Category: Freedom

On Civil Society

The concepts of civil society and freedom are interconnected. Freedom is frequently discussed as a relevant and abstract concept that is forced to fit certain frames and regulations within the civil society that is known for a system of laws ensuring the wellbeing of all the members who conform.

This paper will explore the points of view of human freedom and civil society expressed by two of the worlds most outstanding philosophers  Kerl Marx and Georg Wilhelm Hegel. First of all, the paper will divide the concepts of freedom and civil society in some of the notions that contribute to their definitions. These subnotions are desire, private property, and the idea of human freedom itself. Each of these will be presented as explained by each of the philosophers separately, and then their perspectives would be compared and contrasted.

Desire

Hegel on Desire

According to Hegel, an individual is subject to their own physical needs and caprice (16). The constant influence of these forces is viewed by the author as one of the primary principles of civil society. Further, the second principle of the civil society outlined by Hegel is the interdependence and mutual influences of the individuals on one another (179). The author emphasizes that none of the particular persons should be viewed outside of the groups and societies to which they belong and communicate.

As a result, the desires of an individual, and the norms of society inevitably go into a clash. Hegel points out what he refers to as a complete interdependence of the satisfaction and happiness of one person is connected to that of the society (179). Moreover, Hegel emphasizes that an individuals happiness is defined by societal norms and rules (179). That way, only an individual who matches the requirements of the society (legal and ethical) can be happy.

Otherwise, society will limit the actions of an individual and penalize them for breaking the norms and rules based on selfish desires. Hegel explained the nature of a human being and their caprices stating that the emergence of new desires is a process that does not have an end  as soon as one need is satisfied it is immediately replaced by another one, such as the nature of humans, as explained by Hegel (180).

The author positions the relationship between a person and civil society as a clash between the singularity and the universality where the wishes of a person are mediated by the universal norms forcing an individual person to act universally in order to conform (Hegel 291). Therefore, the formation of an individual happens under a multitude of influences of a personal and societal nature merging an individual conscious with that of the civil society.

Marx on Desire

Marx also raises the issues of individual desires and needs and their manifestations with civil societies. The author employs an example of traders  each of the individual persons is interested in the maximization of their income by means of selling as many products as possible (Marx 277). Clashing with the individual desires of the other traders, they go into completion for the customers. As a result, an individual trader attempts to attract more consumers by lowering their prices (Marx 277).

Unable to withstand such competition, the other traders employ the same maneuver. Consequently, the prices become depressed at the local and state level affecting the state tendencies and revenues. That way, Marx points out the ongoing competition between the traders and their competitors, between the buyers and the sellers, and between the state and the business makers. Equating these competitions to a battle, Marx draws the conclusion that whichever side is a stronger desire (or demand) wins the battle (277).

In other words, if the customers have the desire to buy more items than there are offered by the sellers, the latter has an advantage and will alter the prices, making them higher in order to fulfill their desire to gain a better profit. However, if the buyers are reluctant to buy certain goods, the traders will adjust their prices, making them more attractive as a bargain because gaining a reduced profit is still a better option than gaining none at all.

Discussing the causes and the source of the desires, Marx states that they are inflicted by society, which makes them social and, thus, relative (281). The author also mentions that satisfaction is measured by the norms of the society but not by what it takes an individual to put their desires into practice.

Comparison and Contrast

Both of the authors notice that society plays an important part in the definition and mediation of the individual desires of its members. The difference is that Hegel points out the personal aspect as a part of the cause of a desire, while, according to Marx, society is the only source of a persons wishes and caprices. That way, in Hegels opinion, civil society is the mediator of the selfish forces that drive an individual. From the perspective of Marx, the individuality of the desire is illusory and, in reality, is dictated by the universal tendencies that come from society and its primary needs. That way, even though both of the authors emphasize that an individual should only be viewed as a part of their society, Hegel allows some individuality, while Marx states that the merger of a person and the civil society is complete.

Private Property

Hegel on Property

Hegel explains that some of the needs are universal (for instance, the need for food or clothing) (185). However, these needs are satisfied differently by the individuals based on their ownership of property or lack of thereof. Hegel explores needs comparing humans to animals. The author concludes that a man has less comfort that an animal (Hegel 186). Even though both of them are subject to their needs, man has many more needs than an animal and, thus, is required to satisfy them. Moreover, the intelligence of a man generates even more needs.

However, Hegel notes that the desire is not so imperious since the more objects are used by a particular individual, the lower the level of desire becomes (187). At the same time, Hegel points out that the concept of comfort is vague and limitless, so the search for satisfaction is endless (187).

Society facilitates the multiplication of needs and is the way for their satisfaction trapping the individuals in a loop of dependence. The owners of the property experience the needs just like the propertyless; however, they are less dependent and conditioned. This tendency occurs because the owners of the property are able to use the labor of the propertyless for the satisfaction of their needs.

Marx on Property

According to Marx, the concept of private property is the basis of the political economy (85). The author subdivides the society into two groups  the property owners and the propertyless (Marx 85). The individuals who do not own property are forced to work for the owners. Marx makes the connection between selfish desires, private property, and the separation of land, capital, and labor (86).

The author notices that the more a worker is able to produce, the poorer they become. This tendency can be correlated with the previously discusses connections between the supply and demand in terms of competition of desires.

The appropriation of labor turns the laborers into commodities and causes the loss of reality by the individual workers. Becoming a worker, an individual has only one entity under control  the work, and it is controlled only to a certain extent because the major demands and duties are assigned by the employer (Marx 86). The loss of work is associated with the loss of everything else. Gradually, work takes over ones life and begins to own it. That way, society seems to be built in a way that limits the freedoms of the propertyless, forcing them to be objectified as the carriers of the labor force. An employees physical existence is determined by their ability to perform their work.

Comparison and Contrast

Both Hegel and Marx agree that the needs are the determinants of the social behaviors, and the properties define the ability of the individuals to satisfy their constantly multiplying needs. However, in contrast to the propertyless workers, the property owners are able to gain satisfaction without losing their reality or becoming objectified. Marx describes the laborers as completely dependent on their work as the source of objects needed for survival.

That way, in Marxs understanding of the relationship between the employers who own property and the laborers who do not can be defined as slavery where the workers are objectified for the ability to perform work. Hegel emphasizes that all individuals are under the pressure of various needs. Hegels explanation for the emergence of the private property is the adoption of agricultural lifestyle where owning land resulted in multiple privileges and benefits. The contemporary land ownership is industrialized. However, the basic concepts of the society are still gaining and having.

Human Freedom

Hegel on Human Freedom

Hegel emphasizes that freedom is the need everyone experiences. However, the universality of the human freedom is rather abstract (Hegel 11). The author discusses the changes the concept of freedom has been undergoing throughout generations. Certain freedoms that are outlined as necessary today at some points in the human history were treated as the violations of the social rules and the laws of justice as the factors and behaviors endangering the collective wellbeing of the entire society (Hegel 24).

