and Contemporary times. All revolutions wrote the word “freedom” on their banners. Few political leaders and revolutionary leaders did not vow to lead the masses they led to true freedom. But although the overwhelming majority declared themselves to be unconditional supporters and defenders of individual freedom, the meaning attached to this concept was different. The category of freedom is one of the central ones in the philosophical quests of humanity. And just as politicians paint this concept in different colors, often subordinating it to their specific political goals, so philosophers approach its understanding from different positions. Let's try to understand the diversity of these interpretations.

No matter how much people strive for freedom, they understand that there cannot be absolute, unlimited freedom. First of all, because complete freedom for one would mean arbitrariness in relation to the other. For example, someone wanted to listen to loud music at night. By turning on the tape recorder at full power, the man fulfilled his desire and acted freely. But his freedom in this case infringed on the right of many others to get a good night's sleep. That is why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where all articles are devoted to the rights and freedoms of the individual, the latter, which contains a mention of responsibilities, states that in the exercise of his rights and freedoms, each person should be subject only to such restrictions as are intended to ensure recognition and respect the rights of others. Arguing about the impossibility of absolute freedom, let us pay attention to one more aspect of the issue. Such freedom would mean unlimited choice for a person, which would put him in an extremely difficult position in making a decision. The expression “Buridan’s donkey” is widely known. The French philosopher Buridan spoke about a donkey that was placed between two identical and equidistant armfuls of hay. Unable to decide which armful to prefer, the donkey died of hunger. Even earlier, Dante described a similar situation, but he spoke not about donkeys, but about people: “Placed between two dishes, equally distant and equally attractive, a person would rather die than, having absolute freedom, take one of them into his mouth.” A person cannot be absolutely free. And one of the limiters here is the rights and freedoms of other people.

association

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

Do you want to be absolutely free people?

Divide into two subgroups: one should write a story on the topic: “I live in a society of absolute freedom.” The second group must think through questions that will point out the inconsistency of having absolute freedom.

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

Decipher the parable of Buridan's donkey. How did you understand it?

Formulate the principle of limiting human freedom, in which the beginning of the phrase reads as follows: “My freedom ends where.”

7. Do you agree with this principle?

ž How did you understand the meaning of these statements?

Do you agree with them? What is more in this definition for you, freedom or necessity? Explain your choice.

ž 4. What is the nature of necessity? What answers did you give to this question?

ž a) supporters of absolute predestination;

ž b) religious figures of another direction;

ž c) philosophers who deny fatalism?

ž 5. Which thinker do you agree with and why?

ž How do two concepts such as “freedom” and “responsibility” relate to each other?

ž Don't you think that the very formulation of the question already contains a contradiction?

ž Express your opinion and give reasons for it.

ž What factors can incline a person to make his choice in the concepts: “I can.”, “I must.”

ž Give practical examples.

What is “responsibility”? Imagine that you find yourself in a dispute between two young people. One argued: “Responsibility is a measure of coercion, external influence.” The second said: “Responsibility is a conscious feeling, a person’s readiness to consciously follow the norms of law and morality.” Which side would you support? Why?

ž What is your attitude towards these concepts? How do you act in your daily life? Why?

Questions and tasksto group 4

Draw a portrait of a free person. Explain the choice of those qualities that you endowed with a free person.

No matter how much people strive for freedom, they understand that there cannot be absolute, unlimited freedom. You cannot live in society and be absolutely free from it. First of all, because complete freedom for one would mean arbitrariness in relation to the other. The freedom of each member of society is limited by the level of development and the nature of the society in which he lives. For example, someone wanted to listen to loud music at night. By turning on the tape recorder at full power, the man fulfilled his desire and acted freely. But his freedom in this case infringed on the right of many others to get a good night's sleep.

Arguing about the impossibility of absolute freedom, let us pay attention to one more aspect of the issue. Such freedom would mean unlimited choice for a person, which would put him in an extremely difficult position in making a decision. The expression “Buridan’s donkey” is widely known. The French philosopher Buridan spoke about a donkey that was placed between two identical and equidistant armfuls of hay. Unable to decide which armful to prefer, the donkey died of hunger.

But the main limiters of his freedom are not external circumstances. Some modern philosophers argue that human activity cannot receive a goal from the outside at all; in his inner life the individual is absolutely free. He himself chooses not only an activity option, but also formulates general principles of behavior and looks for reasons for them. Therefore, the objective conditions of people’s existence do not play such a big role in their choice of a model of action. The goals of human activity are formulated in accordance with the internal motivations of each person. The limit of such freedom can only be the rights and freedoms of other people. Awareness of this by the person himself is necessary. Freedom is inseparable from responsibility, from duties to society and its other members.

