Debate goes no one thousand years about concept of liberty. However the sense of liberty is still unclear, treatments are unilaterally or they are unconvincing.

Someone understands it as will, others extend this concept to the natural phenomena, third tie her to a human choice, fourth connect it with necessity, fifth believe that human liberty depends entirely on society and by society is defined, sixth in general deny liberty replacing it by predetermination, the seventh rely in everything on God etc.

Let's give some definitions of liberty.

Liberty – the idea reflecting such relation of the subject to own actions at whom he is their defining reason, and they immediately are not caused by natural, social, interpersonal-communicative and individual-patrimonial factors.

Here liberty is at first an idea, then it is the relation and, finally, it is the reason. Whether not too there are a lot of heterogeneous concepts? Outwardly all it seems very reasonable in this definition, but it is reduced to the human who is considered by the reason of liberty. It and is so clear. But that such is available in the human that he became by the reason of liberty does not reveal.

Liberty is domination over circumstances competently.

Here liberty is the knowledge thanks to which everything has to turn out. And if knowledge does not help, what, liberty will disappear? The knowledge, information is some conditions for manifestation of liberty, but conditions are not so sufficient. The knowledge can be both without the use and with the inadequate use.

Besides, there is no action in knowledge – in itself it is dead: information without use turns into a warehouse. The knowledge, in principle, cannot be the complete, and the person substantially has it as misinformation, following which he comes to crash. Here more likely circumstances dominate over us, and the person – their victim. Not for nothing speak: "A lot of knowledge – many afflictions".

Liberty is an ability to make a choice on the basis of distinguishing of good and evil.

This definition of liberty too approves priority of knowledge for liberty, only no dealings, and certain moral categories that, in itself, is the whole problem. Still nobody knows of it. Something seems by evil for some people, it's the same – good for others. What is here liberty! Anybody has no such ability and cannot has at least because in our world all life is based on an antagonism, and for the person the purpose, the aspiration of his rival cannot be good in any way and often promises to him death. The abstract good or the evil does not exist.

Liberty is possibility of manifestation by the subject of will on the basis of understanding of laws of development of the nature and society.

In this definition to knowledge about which was told above, will as a certain effort for the aid to knowledge is added. To realize even, it seems, the correct laws though in many cases, the laws formulated by limited people, at all no truth, and the delusion, for example, laws of social development, is not enough for their adequate application. Therefore similar application of will on the basis of laws can lead not to liberty, and to bondage that in the history was happening too often, especially in Russia.

On the other hand, if as will to understand realized desire of the person and his ability to conscious management of the acts in decision-making process for achievement of the goals coinciding with its motives, or objectified requirements, as well as that will – a product partly the genetic, partly bringing up by a surrounding medium, will, as well knowledge, cannot be by the cause of acts of the person. Will is more additional motivation, it induces the person to act to some persistence, determination, initiative, but she on herself or in a combination to knowledge instead of liberty can send the person to slavery to a subject or idea to which it forces him to go, will forces the person to make acts according to the chosen purpose, i.e. is not free, and forced. Not it accepts final decisions, it only promotes their achievement. Will generally is not a product of consciousness, and it is a product of the instincts and surrounding medium and will has not the direct relation, in particular, to conscious management of circumstances. Will may serve in the basic for overcoming of obstacles on the way to the purpose. Will aspires to outside, and liberty cannot be outside of the person – it is not a gift. Will maintains activity of the person or suppresses it, but does not define. Therefore it is necessary to will to add liberty as self-defining category in actions of the person. And it turns again that liberty at all does not coincide neither with will nor with knowledge and that it such – is unclear.

Liberty is that allows to the person according to his purposes to manipulate by the subjects of the outside world.

Liberty is already the deputy of God in this definition permitting to the person to live, but as well as God, it is not known what. There is no as such a definition.

Liberty is existence of possibility of a choice of options of an outcome of an event. Lack of a choice of options of an outcome of an event is equivalent to absence of liberty.

In this case "unhappy" liberty gets to dependence from a choice. You will choose not so or you do not see a choice, so there is no liberty at you? Here liberty is put in dependence on external circumstances. At such liberty the human would differ nothing from the computer which, besides, is able to choose better.

Liberty is one of types of manifestation of the randomness directed by a free will (intention of will, conscious liberty) or the stochastic law (unpredictability of an outcome of an event, unconscious liberty), i.e. something opposite to necessity.

Here liberty is arbitrariness grasped by will. If liberty is opposite of necessity, people could not create accidentally the whole civilization and much that in it make not accidental, but consciously and purposefully. Much of what people do based on their needs which arise not randomly. Even desires of the person are not arbitrariness, and proceed from his representations which are formed by an environment.