In other words, even though freedom is perceived as an entity of high value it cannot be unlimited since the desires and interests of the individuals tend to clash. In a civil society, justice is the key regulator.

That way, dealing with human freedoms, it has to take into consideration the individual desires and interests. This role is fulfilled by the law enforcement services. According to Hegel, very type of freedom is to be controlled from above so that it does not violate the personal freedoms of the individuals (217). The author uses an example of the pyramids in Egypt that were created using the slave labor. In other words, the laborers building the monument were not driven by their individual benefits or desire to build but forced to do so (Hegel 217). Differently put, the freedom of trade took over the human rights and freedoms turning people into objectified goods.

Marx on Human Freedom

Marx points out that initially, slavery was the basis of the civil society (135). Also, the author notes that limiting the freedoms of the citizens is the obligation of the states government (135). As a result, the nature of an individual is perceived as flawed and incapable of self-control. Marx maintains that being a slave to the civil society is viewed as the perfect form of an individual freedom that is strictly regulated from above and aligned with the norm the society perceived as appropriate (159). Civil society tends to interfere with every sphere of an individuals life enforcing rules and implementing policies according to which one is forced to live in order.

This highly limited form of existence is perceived as freedom while it is free from insecurities and dangers. That way, the civil society recognizes the individual freedom as an ability to enjoy something without being disturbed (Marx 198). Viewing human freedom from the point of view of the free trade, Marx criticized the bourgeois society stating that it treats capital as possessing individuality while the laborers are objectified and dehumanized (257).

Comparison and Contrast

Marx and Hegel have very similar perspectives concerning the freedoms and their limitations in the civil society. Both of the authors state that the concept of an individual freedom within the civil society is relative and abstract. Besides, both philosophers employ the example of free trade as an illustration of the causes of slavery  one of the worst violations of the human freedom. However, while Hegels example is used to demonstrate the forms of civil society that existed centuries ago, Marx uses the same illustration for the discussion of the modern society where, according to his point of view, slavery is still in place. Security and pleasure that continue without disturbances are used as the definition of the perfect freedom employed by both authors.

Conclusion

To sum up, the explored notions of the human freedom, desire, and private property play significant roles within the definition of the civil society and its understanding the human freedom. The points of view of Marx and Hegel have many common perspectives such as the idea concerning the need for the limitation of an individual freedom within the civil society, the greedy nature of human beings driven by the passion to consume and accumulate, and the intelligence that multiples the needs affecting the individuals.

The philosophers disagree in their idea of the nature of the individuals behaviors and its causes. While Marx states that the individuals are impacted by the society, Hegel believes that there is some individuality to the peoples behavior. All in all, Hegel tends to view people as the products of nature. In contrast, Marx focuses on social behaviors as derivatives of the class system that is in place in a state. While Hegel theorizes that the society is able to regulate its development, Marx is convinced that the society is not in control of the phenomena that drive it.

Works Cited

Hegel, Wilhelm. Hegels Philosophy of Right. 1896. Web.

Marx, Karl. Selected Writings. Ed. David McLellan. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2000. Web.

Introduction

Freedom is one of the universal human values, and this component of life is an indispensable condition for a democratic and legal society. Modern governments of most countries support the ideas of freedom and justice, while the essential principles of these concepts are approved in state laws and documents. Nevertheless, many authors and philosophers understood the doctrine of equality differently and interpreted the political necessity to safeguard freedom in various ways. One of the prominent and significant persons in this area was John Rawls. He determined that the existence of the declared principles on which the fundamental structure of equality is based, as well as the institutions that monitor their observance, is the critical prerequisite for social justice and freedom.

Justice as Honesty

According to Rawls (2009), the principles of justice are the result of a free agreement, i.e., these are the rules that individuals will consider as the initial position of equality. The author imagines the situation when people gathered and agreed on defining principles, rights and duties; he notes that no one knows his or her place in the society, a class position, or social status (Rawls, 2009). An essential provision of this theory is that the principles of justice are chosen in practice almost blindly. Equality is taken in the initial situation that is honest.

While comparing Rawls attitude to freedom with the opinion of an English philosopher Mill, it can be observed that their approaches are similar since the second author also provides for freedom to act together with other individuals as one of the criteria for equality (Mill, 1869). The author emphasizes that the difference in the opinions of individuals is not evil, and the unity of views is undesirable (Mill, 1869). Both authors agree that Justice is the measure of equality and at the same time  inequality. People should be equal in the manifestation of social values. However, parity will also be fair if it gives advantages to everyone.

Key Subjects of Justice

According to Rawls (2009), the leading subject of justice is the basic structure of society. Among the fundamental social institutions, Rawls (2009) mentions the constitution and the central economic and social arrangements. Their examples, in particular, are the protection of freedom of thought and freedom of conscience, a free market, private property, etc. The author considers the central problem in the realization of justice to be the choice of a social system (Rawls, 2009). It should be organized in such a way so that the final distribution is fair, regardless of how society develops. It is necessary to place social and economic processes in the framework of relevant political and legal institutions to achieve it.

As Carnoy (2014) notes, the states attitude towards the issues of law and justice is determined by the type of social organization. It means that the concept of equality will be relevant if all citizens support certain ideas, even despite a different approach to particular nuances.

Similar thoughts are reflected in Platos Allegory of the Cave: Peterson (2017) claims that the ancient philosopher wanted to demonstrate a different approach to the perception of the picture of the world, where even a public opinion was not correct. Thus, a competently structured system of political norms is an inalienable attribute of an equal society where everyone has an opportunity to voice personal opinions and is not limited in the ability to express a particular position.

Political Participation in the Moral Aspects of the Principles of Justice

The moral content of Rawls justice principles is related to the task of counteracting selfish motives (Rawls, 2009). The state and the governing bodies should not let peoples harm and suffering and also exclude possible causes for the destructive and aggressive behavior of those whose interests have turned to be disadvantaged (Rawls, 2009). Justice as a moral principle has the goal of setting a limit to the arbitrariness of a person who has power and wealth.

Also, one of the aspects of a legal and free society is the attitude towards future generations. Rawls (2009) notes that people of the following ages do not have the right to vote and are not capable of influencing the current situation. Nevertheless, their well-being and existence fundamentally depend on the circumstances in a specific state and the type of arrangement. Similar ideas are also considered by Mill (1869) who determines the responsibility of politics to people of a particular social group. Therefore, the moral aspect of justice is also inseparably linked to the peculiarity of the state system and the governments ability to provide the population with the necessary rights and freedoms.

Conclusion

Thus, one of the vital prerequisites for social justice and freedom is the existence of the declared principles on which the fundamental structure of equality is based. All these rules should be determined by the government so that the people of a particular country feel secure and free. The positions of some philosophers are similar regarding the determination of justice concepts. The ideas of equality are connected with moral ideals that are inherent in society.

