Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
The notion of freedom may be characterized by a multiplicity of interpretations and possible shades of meaning ascribed to it. This fact is unquestionable evidence of the importance of this concept for humanity. Freedom may be understood as a multidimensional concept as it may refer to almost any sphere of human life and activity. The notion of freedom, probably, appeared in the time of antiquity and was topical in the course of the development of human history. Nowadays, the notion of freedom has not lost its topicality as democratic structure of society presupposes freedom of the citizens. However, the notion of freedom may be also treated as a deeply personal matter as every individual should formulate his/her concept of freedom to aspire after it to be a harmonious creature in the world. There is no denying the fact that freedom is a philosophical notion, and in order to generate a personal concept of freedom is may be of great use to resort to the past experience offered by distinguished people, such as philosophers. Comparative and contrasting analysis of their ideas promises nontrivial results. Thus, the present study will be based on a comparison of similar, different, and maybe opposing ideas about freedom offered by Jean-Paul Sartre and Hannah Arendt.
If the goal of the present study is to compare the philosophical concepts of the philosophers as presented in their works, it is difficult to do this without brief comparison of the philosophers themselves and the types of works that are analyzed. Thus, the fact that presents great importance concerning Jean-Paul Sartre is that he is the representative of the philosophical trend of existentialism, the main distinctive feature of which is its focus on the essence and reasons for human existence. Speaking about Hannah Arendt, it is necessary to mention that she did not describe herself as a philosopher, stressing that she was a political theorist. This fact has influenced her concept of freedom. As for the works under consideration, it may be stated that they belong to different genres: while Arendts What is Freedom? is the article that is fully devoted to the disclosure of the notion of freedom that may be observed even if one has a primary look at the works title, the second work, The Wall , is the philosophical short story, which presents the authors ideas in the light of the narration of the protagonist of the story, Pablo, thus reflecting the authors philosophy and personal experience at the same time. On the whole, it is possible to state that the concept of freedom is presented in the article explicitly, while the short philosophical story suggests implicit explanation of the nature of freedom. Besides the theme of freedom, the short story covers such themes as life and death, presenting their deep interrelation and interconnection. Still, the theme of freedom is central in the works.
As for the notion of freedom, it is not clearly formulated and stated by Sartre, it may only be driven from the context of the short story. However, the concept of freedom may be read between the lines, though it is rather surprising if we take into consideration the context of the story, where the action takes place in the hospital cellars (Sartre 1939) which turns to be the place where three persons are locked waiting for the time of their execution. Thus, the philosopher resorts to the description of death and the time period that precedes death to generate his concept of freedom. On reading the text it is possible to disclose the notion of freedom suggested by Sartre in the following way: freedom is a universal quality, it is characteristic for all people, freedom is the quality of life because during the life all people are giving free choice what to do, how to act. Thus, freedom is an organic part of the process of human beings, it may be observed in human ontology. As for Hannah Arendt, her notion of freedom may be presented as the one that is not only directly connected, but, to say more, embodied in the political activity of human beings; it may be proven by the following idea of the authoress: & we can hardly touch a single political issue without, implicitly or explicitly, touching upon an issue of human liberty (Arendt 1993, 146). What is more, she says that Freedom & and politics coincide and are related to each other like two sides of the same matter (Arend, 1993, 149). Thus, judging by the formulation of the concepts of freedom by both authors, it is possible to assume that their theories have a number of differences that cannot be simply defined as various shades of meaning, they are contradicting and even mutually exclusive. This is why the analysis of the differences of the philosophical views deserves special attention.
One of the principal differences of the theories of freedom of the authors is that Sartre considers freedom an inner feature or quality of a human being. The Wall narrates about the captives that are to be put to death. However, the philosopher depicts the narrator, Pablo Ibietta, as a person who is free despite his physical state of being in captivity. Thus, it is possible to state that freedom is inner quality as suggested by Sartre. This inner quality guides the action and behavior of a person. The fact that a person is always able to do something else, no matter what he has done before, is the embodiment of freedom as presented by Sartre. Pablo can change his fate; this may be observed when he intentionally says that Gris is hiding in the cemetery, in a vault or in the gravediggers shack (Sartre, 1993). Thus, the protagonist shows his ability to change his life with the help of action, and this is the essence of freedom.
As for the German political theorist, she absolutely disapproves of the idea of freedom inside a person. As for her, freedom and politics are directly connected and they are indispensable qualities of each other. She disclaims the idea of inner freedom , and she says: inner freedom , [is] the inward space into which men may escape from external coercion and feel free. This inner feeling remains without outer manifestations and hence is by definition politically irrelevant (Arendt, 1993, 146). Because of its political irrelevance, inner free state of a person cannot be considered real freedom. For Sartre, freedom starts with the appearance of thoughts that will guide a persons behavior, though he does not state this explicitly, this assumption may be drawn from The Wall as the thoughts of the narrator are given primary importance in the text. However, Arendt states that the phenomenon of freedom does not appear in the realm of thought at all, & neither freedom nor its opposite is experienced in the dialogue between me and myself in the course of which the great philosophic and metaphysical questions arise (Arendt 1993, 145). Thus, freedom is not the feature of a person; it is something from the outside.
