Freedom as a recognized necessity. Socio-political activity and development of society Contrasting views on freedom

Why do we strive for freedom? What limits our freedom? How are freedom and responsibility related? What society can be considered free?

USEFUL REPEAT QUESTIONS:

Social relations, deviant behavior, social sanctions.

That sweet word "FREEDOM"

The freedom of the individual in its various manifestations is today the most important value of civilized mankind. The value of freedom for the self-realization of man was comprehended in ancient times. The desire for freedom, liberation from the fetters of despotism and arbitrariness permeates the entire history of mankind. This manifested itself with particular force in the Modern and Modern times. All revolutions wrote the word "freedom" on their banners. Few political leaders and revolutionary leaders swore to lead the masses they led to real freedom. But although the overwhelming majority declared themselves as unconditional supporters and defenders of individual freedom, the meaning given to this concept was different.

The category of freedom is one of the central ones in the philosophical searches of mankind. And just as politicians paint this concept in different colors, often subordinating it to their specific political goals, so philosophers approach its comprehension from different positions.

Let's try to understand the variety of these interpretations.

Buridan's donkey

No matter how people strive for freedom, they understand that there can be no absolute, unlimited freedom. First of all, because the complete freedom of one would mean arbitrariness in relation to the other. For example, someone at night wanted to listen to loud music. Turning on the tape recorder at full power, the person fulfilled his desire, acted as she wanted. But his freedom in this case limited 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 human rights and freedoms, the last, containing the memory of duties, states that in the exercise of his rights and freedoms, each person should be subjected only to such restrictions that are intended to ensure recognition and respect the rights of others.

Arguing about the impossibility of absolute freedom, let's pay attention to one more side of the issue. Such freedom would mean for a person unlimited choice, which would put her in an extremely difficult position in making a decision. The well-known expression is "Buridan's donkey". The French philosopher Buridan spoke about a donkey who was placed between two identical and equidistant from him armfuls of hay. Not deciding which armful to prefer, the donkey starved to death. Even earlier, Daite described a similar situation, but he spoke not about donkeys, but about people: “Putted between two equally attractive dishes, a person would rather die than, having absolute freedom, take one of them in his mouth.”

Man cannot have absolute freedom. And one of the restrictions here is the rights and freedoms of other people.

"FREEDOM There is a recognized necessity"

These words belong to the German philosopher Hegel. What is behind this formula, which has become almost an aphorism? Everything in the world is subject to forces that act immutably, inevitably. These forces also subjugate human activity. If this need is not comprehended, not realized by a person, he is its slave, if it is known, then a person acquires "the ability to make decisions with knowledge of the matter." This is the expression of his free will. But what are these forces, the nature of necessity? There are different answers to this question. Some see God's work here. They define everything. What then is the freedom of man? she is not. "The prediction and omnipotence of God are diametrically opposed to our freedom. Everyone will be forced to accept the inevitable consequence: we do nothing of our own free will, but everything happens out of necessity. Thus, we do nothing by will, but everything depends on God's foresight", - claimed the religious reformer Luther. This position is advocated by the supporters of absolute predestination. In contrast to this view, other religious figures suggest the following interpretation of the relationship between divine predestination and human freedom: “God designed the Universe in such a way that all creation should have a great gift - freedom. Freedom primarily means the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and the choice given independently, the basis of his own decision. Of course, God can destroy evil and death in an instant. But at the same time, He would deprive the world and freedom at the same time. The world itself must return to God, since it has departed from Him."

The concept of "necessity" can have another meaning. Necessity, according to a number of philosophers, exists in nature and society in the form of objective, that is, laws independent of human consciousness. In other words, necessity is an expression of a natural, objectively determined course of development of events. Supporters of this position, in contrast to the fatalists, of course, do not believe that everything in the world, especially in public life, is rigidly and unambiguously defined, they do not deny the existence of cases. But the general regular line of development deviating by chance in one direction or another will still make its way. Let's turn to examples. Earthquakes are known to occur periodically in seismically hazardous areas. People who do not know this circumstance or ignore it, bringing their homes in this area, may become victims of a dangerous element. In the same case, when this fact is taken into account in the construction of, for example, earthquake-resistant houses, the risk probability will decrease sharply.