References

Carnoy, M. (2014). The state and political theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Mill, J. S. (1869). On liberty (4th ed.). London, UK: Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer.

Peterson, V. V. (2017). Platos Allegory of the Cave: Literacy and the good. Review of Communication, 17(4), 273-287.

Rawls, J. (2009). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

John Stuart Mills view of sovereignty over the mind and the body focuses on the tendency of human beings to exercise liberalism to fulfill their self-interest. Mills notion holds that human beings have great desires for better accomplishment of their own good than the good of others. Therefore, there exists competition amongst individuals in their endeavor to fulfill personal wellbeing. According to Mill, human beings are naturally rational and egocentric. They usually compete as they attempt to seek liberation. In his theory, Mill advances that individuals exercise whatever means to seek self-protection against physical, moral, and/or religious coercion. However, the notion asserts that a persons sovereignty finds its rightfulness only when it is used to defend oneself against ruin. Similarly, the theory warrants individuals to exercise their powers against the will of others to avert any probable destruction. Bishop posits that human beings are the kings of their own (9). Hence, they bear the right to decide what they need to do with their bodies and minds (Bishop 9). In other words, individuals have autonomous freedom to choose and pursue their own actions provided they do not intrude on the sovereignty of other people.

In comparison, Michael Foucaults impression of freedom resonates with Mills notion since he elucidates various formal, carnal, organizational, and informational structures that enhance the execution of autonomous authority within the societal setting. The philosopher supports that individuals have intrinsic self-will that enables them to choose their route of action to accomplish their self-centeredness (Tobias 66). Foucaults perspective of freedom suggests that sovereignty over ourselves provides us with power that serves to initiate motivation to execute behaviors of our own choice in society. According to Tobias, Foucaults notion majorly focuses on political thought and its connotation on individuals decisions to exercise sovereignty over their bodies.

Nevertheless, Foucaults view is somewhat pessimistic about positive freedom. Unlike Mills opinion of power over the body and mind, Foucault mainly backs negative space, where he explains that human beings are less free than they perceive. His theorization that individuals acquire autonomous powers to initiate a particular set of behaviors makes humans less free beings whose sovereign discipline governs their intrinsic ability. In reality, this kind of intellectuality generates disproportional power relationships to exercise absolute sovereignty over the mind and body (Tobias 81). With this hint in mind, Foucaults conception disavows the construct that individuals possess unconditional freedom to influence the decisions of their autonomous mental faculties. Consequently, his belief differs from Mills idea since it places limitations on the exercise of sovereign power over the body and mind of individuals.

Works Cited

Bishop, Schuyler. Three theories of individualism: Graduate Theses and Dissertations, 2007. PDF file. Web.

Tobias, Saul. Foucault on Freedom and Capabilities. Theory, Culture & Society 22.4(2005): 65-85. Print.

Introduction

The concept of freedom represents a kind of a notion that bears similarity to different philosophers opinions about an important object that grants people happiness, wealth, and longevity. In its different interpretations, freedom has the characteristics that depict it as an ultimate goal of all investigations that scientists and philosophers would like to perform.

In order to comprehend the concept of freedom from the sociological perspective, it becomes very important to resort to the highly authoritative points of view such as Marx and Freuds. These two great writers, philosophers, and sociologists attempted to describe the idea of freedom and its importance to society people live in.

For instance, Freud admits that people get used to socialize themselves by means of their determining factors recognition and investigations of the ideas which motivate people and make them take certain steps in this life. This is why his ideas and works have a close connection to freedom by means of knowledge that people may gain within some period of time and the emotional challenges that may become as serious obstacles to the way of cognition.

As for Marx and Engels interpretation of freedom, they believe that freedom lies in the relations between people and the ways of how these people behave in society. In other words, Freuds isolation and Marxs communication represent the two different sides of one particular issue, freedom.

The achievements demonstrated by Marx and Freud play a significant role in the field of sociology and philosophy indeed; Marx believed in the power of labor and recognized the individual as an integral part of society and Freud, in his turn, tried to prove that people should pay attention to their behavior and thoughts by means of knowledge; such different approaches for the concept of freedom may serve as a powerful opportunity that promotes recognition of how people care about freedom and how society accept this freedom.

Discussion

Basics about freedom and the impact of civilization. The vast majority of people still believe that they have freedom in all aspects of their lives and have the right to choose what to do, wear, say, write, etc. According to the general assumptions and believes, each individual has freedom from his/her birth in case this individual does not break the norms and rules sets. However, certain limitations already appear when we mention the existence of rules and norms.

These rules and norms bind human freedom in some way so that people cannot even guess that dependence on their own ideas exists. To comprehend the essence of freedom, many philosophers and writers developed their ideas, share their suggestions, and analyze what could make a person free and, at the same time, satisfy the demands of society and civilization itself.

The ideas of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud provide people with an opportunity to evaluate the concept of freedom and its power in regards to the conditions people live under. Both Marx and Freuds works deserve certain attention and recognition because their opposite arguments help to create one general picture of how freedom influences human live and interferes the relations between the individual and society.

The famous psychoanalysis by Sigmund Freud and not less famous political economy by Karl Marx create powerful and clear grounds for people to continue developing the idea of freedom and the relations which happen between a person and society he/she lives in. The urge for freedom, therefore, is directed against particular forms and demands of civilization or against civilization altogether (Freud 41).

This idea shows how Freud defines freedom in terms of the conditions given: he does believe that freedom depends on society and the process of civilization; however, he does not want to believe that civilization can influence human freedom and individuality.

He demonstrates the respect to personal knowledge and human abilities to study and grasp the essence, and what he tries to do is to help people comprehend the necessity to become more powerful and freer. Marx, in his turn, underlines that the worker is related to the product of his labour as to an alien object (Marx and Engels 72) so that he unites the idea of freedom and labor into one whole that people cannot divide.

Freud about freedom and the role of civilization. Sigmund Freud introduced one of the most powerful and captivating ways of how people could improve their lives and get a clear picture of what they would like to get and could get.

His achievements in psychology and the concept of psychoanalysis deserve attention because of several reasons: (1) it helps to change the way people get used to think; (2) it promotes the improvement in language and culture people prefer to use and rely one; and finally, (3) it focuses on all those unconscious drives which influence human activities and demands.

To clear up what Freud implied under the concept of freedom and its impact on society, many people try to make use of his Civilization and Its Discontents. This book appeared at the beginning of the 20^th century. In this work, Freud describes the peculiarities of those tensions that existed between civilization and the individual.

One of the first tension, Freud introduced, implied the fact that people strove for freedom all the time (they want to become free and take the actions in accordance with their interests and demands) and civilization had a need of conformity and the line of constant repressions. Even if Freud found enough powerful reasons of why civilization developed restrictions and promoted obedience, he could agree with the fact that people needed to follow rules and be limited in actions.