The next principle opposition of the concepts of freedom is in the extension of freedom. For Sartre an individual is capable of being free if he is alone. Here the reference should be made to the trend of existentialism to which the philosopher belongs. It is commonly known that existentialists depict their heroes in the philosophic works as the prisoners that are doomed to solitude being confined to an isolated existence. However, this loneliness and isolation cannot prevent them from being free. This state of freedom is characteristic of Pablo Ibietta, who is free as long as he is alive and can take action. Thus, Sartre presents a self-sufficient individual that is alone but free, while the authoress point of view may be clearly observed in the following statement: we first become aware of freedom or its opposite in our intercourse with others, not in the intercourse with ourselves (Arendt 1993, 148). The statement may be used as evidence of Arendts assertion that freedom should not be reduced to the quality of one person; it presupposes the collectivity of individuals as the necessary condition of its existence. The company of other men who were in the same place is needed for freedom (Arendt, 1993, 148).
It is necessary to mention, that besides opposing ideas concerning freedom, the authors have presented individual ideas, which have not been mentioned in the work of the opponent. Such is the necessity of liberation that precedes the state of freedom as suggested by Arendt. She emphasizes the necessity of liberation of oneself from the necessity of life (Arendt, 1993, 148). However, liberation does not guarantee freedom automatically; freedom is generated only if there is a combination of liberation and collectivity.
Further, there comes an assertion that freedom is not a phenomenon of the will , and the action that is free should have neither motives nor goals (Arendt 1993, 151). Instead of motives and goal, she introduces the notion of principle and explains its difference from the goal that is reiteration of a principle, while its difference from the motive is in its universal validity (Arendt 1993, 152). Still, the only possible manifestation of a principle may be executed through the action, hence the equality or synonymy of freedom and principled action.
Besides, as Arendt considers freedom in the light of political thought, she states that if freedom is considered equal to free will, then the worst possible consequence of it may be its identification with sovereignty (Arendt 1993, 164). She states that sovereignty and freedom are incompatible, mutually exclusive phenomena. Their principal difference is in their structure because sovereignty is the structure of an individual, while freedom is the structure of the group, if men want to be free, it is precisely sovereignty they must renounce (Arendt 1993, 165).
Returning to the concept of freedom by Sartre, it is necessary to mention that if freedom is expressed by the ability of an individual to do whatever he wants, the natural restriction should be made for freedom not to cause chaos and anarchy. The philosopher finds this necessary condition of freedom in the responsibility. He states that if a person is radically free, he is equally responsible for his actions and deeds. A picturesque example is the coincidence of Pablos false (as he thought) information about Gris shelter in the cemetery with the real place where the man hid (Sartre 1939). A person should be responsible for the consequences of his freedom; this will ensure the freedom of other people and relative order in society.
No matter how many differences may be found in the concepts of freedom in the analyzed works of the philosophers, it is necessary to pay attention to the quality of freedom that is admitted by both of them; it is the necessity of action that ensures freedom. Sartres main character of The Wall reminisces about his free past as about the time when he was deprived of job, almost starved to death but still aspired after happiness, women, liberty that he imagined as process of constant development and action (Sartre 1939). As soon as a man is unable to act anymore, he faces death. If Sartre sees freedom in action, then the main factor that can restrict freedom is death. Death is vividly presented in The Wall . The author describes it as unnatural process. Death as the end of freedom and sense of life is opposed to life with its main value, ability of action for every individual.
It is evident, that Arendt also sees the essence of freedom in action. She states that the raison dêtre of politics is freedom, and its field of experience is action (Arendt 1993, 146). Still, in case of Sartre activity that provides freedom covers different areas of human life, Arendt reduces activity to political activity only, she does not mention the significance of other types of activity.
One more common thing concerning the concepts of freedom of both authors is the elimination of the role of God. It is commonly known, that existentialists deny the existence of God, what is more, Arendts concept also has nothing to do with the interrelation of God and freedom. This may be explained by the political orientation of her theory instead of philosophical where some connection could have been observed.
Concluding, it is necessary to state that the intent attention of the specialists attracted by the concept of freedom is the evident proof of the topicality of the concept under analysis. However, the present study showed the diversity of perception of this concept by Sartre and Arendt. This may be explained, first of all, by the different perspectives used by the authors because Sartre considers the notion and essence of freedom from purely philosophical point of view, while the primary area of Arendts attention is freedom in the light of political theory. Nevertheless, both of them were unanimous about the quality of primary importance attributed to freedom, it is its affinity with action. The main opposition of the theories is in the fact that Sartre attributes freedom to individuals and asserts that it can occur if the individual is lonely, while Arendt rejects the possibility of individual freedom, offering the concept of collective political activity as an expression of freedom.
Reference List
Arendt, Hannah. 1993. What is Freedom? In Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought. New York: Penguin Classics.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. 1939. The Wall. Web.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.