In a generalized form, the presented position can be expressed in the words of F. Engels: “Freedom lies not in the imaginary independence from the laws of nature, but in the knowledge of these laws and in the possibility, based on this knowledge, to systematically force the laws of nature to act for certain goals.

"Freedom is a recognized necessity." - Spinoza

The ability of a person to understand that freedom is an exaggerated term. Freedom is overestimated, no one is completely free, everyone has their own duties to someone or something. Each desire, aspiration and act of a person is provoked by some facts and, therefore, is necessary for him. Spinoza says that man also cannot exist without freedom, he needs it. Necessity begins to act as the direct basis of freedom. “Free is such a thing,” writes Spinoza, “that exists only by the necessity of its own nature and is determined to action only by itself. Necessary, or, better, forced, is called such a thing that is determined by something else to exist and act according to a known and definite pattern. Spinoza opposes freedom not to necessity, but to coercion. Unconstrained and acting only by virtue of its own necessity, and, consequently, free is Spinoza's substance, i.e. nature or god.

"Man is brought up for freedom." - Hegel.
Freedom is, first of all, the desire to fulfill one's dreams, the desire to do something that is necessary for one's own "I" for the human soul. But the main goal is to get it. To have the right to freedom, the right to do certain things. That is why, from the very beginning, a person was created for her. Education, according to Hegel, is the elevation of a person to the spirit and, accordingly, to freedom, for freedom is the “substance of the spirit.” As the substance of matter, Hegel noted, is gravity, so the substance of the spirit is freedom; the spirit is free by definition. Thus, in the form of the opposition of "nature" and "spirit", Hegel retained the Kantian opposition of "nature" and "freedom", although he subjected to significant transformations the content of these concepts, and the interpretation of their relationship.
As for freedom, Hegel's interpretation removes the abstract opposition characteristic of Kant, the separation into different "worlds" of necessity and freedom - they are in complex dialectical mutual transitions. In addition, unlike Kant, according to Hegel, the realm of freedom does not oppose the objective world as an intelligible world of “proper” within which the subject’s moral choice is made: the free spirit is realized in reality, including in the sphere of “objective spirit”, in stories.
In Hegel's philosophy of history, the world historical process appeared as a process of progressive embodiment of freedom and its awareness by the spirit. Historical cultures, according to Hegel, line up in a sequential ladder of steps of progress in the consciousness of freedom.

What then is the freedom of man? It does not exist. A person cannot be absolutely free, he is limited by the rights and freedoms of other people.
There is more necessity than freedom in these definitions. Any action that we perform is caused by a certain condition, the need to perform it. We believe that we are free by performing certain actions, thinking that this is how we show freedom, our desires. But in fact, if it were not for the influence of some external and internal situational factors, then actions, even desires, would not be performed. There is no freedom, only necessity.

Supporters of absolute predestination in the nature of necessity see God's

fishing. Everything is predestined for them. Also, in their opinion, there is no human freedom. The religious reformer Luther, an advocate of absolute predestination, said that the foresight and omnipotence of God are diametrically opposed to our free will. Everyone will be forced to accept the inevitable consequence: we do nothing of our own free will, but everything happens out of necessity. Thus, we do not think anything of free will, but everything depends on the foreknowledge of God.

Other religious leaders believe that freedom is a choice. "Man is completely free in his inner life." These words belong to the French thinker J.-P. Sartre. Everything in this world is built in such a way that a person must constantly choose. A child, having been born, already exists, but he has yet to become a man, acquire a human essence. Consequently, there is no predetermined nature of man, no external force, no one, except for this individual, can bring about his becoming a man. This greatly increases the responsibility of a person for himself, for being successful as a person, and for everything that happens to other people.