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

That is why the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights emphasizes that these rights, in the course of their implementation, should not infringe on the rights of other individuals. Consequently, the relative nature of freedom is reflected in the responsibility of the individual to other people and society as a whole. The dependence between freedom and responsibility of the individual is directly proportional: the more freedom society gives a person, the greater his responsibility for using this freedom. Otherwise, anarchy, destructive for the social system, occurs, turning social order into social chaos.

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

Despite all the differences in the above points of view, it is clear that it is, of course, possible to ignore the necessity, prevailing circumstances, conditions of activity, sustainable trends in human development, but this will be, as they say, “more expensive for yourself.” But there are restrictions that most people cannot accept and fight stubbornly against them. These are various forms of social and political tyranny; rigid class-caste structures that drive a person into a strictly defined cell of the social network; tyrannical states, where the will of a few or even one is subject to the life of the majority, etc. There is no place for freedom or it appears in an extremely reduced form.

Despite the importance of taking into account the external factors of freedom and its boundaries, in the opinion of many thinkers, internal freedom is even more important. So, N.A. Berdyaev wrote: “We will be freed from external oppression only when we are freed from internal slavery, i.e. Let’s take responsibility and stop blaming external forces for everything.”

Thus, the goals of human activity must be formulated in accordance with the internal motivations of each person. The limit of such freedom can only be the rights and freedoms of other people. Freedom can be achieved, but the most difficult thing is to learn to live as a free person. Live in such a way that you do everything according to your own will - but at the same time without oppressing others, without limiting the freedom of others. Awareness of this by the person himself is necessary.

Absolute freedom

P r o l o g.

Liberty

What is freedom? They talk about it so much, but few have seen it.
Freedom has been in the minds of mankind since the earliest times. The myths of Ancient Greece were imbued with this sublime feeling. Freedom for them was more valuable than life, higher than love. How fiercely and selflessly they fought for this beautiful and unattainable Freedom! And all modern times were in full swing with this lofty idea of ​​liberating humanity from slavery, serfdom and crude medieval foundations.
The theme of freedom has always been relevant. And now she lives and excites the minds of millions. They suffered, killed and died for freedom. This eternal symbol of the boundlessness of a fresh, sensual flight over the problems of existence is forever entrenched in the human subconscious. The state and man, God and man, Fate and man - and now these problems occupy the minds of the progressive, thinking part of the population of our planet.
And now we will try to figure out why, in fact, I wrote all this.
Here are the definitions of freedom given in explanatory dictionaries:
1. Freedom in philosophy is the possibility of a subject expressing his will on the basis of awareness of the laws of development of nature and society.
2. The absence of constraints and restrictions connecting the socio-political life and activities of any class, the whole society or its members.
3. In general, the absence of any restrictions in anything.
4. The state of someone who is not in prison, in captivity (i.e., is at large).
Before us are four definitions of freedom, which are used in different spheres of human existence.
In philosophy, freedom is equated with the possibility of manifesting one’s will (a certain quintessence of the free manifestations of a reasonable person). Here freedom appears as one of the highest hypostases of the human mind, capable of understanding the laws of development of nature and society. According to this theory, there are probably very few people capable of breaking away from the sinful insignificance of the earth’s lithosphere and breaking into the highest circle of celestial bodies. Therefore, this freedom is available only to a select few.
In political and social life, freedom appears as the absence of elementary, natural restrictions, such as freedom of speech, press, personality, thought, conscience and other mimetic definitions. Freedom in this aspect is equivalent to the rights that a democratic state guarantees us.
In a certain local world, for example, in a family, freedom is often mistaken for an anarchic, selfish denial of the rights and responsibilities inherent in this structure. Personal freedom, raised to the absolute and, at times, brought to the point of absurdity, is put at the forefront.
Children, as the most freedom-loving part of society, are nevertheless always limited by all sorts of “no.” And these unfortunate, young creatures, rich in ideas and thoughts, sometimes go to self-destruction in the name of achieving the boundless essence of heaven.
And, finally, it’s just that each person individually is aware of his freedom, at least in the fact that he is free... And he is free, within certain limits, to do whatever he pleases.
While deciphering these fluctuation stereotypes of freedom, I came to a very interesting pattern. It lies in the fact that in all definitions of freedom its absolute scope is missing, i.e. they are all limited in some way. In a philosophical understanding, freedom is limited by a higher awareness of the laws of nature and society. In the political sense - by the state. In the local (family) – responsible and moral relationships. In a personal sense, it is the totality of all these (and more) restrictions.
So what happens? The myth of freedom, as the boundless flight of human consciousness, is collapsing before our eyes.
In this regard, another question arises: is there another logical substratum that has the greatest power, the greatest scope in relation to the comprehensiveness of the free self? Does absolute freedom exist? Is it necessary?