For example, Freud uses the idea of freedom as something pure and constant: people can do what they want and when they want. However, civilization makes it possible to create some rules and norms according to which people have to use their freedom and choices. Freedom of thoughts and actions undergo considerable restrictions such as cruel punishment in case one person takes the life of another person, in other words, murder and possible outcomes.

According to Freud, people cannot even imagine how the dependence on some outside factors develops: there is nothing of which we are more certain than the feeling of our self, of our own ego. This ego appears to us as something autonomous and unitary, marked off distinctly from everything else (Freud 12). Personal ego creates the feeling that maintains certain and sharp lines of human inherent demarcation. As a rule, the process of sublimation promotes human blindness as for personal dependence on norms set.

In general, Freud defines the individual as an anti-social being, and society (civilization) has to domesticate this being in order to achieve certain satisfaction, pleasure, and understanding on the biological level at first. It is impossible to overlook the extent to which civilization is built up upon a renunciation of instinct& It is not easy to understand how it can become possible to deprive an instinct of satisfaction (Freud 42-43).

The use of drives makes it possible for the individual to grasp the basics of civilized behavior by means of sublimation and all those suppressed drives that become striving for this person. So, as a result of this suppression, the relations between the individual and society change: even if the person thinks he/she rests the same with the same demands which society has already imposed, his natural (biological) drives become social (suppressed) ones.

Marx and Engels about restrictions placed by civilization. The ideas Marx and Engels presented in their work Capital also played an important role in understanding of the concept of freedom and its relation to the individual and society. In comparison to Freud, Marx believed that freedom should take place in society when people began communicating and achieving some common goals together.

In the third chapter, the authors properly underline its essence that actually begins only where labour which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases; thus in the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material production (Marx and Engels 441). They formulated this concept at the end of the 19^th century, when the vast majority of people could imagine another world except the one they lived in.

Marx wanted to explain that people should not accept the idea of freedom as some kind of general notion that had no boundaries and restrictions. He conceived that freedom has several degrees because none moral (ethical) perspectives become crucial but political economy that requires particular levels, grades, and stages.

Only a socialized person can have freedom together with numerous associated producers that have to regulate and control all interchanges by Nature but not vice versa. It appears that Marx and Engels supported the idea of civilization and its impact on human freedoms and actions: people cannot take a step in case it contradicts some initial instructions that civilization tries to implement.

In the chapter IV of Capital, Marx introduces the idea of surplus value that also helps to define the true essence of human freedom and liberty. On the one hand, the idea to compare human freedoms with trade and political economy seems rather absurd and unclear.

However, on the other hand, such spheres as politics and economics may also help to gain deep understanding of the concept of freedom and realize that even trade relations between people deprive them of the opportunity independently make decisions and live in accordance with personal demands. In the chapter VI of Capital, Marx continues developing the idea of surplus value and explains that freedom influences the development of buyer-seller relations and promotes activities by means of their free will.

Marxs attention to the real of necessity and real of freedom plays an important role when people start analyzing the world of economics to the world of personal freedoms and demands. People cannot always follow their dreams without breaking some rules civilization establishes.

Because of such inability to combine personal freedoms and duties, Marx suggests people should pay more attention to the real of necessity in order to decrease time and human energy and to increase the level of human activities that people prefer to end independently.

At the end of his investigations and analysis, Marx agrees that civilization has an impact on liberty, and the relations between the individual and society have to undergo some changes because economical influence remains considerable whatever conditions exist.

Evaluation of Freud and Marxs opinions. When people start thinking about the semi free society they expect to live in, the vast majority of them cannot comprehend why Marx chooses such a negative position and deprive people of the opportunity to become free and overcome challenges society creates.

In comparison to Marx, Freud suggests accepting freedom as an illusion so that people do not have responsibility for anything. Some unknown forces such as ID ego, super ego, and alter ego have a control over human powers and demands, and people cannot gain control over them. When these two philosophers faced the idea of freedom and civilization, they had to take into account the idea of disintegration or determination on both psychological and economical level. One of them says

Man (the worker) no longer feels himself to be freely active in any but his animal functions  eating, drinking, procreating, or at most in his dwelling and in dressing-up, etc; and in his human functions he no longer feels himself to be anything but an animal. (Marx and Engels 74)

Such attitude to people and their role in society appears abusive for many people who cannot accept the idea that their animal instincts have to perform the leading role, and their human demands and interests cannot influence their actions and thoughts. From his words, the idea of liberty becomes not only an illusion for people but also the determination of the belonging to animals those people truly believe to handle. In response to Marxs definite cognition of human freedom and place, Freud exclaims that

The liberty of the individual is no gift of civilization. It was greatest before there was any civilization, though then, it is true, it had for the most part no value, since the individual was scarcely in a position to defend it. (Freud 49)

Within a short period, it becomes difficult to realize why such different attitudes to freedom and human dependence on civilization interest people in the same sphere. Marxs approach deprives people of any opportunity to believe in personal dignity and the possibility to get freedom, and Freud admits that only gained deep knowledge may show the way to independence and freedom.

The idea to make freedom available seems distant and even incomprehensible, and people have to pass a number of stages to prove their right to get freedom and make use of their independence gained.

Conclusion

In general, the evaluation of the concept of freedom plays a crucial role in the life of every person. The works of Freud and Marx help to comprehend that among the variety of attitudes to freedom and the individual role in civilization, people have to demonstrate their strong will and desire to achieve liberty by various means.

Thought some problems and challenges appear on peoples way to cognition of this concept, people should lose hope to gain proper knowledge of this idea. Freuds ideas of freedom influence some psychological aspects of life and explain that people do not have freedom due to alter and super egos.

Marx denies all kind of freedom because his ideas prove that the individual and civilization come together, and civilization has already created a number of rules and limitations. In spite of differences of these two philosophers opinions, it becomes easier to define the essence of freedom in human life and the ideas of how this freedom influences human perception of their role in this world.

Works Cited

Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engles. The Marx-Engels Reader . Ed. Robert Tucker. Second Edition ed. Vol. 1. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1978.

Sigmund Freud. Civilizations and Its Discontents. Ed. Peter Gay and James Strachey. Standard Edition ed. Vol. 1. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1961.

This section compares Jean Jacques Rousseaus notion with Confucius conception of freedom. Rousseau theorizes that the functionality of society is entirely dependent on its commonality and the expression of sovereignty. The philosopher believes that authority is unchallengeable and epitomizes peoples free will without entrustment of any part of their powers to their counterparts. In this sense, the freedom of a person remains unshared amongst other individuals or groups. Similarly, the sovereignty of a distinctive group expresses the wholeness of its free will, but not a part of the group. Rousseau claims that individuals should invest in independent thinking in case they are deprived of their rights to the general will. Rousseau is very particular in the argument that citizens should capitulate whatever offerings they have for the state. However, the philosopher emphasizes that the state should not demand more offerings than what a citizen can freely deliver to the state. The ideology of sovereign powers entails the fulfillment of the common good to persons who share common interests. Consequently, individuals bear the freedom to exercise reserved parts as long as they do not concern matters of commonality within sovereign groups.