Liberty is fear releasing the person from all conventionalities of a reality.

This definition reduces liberty to nothing. It is not visible the person in this definition. Being exempted from conventionalities which represent public life, the human is exempted from himself. Liberty to the person is not needed in this case.

Liberty is the person who is projecting freely himself on freely chosen purpose.

Here Sartre strongly went too far, having told three times about liberty, but without having defined it, having noted, however, that liberty and the free person – same. Certainly, without person in our world of liberty does not exist, but that after all forces the human "to project himself on freely chosen purpose"? Perhaps it also is the liberty? Sartre did not give the answer on this question

It is curious that there is no precise definition of liberty. All of these authors of definitions of liberty "beat around the bush". The feeling is created that they define liberty like blind palpating different parts of an elephant: one, touching a trunk, says that the elephant is similar to a snake, another, feeling a foot, claims that the elephant reminds a column.

All these vague ideas of liberty point out that their authors do not know to what it can belong that it is actually and what is its mission.

All these ideas of liberty are fragmentary, chaotic, often false, in places are superficial. At best they snatch out the separate sides of liberty, but these ideas are not able to clarify its true substance.

If to understand liberty literally – as domination over circumstances, even the Lord can have no such liberty, not that the person.

What is it such? How liberty came from? For what it is necessary?

If not to go far, and try to remember national songs in which aspiration of the person to liberty is famous for and the bondage is damned, it is visible that the people understand liberty as aspiration of the person not in prison, and – to the best share. So, people express their dissatisfaction with the fact that there is, and get rid of it involves only by aspiration. Why not to serve by popular wisdom in quality of the basis for definition of liberty?

However, it seems to people that liberty is somewhere outside. But there can be, at best, only the purpose of an aspiration which can be reached or maybe not. Where here is liberty? Liberty does not coincide with the purpose. And here the person has an aspiration always because the aspiration is a conscious desire. Show me of the person who wishes nothing. Even before death the person has desire not to die if his life was good and he got used to it, or when becomes absolutely unbearable, he seeks to die somewhat quicker so long as not to suffer.

Outside much that is: wind, the woods, mountains, other people. It is possible to climb, of course, on the mountain, having set to yourself such purpose. Only, here, liberty there you will not find.

From here it is clear that liberty can be only in the human head which ponders where is better and where is worse, and aspires to the best, without being satisfied by the worst. If the person almost is satisfied with everything and especially does not aspire anywhere, any liberty provided to him from outside, will frighten and irritate him only because it can destroy his insignificant wellbeing. Low level of consciousness, as a rule, does not demand release, and wishes calm and the patronage.

If to address to the analysis, for comprehension of that such actually is liberty it is required to resolve two issues at first: about affiliation of liberty and its true mission.

Nobody will start to object that the highest creation of beingness is conscious beings.

The universe is deadened and becomes at once unnecessary without them. It is possible to argue, from where consciousness undertook. However it is clear that as though avaricious it was not expressed into people, any consciousness as creating formation represents appearance of something larger.

Consciousness, as a matter of fact, presents to the person the world as it can because all human ideas about a surrounding medium initially are given by feelings. Human feelings, despite addition to them of various devices, are very limited in the opportunities. They bear, apparently, only some part of information on the world surrounding us. This part in the processed form also remains at us. It turns out in this regard that the broached object turns into subject, i.e. the person forms own reality on the basis of given him. If all its sensors-feelings gave him other information on the world, and the world would be absolutely other and the person would turn into another being.

However the main thing is that the person, operating, is capable so to process the received information that from it is taken a new to him and the person can use this new for the activity, again producing a new by method of trials and errors.

At this he uses own saved internal resources in the form of memory, results of communication, education, skills, experience, the developed representations, ideas, the continuous operation of the analytical-synthetic centers, imagination with participation of all sphere of feelings. This process proceeds more consciously, and it is not simply reflective. In other words, people, uniting, change the world and themselves together with it. Even not so important, in what direction go these changes, how important that they generally go.

Despite all human achievements, all of us do not imagine yet, than actually we possess and that stands behind consciousness.

It is improbable that knowledge of consciousness will become much more, at least because it is external expression of formations from other worlds about which we know nothing and we learn nothing in our "lowest" world, but, anyway, thanks to representation of these worlds here each person by his particle-consciousness, small, imperceptible, but key not only here, but also everywhere, is attached to the world of reason, creativity and development.

Then a key link and in our world is consciousness.