A number of other philosophers who reject fatalism define "necessity" as "regularity". Necessity is a happy repetitive action, a natural course of events. There are accidents, but still there is one unchanging road, which sooner or later a person will return to. In a generalized form, the presented position can be expressed in the words of F. Engels: “Freedom lies not in the imaginary independence from the laws of nature, but in the knowledge of these laws and in the possibility, based on this knowledge, to systematically force the laws of nature to act for certain goals.”

We support such religious figures as Jean-Paul Sartre. God can create a new life and can guide us in this life, but we make our own choices. Only we ourselves decide what social status we will have in society, it depends only on us which moral and material values ​​to choose. Freedom as a recognized necessity presupposes the comprehension and consideration by a person of the objective limits of his activity, as well as the expansion of these limits due to the development of knowledge, the enrichment of experience.

at will. A person cannot be absolutely free. Human freedom in all its manifestations is the basis of modern democratic regimes, the main value of liberalism. It finds expression in the legislative consolidation of the fundamental rights and freedoms of a citizen in the constitutions of states, in international pacts and declarations. In modern society, a tendency to expand human freedom is more and more clearly revealed.
22. Social norms and deviant behavior.
Human socialization is a process of learning cultural norms and mastering social roles. It proceeds under the vigilant supervision of society and surrounding people. They not only teach children, but also control the correctness of the learned patterns of behavior, and, therefore, act as agents of social control. If control is carried out by an individual, then it is called group control (pressure), and if by a whole team (family, group of friends, institution or institution), then it acquires a public character and is called social control.
It acts as a means of social regulation of human behavior.
Social behavior includes two main elements - norms and sanctions. Social norms are prescriptions, requirements, wishes and expectations of appropriate (socially approved) behavior. Norms that arise and exist only in small groups (youth get-togethers, groups of friends, families, work teams, sports teams) are called
"group rules". Norms that arise and exist in large groups or in society as a whole are called “social (general) norms”. These are customs, traditions, mores, laws, etiquette, manners. Every social group has its own manners, customs and etiquette. There is secular etiquette, there are manners of behavior of young people, there are national traditions and mores. All social norms can be classified depending on how severe the punishment for non-fulfillment (sanctions) is: Violation of some norms is followed by a mild sanction - disapproval, a smirk, an unfriendly look; For violation of other norms, harsh sanctions - imprisonment, even the death penalty. A certain degree of defiance exists in any society and in any group. Violation of palace etiquette, the ritual of a diplomatic conversation or marriage causes embarrassment, puts a person in a difficult position. But it does not entail harsh punishment. In other situations, sanctions are more tangible. Using a cheat sheet in an exam threatens with a decrease in grade, and the loss of a library book - a fivefold fine. In some societies, the slightest deviation from tradition, not to mention serious misconduct, was severely punished. Everything was under control - hair length, dress code, demeanor. If you arrange all the norms in increasing order, depending on the measure of punishment, then their sequence will take the following form: Habits - customs - traditions - mores - laws - taboos. Compliance with the norms is regulated by society with varying degrees of rigor. Violations of taboos and legal laws are most severely punished (for example, killing a person, insulting a deity, revealing state secrets), and habits are the mildest. Whether it's individual (forgot to brush your teeth