Rousseaus notion compares with Confucius conception of freedom since Confucius also believes that space is a requisite for good deeds. Confucianism holds that free will does not constitute ultimate human freedom. According to Johnson, the free will of a person is only a representation of intrinsic mental faculties that facilitate thoughtful determination of choices amongst alternative courses of action (53). Confucianism places more emphasis on the significance of personal autonomy than innate free will. Personal independence is a blend of acquired faculties that individuals achieve through sensible interactions in sovereign societies whilst exercising individualistic thinking and self-expression.

In comparison with Rousseaus notion of freedom, Confucianism links space with the commonality of individuals who exhibit social interdependency. The attainment of the outright equilibrium between social traits depends on the appropriateness of human socialization, where individuals are presumed rational and initiators of social togetherness. Johnson confirms that Confucius notion of freedom is founded on individual absolutism and relativism (54). The theory assumes liberty as a product of competency and accomplishment of self-fulfillment. However, the attainment of absolute personal autonomy is relative to the choice of virtuous characteristics of society. Primarily, the philosophical concepts of Rousseau and Confucius on freedom matters have shaped cultures owing to their emphasis on obedience, egalitarianism, and eccentricity.

Works Cited

Johnson, Carl. Freedom and Confucianism. The International Journal of the Asian Philosophical Association 1.2 (2009): 52-61. Print.

In his book, Socrates claims that the rich and the powerful are never comfortable with philosophers in society because they tend to reveal the truth to the public. In the society of his time, for instance, he notes that the ruling class accused him of inciting the youths, but the allegations were false.

He was taken to court to answer the charges related to incitement and causing public disquiet. At the time, the court system was controlled by the few selected individuals commonly referred to as the demos because the system of administration was democratic, where the majority could have their word. Unfortunately, the views of minorities were never taken into consideration. The selected judges made a decision that Socrates had incited the youths and he was supposed to be sentenced to death.

Socrates friends requested him to accept the charges, as they were willing to pay the expected fines, but he refused and insisted that he was ready to die for the sake of justice. In his view, the democratic system of governance was the worst because it gave the majority, what he termed as the tyranny of the multitude, an opportunity to rule (Phaedo 21).

He views death as the freedom from all types of injustice that exist in society. He was not dying for his own sake, but the sake of freedom and justice. To him, wealth was the greatest cause of injustice because the ruling class wanted to preserve their positions as the owners of the means of production. Socrates encouraged people to keep off from wealth because it was one step towards individual captivity.

He cited power as an additional factor that denied people their freedom. Those in positions of influence in society, irrespective of whether they are social-politically or economically connected, are always worried about their security. An individual living a simple life does not care about what happens to him or her in society.

Freedom in the Phaedo

In the introductory paragraph, Socrates alleges that a true philosopher should be ready to die for the sake of justice. However, death should be natural and not through suicide. This appears a contradiction to Cebes, because if an individual considers death a blessing that he or she should be allowed to die irrespective of the way to do so. Socrates goes on explaining that human beings are properties of gods and harming themselves is against the will of gods.

Cebes is puzzled further and requests Socrates to clarify the sentence, but he appreciates the idea that life belongs to gods and no one can take it away at will. Socrates notes that those who are about to die should not mourn because they will meet gods and other friends in eternal life.

Death, according to Socrates, is simply the separation of the soul from the body, hence it amounts to a certain form of freedom given the fact that any philosopher tries as much as possible to keep off from the pleasures of the body (The Last Days of Socrates 87). Death brings freedom to the soul.

The senses play only one role which is deceiving soul and body. Intelligence identifies other important aspects of life, such as justice, goodness, and beauty. Therefore, freedom entails the separation of the soul from the body, which is achieved only through death. Society is full of various ideologies that serve to benefit the body and not the soul. Death gives the soul a chance to rest and keep off from the tribulations of the world.

Augustine-Confessions

In his writing on confessions, Augustine was attempting to give an account of his sins to God, as well as praise God for what he does in human life. The author notes that he was a sinful person, but God converted him into a faithful and trustworthy person. Augustine believed that an individual has a very short life and after death, he stands a trial before God for his deeds and sins.

If an individual behaves in a way that pleases God, he or she will definitely go to the Heaven to enjoy the eternal life, but whoever fails to follow the teachings of the Bible will suffer after death. The philosopher was influenced greatly by the writings of Plato, such as Republics and Apology. He supported Platos assertion that the best should be allowed to rule, but the church should come in to provide guidance for human beings to achieve freedom from sin.

He observed that the church and the state should work closely to improve the lives of individuals. The church has to provide spiritual nourishment, as this would prevent individuals from committing sins, such as stealing, killing, and injuring others (Augustine 112). Real freedom cannot be attained through the establishment of state laws, but through following the word of God and ensuring the church guides political leaders.

He encouraged people to follow the commandments because this would guarantee them a place in Heaven. Augustine advocated for freedom, but in a different from Plato way, because he wanted people to follow the teachings of the Bible. He suggested that the state has the legitimate use of force whenever people fail to obey the law. In other words, people should be forced to pursue the teachings of the Bible, as this would bring them freedom.

Works Cited

Augustine. The confessions of Saint Augustine. New York: Filiquarian Publishing, 2008. Print.

Plato. Phaedo. Lanham: Start Classics, 2013. Print.

 The Last Days of Socrates. Charleston: Popular Classics Publishing, 2012. Print.

Introduction

Paul Rees argument can be summarised under the concept of cause and effect wherein the existence of free will is in doubt since the actions of people are invariably caused by factors that influenced them towards these actions. For instance, if every action can result in a reaction then constant interaction with the environment, the culture you are in, and the social structure you are a part of will lead to a response.

However, an individual reacting to these factors is doing so outside of their inherent control since they are merely reacting based on factors that they have been introduced to and will be introduced to in the future via their external environment. Thus, the concept of free will is questionable since all reactions that a person has can be traced to an action that did not uniquely originate from them. Even their actions are based on stimulus and input from the external environment.

On the other end of the spectrum, De Beauvoir presents the notion that humans are inherently free due to the presence of cognizance of choice regarding the actions that a person can put into effect. In essence, human freedom for De Beauvoir is based on awareness of the self; consciousness acknowledgment of others and the capacity to enact change through action. It is based on these two perspectives regarding the existence of freedom that this paper will compare the arguments of Ree and De Beauvoir to come up with sufficient evidence to debunk one of their perspectives on human freedom This can be accomplished through an examination of their perspectives and using real-world examples to apply their arguments.

This paper assumes that it is the cognizance of the presence of choices for our actions that validates the existence of free will since, even if some extenuating circumstances and influences can impact what choice we make, the fact remains that a choice can still be made.