You can object: and here consciousness if to correlate it to liberty. Here, for example, the person was put in prison. After all he was deprived of liberty? Well then, external forces operate by human liberty. It seems that it is real so. However if to ponder, it is visible that each person is in some kind of prison from own acts, illusions, a restraint by the relations with other people, natural, household and other circumstances, in a word, this prison – beingness. And from it cannot escape. On the other hand, the person appear into the same real prison, as a rule, because of own mistakes, shortcomings, decisions which were born in due time generally quite freely and "with skill" in the head of a convict and you can blame in received prison term of only himself. It turns out that, at least, some absolutely free decisions, for example, by nonsense, excessive self-confidence or thoughtlessness can lead to fatal consequences. Well then, the source of liberty is after all in the head, in consciousness, but not at the uncle outside. Same means that liberty – it is not always remarkable, and often absolutely on the contrary. Same means that liberty assumes response to the terminating action. Consciousness has to foresee this reaction, i.e. to be responsible, or to be ready to assume all consequences of the decision.

Thus, consciousness can be different in level, be manifested individually, but it has to possess a number of properties, have ability to pass from one state into another because in the conditions of human life it is squeezed by various restrictions of the material and public existence from all directions.

In other words, the free creature, almost inexpressible for us, – soul – getting into so restricted framework of human existence, anyway cannot but keep the free spirit in this or that form that depends from its own level of development. Besides, ability to go out beyond the ordinary, beyond a framework of any order is necessary to it for revealing still unknown, for creation of new for itself and for others and, at the same time, for own updating, recognition, change and further development without what soul actually has nothing to do here.

The development process for soul is everything. Therefore liberty of initial, still undeveloped soul is a choice of that human life which corresponds to the level of development reached by soul, i.e. that she does not know yet, did not test and, at the same time, that she is capable to realize and overcome. Liberty of soul is also its aspiration to that to it more on temper and that she wants more. But its liberty – and this is main thing – is rooted in that she comparing herself with her close souls, sees own drawbacks, omissions, weaknesses, and dissatisfaction by own state leads soul to research of opportunities for elimination of own shortcomings visible by it.

To be exempted completely from that soul already saved up and learned in other lives, in order to avoid helps from there, withdrawal from planned aside, soul before transition to our measurement and before the new birth in a body blocks own "I", being born as if "blank sheet", ready to new tasks, new tests, new decisions in the independent existence as the person with pure consciousness.

There is as if a falling of soul from "high spheres" into our "rough" world which during all human life will resist to soul. For soul – the self-consciousness which remained at her, liberty which is rooted in her, oppose her, more precisely, her consciousness – all other world and most of all same as her the people having own consciousness and own purposes sometimes coinciding with its purposes, and frequent – contradicting them. As far as she "will rise" or "will fall" in this world, or will reconcile to it, as her consciousness and will change.

Anyway, this voluntary solution of soul in the pure consciousness to oppose herself to our awful world, limiting own primordial liberty, it is necessary to respect. It is not so important that will turn out at soul as it is important that she does it in order to not stand still. It will turn out once.

All people around are the same clear first consciousnesses which subject itself voluntary to temptations, offenses, fears of the antagonistic world built on the mutual devouring of each other and the only thing that at them is – it is liberty built in their consciousness, i.e. aspiration as much as forward, to new. At many of them delusion are so great that them consider as villains, but they with time, having learned that such villainy, will wash away in other lives guilt by great feats or great victims.

Thus, consciousness has to possess by possibility of an exit out of limits of any established order. Otherwise it cannot on own essence, and if to assume that such opportunity disappears, consciousness walks away like as it leaves the person at the moment of his death.

It is clear that without the possibility of going beyond any order consciousness can not to act, and so to consciousness, and more, in fact, no one in the known world, must belong this possibility of release, or just liberty.

From here follows that the mission of liberty consists in providing for consciousness of continuous development in a rigid grip of the material world in shape of being replaced carriers of consciousness whom we are, mortal people, unlike consciousness – external manifestation of immortal soul.

Liberty is not some spare part which has been built in consciousness. Liberty is not domination over circumstances, and it is natural state of consciousness, aggregate of its aspirations which have been caused initially by its dissatisfaction by itself, and aspirations of consciousness can have the different nature – as internal, not having the apparent reasons, and external which is dictated by this or that necessity.

Soul, consciousness in the world cannot have absolute liberty not connected by anything because soul always is in development, and achievement of absolute liberty, when there is no obstacles which should be overcome, is the end any development.

Sie haben die kostenlose Leseprobe beendet. Möchten Sie mehr lesen?

In what, how and for what liberty is acting?

Andere haben auch gelesen:

Weitere Bücher von diesem Autor