or clean up the bed) or group, in particular, family (for example, refusing to turn off the light or close the front door). However, there are group habits that are highly valued and for the violation of which severe group sanctions follow (a punishment accepted only among members of the group). These habits are called informal group norms. They are born into small rather than large social groups. The mechanism that controls compliance with such norms is called group pressure. There are four types of sanctions: positive and negative, formal and informal. formal positive sanctions - public approval by official organizations (government, institution, creative union) government awards, state awards and scholarships, bestowed titles, academic degrees and titles, construction of a monument, presentation of diplomas, admission to high positions and honorary functions (for example , election as chairman of the board); informal positive sanctions - public approval that does not come from official organizations: friendly praise, compliments, tacit recognition, benevolent disposition, applause, fame, honor, flattering reviews, recognition of leadership or expert qualities, a smile; formal negative sanctions - punishments provided for by legal laws, government decrees, administrative instructions, orders, orders deprivation of civil rights, imprisonment, arrest, dismissal, fine, deprivation of bonuses, confiscation of property, demotion, demolition, dethronement, death penalty, excommunication informal negative sanctions - punishments not provided for by official authorities censure, remark, ridicule, mockery, cruel joke, unflattering nickname, neglect, refusal to lend a hand or maintain relations, spreading rumors, slander, unfriendly feedback, complaint, writing a pamphlet or feuilleton , compromising evidence. The word "norm" is of Latin origin and means literally: the guiding principle, the rule, the pattern. Norms are developed by society, social groups that are part of it. With the help of norms, certain requirements are put forward for people.
Social norms guide behavior, allow it to be controlled, regulated and evaluated. They guide a person in all life matters. In these norms, people see standards, models, standards of behavior. The following types of social norms are identified: moral norms (they express people's ideas about good and bad, good and evil, justice and injustice); norms of traditions and customs (a historically established rule of conduct that has become a habit); religious norms (rules of conduct contained in the texts of religious books or established by the church); political norms
(norms set by various political organizations); legal regulations
(established or sanctioned by the state). In real life, the behavior of people in society does not always correspond to established social norms. When there is a violation of social norms, one speaks of deviant behavior of the subject. Behavior that is not consistent with the norms, does not correspond to what society expects from a person, is called deviant behavior. Deviant behavior is called deviant. Deviant behavior is spoken of as a negative social phenomenon that harms society. The most serious manifestations of such behavior are crime, drug addiction and alcoholism. Deviant behavior Compliance with social norms determines the cultural level of society. Deviation from generally accepted norms is called deviant behavior in sociology. In a broad sense, "deviation" means any deeds or actions that do not correspond to unwritten norms or written norms. As you know, social norms are of two types: written - formally fixed in the constitution,

Since such judgments are common, I will speak out. This aphorism [actually] has two meanings.

First, when it comes to a very specific prevailing force, awareness frees one from the necessity of subjugation [necessity]. A disease, for example, recognized (they made a medicine and a method of treatment) is a conquered necessity. As in the more general case, knowledge of the properties of matter, the essence of phenomena, frees one from submission to the forces of nature (heated houses, electricity, internal combustion engines, etc.). In the same way, knowledge of history, economics, and society will ultimately free a person from blindly following the chaos of social relations, subordinating them to a person in a society of conscious organization (this is the cornerstone in understanding communism).

Secondly, when it comes to freedom of choice. If a person is not aware of the consequences, the essence of the options that exist before him, then he acts chaotically, on a whim, by chance, relying on prejudice, prejudice, emotions, and therefore is subject to circumstances, his choice is not free, while circumstances, regardless of choice, are a necessity, lack of freedom. Another thing is if a person recognizes the need facing him and acts with knowledge of the matter - in every need that arises, a person makes a free, conscious, reasonable choice. As a simple example, the famous fairy stone: Go left... go right... go straight...”- not knowing exactly what lies ahead, any choice, like the need to choose, is a lack of freedom. Or, as a more complex example, religious dogmatism: a person with upbringing is deprived of the freedom of a meaningful choice, he is subject to this worldview, it is a necessity, and therefore lack of freedom. And in general, such an example is practically the whole life of a person today, when he does not have a holistic scientific worldview, a broad and modern outlook - lack of freedom in views, beliefs, in daily activities and in the target life choice, to one degree or another.

Let us now glance at how this antinomy is resolved by Marx and Engels. problem necessity and freedom(hence, free will and sanity) Engels posits and recognizes in his Anti-Dühring. He is aware that on this basic opposition rests the opposition realms of natural necessity("animal kingdom") - and kingdoms of freedom as realms of human culture and civilization (Anti-Dühring, 1932, pp. 80-81) 59* , Marx also clearly formulates this basic dialectical opposition: realm of necessity(which includes even material production) and realm of freedom(which includes the development of man as an end in itself) (Cap[ital], vol. III, pp. 591, 592) 60*.