Analyzing the Perspective of Rees

The work of Rees has several philosophical undertones similar to the unmoved mover and uncaused cause arguments made by St. Thomas Aquinas when he presented his arguments regarding the existence of God. For instance, Rees is correct when he states that actions prompt reactions and that every action has an inherent origin. Thus, he argues that people do not necessarily have free will since there is an origin to the action that influences their reactions and future subsequent actions.

Rees even implies aspects related to learned behavior theory wherein it is stated that an individuals thoughts, actions, and behavior are merely the result of learned behavior from the external environment (Mele 781). As such, all their actions and reactions are based on preconceived notions that they have internalized and applied. Since these aspects are preconceived, then the concept of free will is in doubt due to the lack of behaviors, thought processes, and actions that originated uniquely from the self without any external stimulus bringing it about.

Analysing the Perspective of De Beauvoir

De Beauvoir subtly acknowledged the presence of external influence to actions wherein she stated that two kinds of freedom apply to humanity, namely ontological freedom and its counterpart, moral freedom. De Beauvoir explained that while a person can be ontologically free, they are not necessarily morally free. This is in part due to the influences of the external environment that constrain or influence our actions. However, De Beauvoir helps to resolve this issue by explaining that regardless of the presence of constraints or influences, moral freedom continues to exist, and the concept of choice is present. It is the cognisant acknowledgment of the presence of choice, regardless of constraining influences, which prove the existence of free will since De Beauvoir recognizes the fact that people can still make fundamentally immoral choices despite the presence of a moral alternative (Torres and Fajardo-Chica 519).

Conclusion

Based on everything that has been presented so far, it can be stated that it is the cognizance of the presence of choices for our actions that validates the existence of free will since, even if some extenuating circumstances and influences can impact what choice we make, the fact remains that a choice can still be made. Ree does make a valid argument though when it comes to how the actions of people are invariably influenced by the environment around them; however, there are numerous examples throughout the past and present which show that people are capable of making decisions that are distinctly different from what should be the result of their external influences.

De Beauvoirs perspective simply makes more sense since the presence of choice is an indelible aspect of being human. While it may be true that social, economic, and cultural circumstances can limit an individuals capacity to make a choice, De Beauvoir stated that this is where moral freedom enters into the picture wherein, despite constraints on what choices you should make, you can still make a choice that can result in the greatest amount of good.

Works Cited

Mele, Alfred. Unconscious Decisions And Free Will. Philosophical Psychology 26.6 (2013): 777-789. Print.

Torres, Erika, and David Fajardo-Chica. Gregg D. Caruso: Free Will And Consciousness: A Determinist Account Of The Illusion Of Free Will. Minds & Machines 23.4 (2013): 519. Print.

The concept of freedom is often discussed and debated by philosophers, political scientists, or lawyers. It is viewed as one of unalienable rights of a person; yet, it can be restricted due to some reasons or purposes. This paper is aimed at showing that freedom is impossible without some responsibility for ones actions and some restrictions are inevitable.

Without these restrictions, the very existence of society can be threatened. On the whole, this issue can be important for individuals, communities, and states. The way in which people understand the notion of freedom affects criminal laws, international relations, and the moral principles of an individual. This is why various aspects of freedom are still worth examining, even though many thinkers have discussed them.

First of all, one can ask whether freedom is always a good thing. At first glance, this question may seem outrageous or ludicrous because people usually regard individual liberty as something indispensible for a human being. However, this view can be disputed because under some circumstances the freedom of an individual has to be limited.

For instance, criminals are deprived of their right to freedom, because they can pose a threat to other people. Additionally, one can mention traffic rules that are familiar to every person. They are taken for granted even though they do limit personal freedom. Even the most severe critics of the state cannot deny the necessity of such restrictions. Therefore, freedom may not be a good thing if a person completely disregards the interests of other people.

Overall, this issue has been discussed by many prominent philosophers. In his classical work Leviathan Thomas Hobbes points out that people who are not bound by any rules, will inevitably enter into conflict in which only the strongest can prevail (Hobbes, 1976, p. 86). He believes that the life of such people will be poor, nasty, brutish, and short (Hobbes, 1976, p. 86).

Thus, it is possible to say that absolute freedom is hardly possible, because it can be interpreted as ability to anything that a person wants to. There were people who possessed almost absolute freedom, for example, one can mention the dictators of the twentieth century like Hitler or Stalin, but it was based on the use of coercion and violence.

This is why people seek not to be free, especially they want to be protected by the law or the state. The very idea of social contract is based on the premise that people forfeit some of their rights in order to create a peaceful community. This necessity to limit ones freedom was discussed in the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (2008) who believed that state should act as an arbiter and enforcer of the social contract (p. 39). The existence of such a contract implies that people consent to follow some rules that limit their freedom.

The philosophical and ethical aspects of freedom are important for international relations. Very often political leaders talk about the necessity to free other societies. In many cases, such actions may involve military intervention. The question arises whether this intrusion into the life of a sovereign state can be justified on rational or moral grounds.

The thing is that there are societies in which the individual freedom of a person is practically non-existent, for instance, one can mention North Korea (Forsythe, 2009, p. 333). In such cases, political pressure seems to be ethically acceptable. However, one cannot say the same thing about military intervention that usually threatens the lives of people have nothing to do with the policies of the state. As a rule, they are the victims of this state.

Certainly, one can say that the economic, military pressure on a certain sovereign state is not permissible, because the laws of the country have been adopted by the majority of people living in this community. However, such an argument can be disputed, because in many totalitarian societies citizens are afraid of expressing their discontent. Thus, the concept of freedom should not be excluded from international relations.

Additionally, it is quite reasonable to ask whether people living in the United States can be called free. This issue is also worth discussing since America is often regarded as the most democratic and liberal country. Overall, it is impossible to speak about absolute or unrestricted freedom, but as it has been mentioned before, this unrestricted freedom cannot exist in the civic society.

Yet, if we are speaking about economic or political liberties, the United States can certainly be regarded a free country. Again, this idea can be better illustrated by comparing America to other countries such North Korea or Afghanistan in which the political rights of people are not recognized or upheld by the state.

Despite the fact that the concept of freedom has been discussed in many philosophical, legal or political works, it continues to attract attention of many people. This notion shapes almost every form of relation within the societies and at an international level. This paper suggests that freedom inevitably involves some degree of restriction; otherwise it can hardly exist. This is the main point that should be taken into consideration.

Reference List

Forsythe, D. (2009). Encyclopedia of Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hobbes, T. (1976). Leviathan. New York: Forgotten Books.

Rousseau, J. (2008). The Social Contract. London: Cosimo.

Introduction

The field of Philosophy had always been determined on analyzing the connections between mind and body: how they impinge on one another or in a sense, how physical states of things affect our mental functioning or vice versa (McGhee, 2002).