Absolute freedom.

Our world is an ordered scheme of events interconnected with each other. From one comes another, from another a third. If you wrote a letter, then it is completely logical for you to go out and buy an envelope. If you haven’t slept for a long time, then you are drawn to sleep, and if you still can’t fall asleep, then something is bothering you. Events do not come out of nowhere; they are born from the interpenetrating connection of accompanying circumstances. At first glance, some events seem insignificant, but in the end they can turn out to be decisive.
We live in a relatively democratic society. The state guarantees us various rights: to life, property, free elections, etc. And we are completely confident that this is the only thing needed for our absolute freedom: I am my own master, as long as I am not disturbed...
However, this is deeply misleading. Those natural and democratic freedoms that we receive from society are essentially insignificant in front of the real, global problem of free existence.
Our next misconception is that we imagine “absolute freedom” as a kind of anarchy. There are no governments, no subordinates and bosses, no one is responsible for anything, everyone is equal and free in their actions.
In fact, “absolute freedom” is an age-old infinity. On the one hand, it lies beyond our understanding, and on the other hand, it is a seemingly limitless way of life.
What does this concept include? This is a complete denial of any relationship. ,Abs. St.” does not obey logic and common sense. It is something spontaneous and impermanent. Not only do others not understand why you are doing this, but you yourself do not understand it, because “absolute freedom” is not only freedom from the regime, society and people, but it is also freedom from yourself.
Everything happens thoughtlessly and aimlessly. There are no frames, prohibitions or fences here. The soul is open, like the transparent aspiration of the wind. A thought flies and flies, returns and does not remain.
“Absolute freedom” is when you yourself don’t know what you will do in a second. You do not obey anyone, but you do not belong to yourself either.
And now a completely logical question arises: then why the hell is it needed if you yourself don’t understand what you want?!
If you think rationally and approach everything from a pragmatic point of view, then this, of course, is complete nonsense... But for a creative and directionless person, this results in a more complex problem. This is the choice of everyone. Is he capable of sacrificing everything for everything?
But one thing is crystal clear: this euphoric dream of complete independence of being in the real world is unrealistic. Therefore, choosing the path of freedom, we suddenly realize that only suicide is the road to this independence... Are you ready to sacrifice what you have for what may be? So, think before you take a step towards the oasis. After all, this may turn out to be just a mirage...