It is clear that they took all this opposition entirely from German idealism, from Kant, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel. It was substantiated by Kant's antinomy of freedom and necessity and amounted to main theme German philosophy in general.

How does Marx and Engels resolve this famous antinomy? With extraordinary lightness and frivolity. The whole dialectic of the great philosophers, devoted to this problem, went unnoticed for them. Here you can use your favorite term diamata: vulgarization.

The solution is allegedly taken from Hegel. It is quite simple: freedom is the knowledge of necessity(unrecognized necessity, "blind necessity" is the absence of freedom).

First of all, no reference to Hegel here invalid:“necessity” has a completely different meaning for him than in the materialism of Marx and Engels. We have already talked about the ambiguity of the term "necessity": it can mean moral necessity and physical necessity. "Freedom" means in Hegel autonomy objective historical spirit, autonomy mind; the autonomy of reason is not arbitrariness, but "its own regularity", own need, towards one's own freedom. Knowledge of such spiritual, and not natural necessity is true liberation.

On the contrary, natural necessity is for Hegel the lowest level, which is contained and “removed” in this highest level of the autonomous spirit (“idea”, reason). Hegel thus gives a solution to the antinomy of freedom and necessity, quite in the spirit of all German idealism.

Such a decision is completely unacceptable for Marxism, for it compels us to accept the whole philosophy of the spirit of Hegel.

The "necessity" that Marxism speaks of is not at all the autonomy of the spirit, a necessity directed towards freedom; it is a natural, causal necessity. And then the aphorism about "cognized necessity" turns into nonsense.

First of all knowledge is not action at all: knowledge is opposed to action (theoretical reason is opposed to practical), and so far we we know mathematical laws, physical laws, we have not yet we act. But "free will" refers precisely to action and asks whether there is a possibility of free action.

Further, knowledge of the laws of natural necessity does not at all give freedom and power over them. “Once we have learned this law, which operates (as Marx repeated thousands of times) independently of our will and our consciousness, we are the masters of nature” ( Lenin."Mat[erialism] and empiric[iocriticism]", 155-156) 61*. Complete untruth and unacceptable bragging! We know many laws with perfect accuracy, which give us no dominion and no freedom; such, for example, are all astronomical laws, such is the law of entropy, the law of aging and dying.

It is precisely the theory of "reflection" that shows us especially clearly the absurdity of the aphorism. Lenin says: "dominion over nature is the result of an objectively correct reflections phenomena and processes of nature in the human head” (ibid.). But does the mirror "dominate" the objects it reflects? Reflection is a passive perception, which forbids any change in the reflected objects. To mirror not only

which reflected, but also dominated the reflected objects, it must be endowed with another ability, namely ability of freedom(such are Leibniz's monads, these "mirrors of the universe").

In order for a person to dominate the natural necessities, it is not enough to know these necessities, he must be endowed with more ability to act freely.

Thus, from the "cognized necessity" no freedom was obtained.

Dialectical helplessness here reaches its limit. The nonsense of the aphorism becomes evident; to return it to any meaning, it must be corrected like this: the knowledge of necessity is one of the conditions for the possibility of freedom(ignorance of necessity hinders freedom).

Here diamat can rejoice; he will say: “Of course, we understood this precisely, this You they attributed nonsense to us." However, the joy will be premature. The adoption of this innocent correction destroys the decision of Marx and Engels.

Indeed, we have established that the knowledge of necessity is not in itself freedom. It must be joined by a free action, which enjoys the knowledge as a means to their ends. In other words, we must go to freedom with all its categories (end and means; the subject setting the end and freely choosing the means, evaluating the end, etc.).

But it is precisely this transition that remains incomprehensible; it is he who constitutes the antinomy of freedom and necessity, which is in no way resolved by the aphorism of "cognized necessity." The solution was illusory. It consisted in the "reduction" of freedom to a recognized necessity, but this reduction failed.