Descriprion of Spinoza

In particular, it was deemed that peoples consciousness of an evident unity of mind and body only becomes clear in their experiences with their emotions, something that appear to have both a physical aspect as well as a mental side. Emotions are basically related to how a person act or behave. Also, peoples emotional lives make it clear that the intricacies of mind cannot be separated from that of the body. But before that, a link should be established between emotions and the concept of freedom (McGhee, 2002).

Western philosophers though of the early modern period develop their understanding of the two entities as they saw them, based on a cultural and religious background that emphasize heavily a distinction between the mental and physical side. More accurately, they are coming in from a tradition that discerns the three aspects: the physical, the mental and the spiritual. There is an easing of the spiritual side however because as said, the nature of mind already depends upon the range of our experience and if peoples experiences do not involve anything spiritual, then it would be marginalized (McGhee, 2002).

The human being was once considered of as the Great Amphibian, or the one who can exclusively live in the two worlds, a creature of the physical world and also an inhabitant of the spiritual, just a tad different from angels. But as science developed, it became clearer that human beings, in their material characteristics at least, can be subjected to, just like any other part of the corporeal world to a physical and causal explanation. Therefore to maintain human exclusiveness, most analysis concentrate on a central feature of consciousness, something thought to be just distinctive of humanity: freedom. The mind is not a physical substance but a mental one, and hence not constrained by the causal determinism to which any physical substance is vulnerable of. That said, how the humans conduct themselves and act was the product of a possessing a free and undetermined will (McGhee, 2002).

Nonetheless, the rising success of psychoanalytic explanations reduced the popular idea that all human beings enjoy freedom and that people are just not as free as they thought. Of course, psychoanalysis had it owns group of contesters. Despite these, the development of psychology and evolutionary biology that is quite adept with giving causal explanation of human conduct in an approach that the idea of absolute free human action is becoming less and less plausible (McGhee, 2002).

Maybe though, a different approach to the idea of human freedom is needed. Instead of viewing it as a freedom from determinism or causal explanation, or instead of assuming that mind and body are separate entities because the former is immune from causal explanation. It may follow that the mind is not controlled or cannot be analyzed by several forms of causal explanation but this does not say that it is actually free from any structure of causality at all (McGhee, 2002).

Baruch Spinoza, one of the greatest European philosophers, in fact exemplified this conjecture with his defining of freedom against the backdrop of determinism. For him, being alone is free as determined by ones own inner necessity. Here, a person is free not because his action is not uncaused but because it is unconstrained. The idea here is that freedom is a commodity to be achieved or earned so that some may be freer than other people and at different levels at different stages of ones life (McGhee, 2002).

Being constrained does not take place in one way only or physically confined. People can either be constrained physically or mentally. The latter in a sense can clearly tantamount to a loss of freedom. Being mentally constrained can be effected in several ways. One is for a person to have a too narrow view of the world, and ones place in it. In this case, people feel cramped, and they become uncomfortable and unsatisfied with themselves, compelling them then towards changing. Changing would mean that they make themselves unconstrained and therefore free (McGhee, 2002).

Human emotions are highly involved in how one views the world. It is where most of ones emotional responses are based. More aptly, emotions are attuned to our predispositions about the world. But, there are features of the world that not everyone can notice and possibly as well, because people are in a certain state or in a grip of some feelings, they are liable to misinterpret the things around him in general or the world, and become deluded. Being deluded constrains ones being and undermines someones freedom to act (McGhee, 2002).

For Spinoza, every being struggles to maintain itself on its own being. Or as far as human beings are concerned, they strive to uphold themselves in their being as they perceived it to be, which people have a tendency to perceive wrongly. There is a sense of subjectivity involved here, as human beings strive to become someone they conceive themselves to be, they tend to be attached to things that reinforces this self-view, and hate those that divert from it. An inherent tension is in the space between how we envisage ourselves and how we really are, because people think their self-view is absolutely accurate and they can not and would not abandon it just so. But what they do not know is that what they are fighting against in these circumstances are those inclinations towards growth that are being stimulated by their life experiences; in particular those experiences that leave them unsatisfied and desiring for change (McGhee, 2002).

Spinozas philosophy closed the two key gaps in philosophy, one between the mind and body and the other is between the fact and value gaps. Usually these two gaps have been considered independently, but there are actually significant points of similarity between the two problems. His position about the mind has a deep synergy with the existing judgment about consciousness, embodiment and human subjectivity internally. On one level Spinoza was a hard determinist. For him, every event in nature occur as a consequence of firm necessity and therefore there should not be any contingencies, especially those that involves human choices viewed as fundamental to ethics, and also to conventional theological dogmas alluding to personal responsibilities, sins and praiseworthy behaviours (McGhee, 2002).

According to this renowned philosopher, as predetermined mental and physical entities, people are fended with a sense of double limitation to their freedom, reliance on ones physical conditions or the body for that matter, and on the causal manipulations of the environment (McGhee, 2002). At the same time, there is an inherent lack in their mental powers when it comes to their thoughts and desires. But he also had a deep notion regarding the possibilities for each persons freedom, of ones propensity to liberate oneself from the requirements of nature by employing a heightened understanding of these very requirements (Torrance).

Spinoza specifically emphasizes the likelihood for the mind to be free. People can be mentally constrained with the way their thoughts are ordered. The thing is, they tend to be chaotic due to the fact that they are influenced by the intricacies of their bodies rather than their logic and rationalities. And because peoples bodies are working against an open environment, they become tangled in the absolute causal system of the universe. An example of this lack of freedom in ones mind because of the workings of the body, picture a man intent on finishing something his mind had set himself to do, but because the mind is not trained properly to be rational, this mans chain of thinking is regularly interrupted by thoughts of food, rest, or other body and physical desires. As a result, a persons mental path is thrown off course, and whatever it wants to achieve cannot be done efficiently anymore or even not at all (Torrance).

To resolve this, a persons cognitive and affective states should be in sync with the proper causal states of the body, the mind and how they mutually interrelate. The philosopher had observed that the ability of ones mind for logical thought and emotion was usually acutely flawed, but still can be altered to improve. By developing ones cognitive and affective balance and taking into account ones own mental and physical limitations, a comparative level of competence can be achieved from peoples ideas and therefore also a relative enhancement in their capabilities for mental self-determination or self-understanding (Torrance).

Spinoza distinguished the mind from the body as aspects of a basic reality. However, he also views the individual mind and the body as interrelated thoroughly. Such that, even though there would be an increase in the mental self-determination as a result of the aforementioned greater capability of the mind, would naturally mean that along with this, an increase in bodily self-determination would also result. For Spinoza, these two facets of a person complement each other, and has joint aspects that works together for the bigger picture, the reality (Torrance).

This idea that the mind and body works mutually and complementarily for progress lies at the core of Spinozas philosophy on human freedom or salvation. He perceives mental and physical self-determination in the broadest way possible. He was not limited to seeing this complementary progressing to just the increasing of intellectual and physical dexterity and control. Included in his perception is the improved health and well-being of the individual (Torrance).