Absolibrestics

So, we have found out that “absolute freedom” is impossible in human society. Which is easily proven with an elementary example. Even if a person realized this problem and decided to follow the path of absolute disobedience to everyday pressures, he is still doomed to failure. After all, we are designed this way, to understand everything we do. And if this person nevertheless changed the usual course of events, broke the shackles of the brain-corroding substance and, for example, by mysterious providence, suddenly stopped in the middle of the square and, to the amazement of the single-celled crowd, shouted: “Inscrutable are the ways of the Lord!” Not only can this event be given completely routine explanations, such as that he was forced to do it, or he was so engrossed in his thoughts that he did not notice all this surrounding commotion, etc. But even if we take the completely incredible turn of events, that this man has the gift of “absolute freedom”, and he did this act completely thoughtlessly, aimlessly, not even understanding what would come out of his mouth at that moment, still in his thoughts he should have initially this option would be screwed up, and then the result would be obtained. He had to think, for example: “Shouldn’t I do something so unusual, anti-reasonable?” And if such a thought arose in him even for a split second, then this is already logic, already reason.
Thus, it turns out that “absolute freedom” is completely useless in a reasonable, albeit poorly thought out, but predetermined world. Then a completely logical question arises: why am I writing so persistently about her, why did she give in to me, if this is just a beautiful fairy tale. So I’ll tell you: it’s just that this magical, abyssal freedom was reflected in my post-constructive mind, and degenerated into a literary direction. I called it “absolibrestics” (Latin Absolutes unlimited, unconditional, liberty, freedom). Now let’s try to see what characterizes this aberrational style.
Firstly, there is complete freedom in choosing style, language and arch-storyline. Unlimited freedom to think as your mind and heart dictate. Constant perfection of your own personality and the language with which you express your individuality. Complication and liberation of the word. Constructing your own phrases by crossing existing words.
Secondly, it is a constantly structureless flow of a vibrating constant. A thought born in the reasonable head of a wise person can never be straightforward and one-sided. This person always approaches a problem from different angles, weighs all the pros and cons and painfully gives birth to his multifaceted answer. And therefore, thought constantly jumps from thesis to antithesis, from argument to counterargument. The many-sided stream of thought is a constant fluctuation of the pulse that never stops. Therefore, in the book there are endless movements of the pulsating jump of hairy insanity. Which results in an ongoing process of moving themes, time and space.
Thirdly, this is a set of clearly coherent, generally spreading metaphors. Transformation of an elementary event into divine laws.
Fourthly, this is the use of so-called “stimulant” words, which would disrupt the usual flow of the text, bring the reader back to life, and force him to think about what is happening. Life is not monotonous beauty, it is paradoxical inconsistencies, this is what brings us into a stupor, what shocks and surprises - that’s what life is.
Fifthly, this is not a meaningless collection of fragments of human consciousness, but a strict understanding of the thought that you want to reproduce on paper. External chaos will be replaced by a conscious inner lining.
Sixthly, this is an irresistible call for detachment from everyday life and standard thinking. This is a distraction from banal truths and standard sophistications. This is something more than just a twist, more than an attempt to stand out, it is something that connects us with our soul. And everyone’s soul is individual and unique, you must be able to hear your soul, not your heart, not your mind, but your soul!
These are, approximately, the features that can characterize this style. And now, I would like to give an example of this direction:

A shroud of confusion.

A sleepy veil of multi-colored chaos enveloped the endless gray earth. Everything melted and drowned in the boundless drowsiness of the night consciousness. Gloomy autumn days have arrived, hungry and passionless.
The world, going into spaceless hibernation, made it clear that life did not tolerate changes. Every living thing needs a certain, time-tested rest. And a person cannot exist if he does not have a moral basis for staying. In life, which is like the morning glow of the sun, everything passes and flies into the blind distance. Our goal in this cycle of solar reflections is to catch these moments and capture them on the tablets of time.
We, slow-witted and narrow-minded, cannot understand this simple truth. You cannot live for the sake of momentary bliss, but you need to reflect these moments into the rank of infinity, and only then will we see the truth.
Tired of chaotic disorder, people, starting to build their schemes and plans, learn to deceive their own nature. Although the first people, in my opinion, were characterized by spontaneity and ambiguity. These first intelligent beings possessed the gift of “absolute freedom,” which is inaccessible to the modern man in the street.
The cause, moving away from the effect and destroying subcortical sobriety, emerges from the other side of understanding, and turns into an incomprehensible scheme of contradictions and innuendos.
Combining this stream of antilogical statements, I would like to say that it doesn’t matter how you write, it doesn’t matter what they tell you after that, the only important thing is what you write and what comes out of it.

E p i l o g

Perhaps you ask me: - Why all this? What are all these clumsy, hidradenitis proposals for? All this forced pathos? Is it the desire to stand out by creating a new style and bombarding the reader with a lot of incomprehensible words and phrases? Why is all this?”
...Why live? Why do something, strive for something? Anyway, in most cases, this is just a waste of time and effort. Why do we need time at all? Why limit yourself to some insignificant segments of existence? ...So as not to get lost? Come on, we will all be there...
Why did I write all this? This question can be put in line with those that I just listed. No reason! It’s just that if I think, that means I exist, which means someone needs it!
Postmodernists believe that everything has already happened. Everything they say or come up with has already been said for them a long time ago. Their main goal is to construct from everything that was, what will be. From old ideas, put together a puzzle to create a beautiful picture. I think, or at least I hope, that there is still an unexplored land left, that uninhabited island where no man has set foot. And I'm trying to find him. Yes, perhaps the features that I listed, characterizing my style, are also not new. Even though this was also somewhere, I at least tried...
Now is the beginning of the 21st century, but have you heard at least one Russian author who shocked the world, or at least Russia, who would excite the consciousness of the Russian intelligentsia? Pelevin? Prigov? Knyshev? Akunin? Come on, be brave! Maybe I missed someone?!
Even if I missed it, can they really be compared with those personalities who were born at the beginning of the 20th century: Sologub, Gumilyov, Tsvetaeva, Mandelstam, Blok, Bunin, etc.
Then everything was boiling, multiplying, blossoming. But now it’s the other way around: it’s rotting, depersonalized, fading away.
So I want to return to that moving, static-corroding time. Breathe the air of freedom... That's why I wrote this essay, essay, whatever.
And one more thought that I noted while working on this problem. Nothing is absolute. I do not recognize words such as “everything”, “completely” and “always”. Because our life is remarkable because it is full of various exceptions. If everything were smooth, one-line, one-sided, then there would be no point in living. And since the world is not subject to certain plans and patterns, there remains room for thoughts, feelings and experiences.
Thus, it turns out that everything in the world is relative. Between this infinite relativity and the conglomerate of life manifestations there is a person. He is affected by both, but he is neither. He is a human.

All the best to you, gentlemen!

Dictionary

Aberration [lat. Aberratio deviate] – distortion of images obtained in optical systems.
Any deviation from the norm in structure or function.
Abyssal [gr. abyssos bottomless ] – deep-sea.
Hidradenitis [gr. Hidros sweat + adenitis] – purulent inflammation of the sweat glands.
Quintessence [lat. Quinta essentia fifth essence] - 1) in ancient philosophy - ether, the fifth element, the main element of the heavenly forces, opposed to the four earthly elements (water, earth, fire and air)
2) the most important, important, most significant.
Conglomerate [lat. Conglomeratus collected, accumulated] – a mechanical connection of something. heterogeneous, disorderly mixture.
Mimetism [gr. Mimetes imitator] - the similarity in appearance or behavior of a non-poisonous or edible animal with an animal of another species that is poisonous, inedible, or otherwise protected from enemies.
Spontaneous [lat. Spontaneus spontaneous] - caused not by external influences, but by internal reasons; spontaneous, unexpected action.
Substance [lat. Substitutio essence ] – 1) matter in the unity of all forms of its movement.
2) the unchanging basis, the essence of things and phenomena.
Substrate [lat. Substratum litter, lining] – the general material basis of all processes and phenomena; base, carrier substance.
Fluctuation [lat. Fluctuatio fluctuation ] – random deviation of a value (= fluctuation).
Euphoria [gr. Euphoria eu I tolerate phero well] – a complacent, overjoyful mood unjustified by reality.
Kupov Dmitry Olegovich

WHY IS ABSOLUTE FREEDOM IMPOSSIBLE

Freedom in human activity

Personal freedom in its various manifestations is today the most important value of civilized humanity. The importance of freedom for human self-realization was understood in ancient times. The desire for freedom, liberation from the shackles of despotism and arbitrariness has permeated the entire history of mankind. This has manifested itself with particular force in New and Contemporary times. All revolutions wrote the word “freedom” on their banners. Few political leaders and revolutionary leaders did not vow to lead the masses they led to true freedom. But although the overwhelming majority declared themselves to be unconditional supporters and defenders of individual freedom, the meaning attached to this concept was different. The category of freedom is one of the central ones in the philosophical quests of humanity. And just as politicians paint this concept in different colors, often subordinating it to their own specific political goals, so philosophers approach its understanding from different positions. Let's try to understand the diversity of these interpretations.

No matter how much people strive for freedom, they understand that there cannot be absolute, unlimited freedom. First of all, because complete freedom for one would mean arbitrariness in relation to the other. For example, someone wanted to listen to loud music at night. By turning on the tape recorder at full power, the man fulfilled his desire and acted freely. But his freedom in this case infringed on the right of many others to get a good night's sleep. It is in this regard that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where all articles are devoted to the rights and freedoms of the individual, the latter, which contains a mention of responsibilities, states that in the exercise of their rights and freedoms, each person should be subject only to such restrictions that have their own to ensure recognition and respect for the rights of others. Arguing about the impossibility of absolute freedom, let us pay attention to one more aspect of the issue. Such freedom would mean unlimited choice for a person, which would put him in an extremely difficult position in making a decision. The expression “Buridan’s donkey” is widely known. The French philosopher Buridan spoke about a donkey that was placed between two identical and equidistant armfuls of hay. Not deciding which armful to prefer, the donkey died of hunger. Even earlier, Dante described a similar situation, but he spoke not about donkeys, but about people: “Placed between two dishes, equally distant and equally attractive, a person would rather die than, having absolute freedom, take one of them into his mouth.” A person cannot be absolutely free. And one of the limiters here is the rights and freedoms of other people.