Spinozas philosophy indicates for a manifestation of increased mental and physical self-determination, people had to reflect on the central importance of being affective competent at the same time with being cognitively understanding. The key here is for the person to experience lively and self enhancing emotions like love, happiness, satisfaction and others rather than those unreceptive and self-constraining emotions like hatred, anger, and jealousy among several (Torrance).

According to the European philosopher, to be able to realize ones constraints on his or her freedom and to increase the chance to enhance ones power in relation to these limitations is intrinsically directed towards acting in ways that would reduce being restricted and to increasing ones freedom. Hence, a competitive understanding of human beings nature and their place in the natural order of the world is needed. In other words, to fully understand the conditions for being fully independent, people had to act in ways that are in accordance to enhancing ones capability for autonomy (Torrance).

The autonomy that everyone seeks should incorporate ethical goals as much as personal goals. Each persons goal of self-determination and the principles it follows towards to achieving this goal should not just be for advancing oneself. Therefore anyones conditions for achieving freedom should meet the traditional ethical principles of mutual compassion, integrity and collective autonomy (Torrance).

Spinozas notion of freedom resolves also the question of how to merge the widespread idea of conscious experience with the view of the objective natural world as explained by science. According to him, there are two likely ways to consider the phenomenal, first-person, factor in consciousness. Firstly, there is the thin conception, which is the idea that the first-person element is reasonably separate from any other features. There is a possibility to imagine, without any bearing of course, a world very much the same as the one everyone is living in, but which incorporates no phenomenal experiences at all. The possibility of such a world shows that phenomenal consciousness does not possess any essential relations with any physical features of the world.

On the other hand, the second view, the thick conception perceived it as internal to the idea of phenomenal consciousness that it is knowledgeable as a lived, embodied state. This notion tells everyone that the felt, first-person, aspects of phenomenality cannot be disengaged from their embodiment in a physiological or organic being. A look-alike world would be an illogical conception on this latter explanation of phenomenality (Torrance).

For Spinoza, a mindful thought will always have, as its primary content, the condition of the thinkers body whether these are experienced just through his or her observations, imagination or thought, as having an extra-bodily relation. Also for him, the level of consciousness varies, as it matches with the differing degrees of complexity of individuals in the world. Spinoza view individuals as profoundly organismic in their characters. In a sense, he was the one who provided the first modern rationalization for biological organism, supplemented by terms of an overall cohesive system with several components, probably organic systems as well themselves, which change over time, but still leaving the overall unison of the whole organic system unaltered (Torrance).

The mind is strongly entwined with life according to Spinoza. While he still requires the knowledge that the world today is already enjoying, the power to distinguish between organic from non-organic systems, he had already a concept of a sort of organism that deviate from that of Descartes. Descartes idea of an organic system was fundamentally just a physical engine, a totally split function from the mental. Therefore living things that are non-human are devoid of souls, sense of perception or rationality, and his point of evidence being that they do not possess coherent languages (Torrance).

Opposite this, life, consciousness and the mind are all very much intertwined for Spinoza. All individual beings possess an extent of organic harmony, mind, and of consciousness. Their level of conscious awareness depend on the intricacy of their organic structures with regard to the consciousness they possess which cannot be measured through the language the beings have (Torrance).

From Spinozas point of view, an experience is closely tied to the organic unity of a particular being. He presented an observation of phenomenal consciousness that allow for the reconciliation of the dilemma abovementioned. He argued that the consciousness of any human being lies in his physical and organic constitution that is can be explained using scientific methods. But, he still conserved the idea of experiences being unique to an individual only. Therefore for Spinoza, feeling pain or to be hurt is to have a personal awareness of ones bodily state such that ones phenomenal state is unavoidably tied with ones embodiment (Torrance).

With this sort of philosophy, Spinozas name had once lived in ill repute. He was deemed Godless, an atheist. Someone who has the nerve to philosophize about denying human freedom, the greatest of divine gifts for those made under Gods image. He did have a lot of friends though since he was seemingly a social man and possesses a pleasant disposition. But with his philosophy, support for it was never extensive, and never made very public. For instance, Leibnitz, the one great philosopher who had encountered Spinoza, used some of the Spinozas ideas unmercifully but had still felt the need to constantly publicly criticize him. This is the parody during the 17^th century. People generally do this to Spinoza, condemn his heresy and brand him devil because thats what best to do under the circumstances even without fully grasping his perspectives.

At the advent of the 18th century, support for Spinoza hardly increased. This phenomenon was call pantheism in 1705 by the English writer John Toland sympathetically. Spinozas pantheism was seen by many as a mere hypocrisy since he present God as being everywhere that in the end it would be in reality seen as existing nowhere (Spiro).

Things for Spinozas reputation become looking up at the latter part of the 18^th century. A dramatic event caused this resuscitation to his reputation, the Pantheism Conflict that occurred in Germany in 1785. During this period, his philosophy was a source for political liberalism, the eagerness to discredit anthropomorphisms and other religious myths, and the capability to gratify the desire for an idealistic union with nature (Spiro).

Conclusion

Spinozas thinking became significant as a respectable blend of the rationalist, atheistic materialism, in an instance, and the celebration of the divine, on another for his late 18^th century German disciples. Those who seek for spirituality and for a numinous unification, and along with it, dedicated to the belief of pursuing the truth wherever may be, were now more at peace and satisfied (Spiro).

Spinoza himself had philosophizes about the nature or essence of God. This rehabilitated Spinoza come to be perceived, possibly for the very first instance, as a believer of God. Notably, he was even termed as a God intoxicated man. This was indeed a long way from his reputation even during his own lifetime (Spiro).

References

McGhee, Michael. (1992) Freedom Emotion & Mind. Western Buddhist Review. Web.

Spiro, Daniel. Spinoza and the Late 18^th/Early 19^th Century Germany. The Aegis Press. Web.

Torrance, Steve. Freedom, mind, value: How Spinozas thought resolves persisting dilemmas over consciousness and ethic. In I.Smit, W.Wallach and G.Lasker (eds), Cognitive, Emotive And Ethical Aspects Of Decision Making In Humans And In Artificial Intelligence (pp. 115-124), Windsor, Ont.

Introduction

In the contemporary society, people consider freedom a basic need in that person who is not free must be in a rough co-existence with him and others. It is therefore very important to exalt freedom, which begins with personal liberty to the sovereignty of nations.

The extent to which a person can be free as well as the exact definition of freedom has been subjected to philosophical discourses from time immemorial with renowned philosophers such as Karl Marx, Michael Foucault and Jean Paul Sartre having differing arguments in the matter. According to the school of thought that each one of them represented, the idea of freedom to them bears differing definitions and extends.

In order to come up with an agreeable and logical definition of freedom as it is in the contemporary society, people have critically analyzed the input of these philosophers and their definition of freedom in this paper with the intention of clearly understanding what freedom is according to the schools of thought they represent today.

As I reveal, the exact meaning of freedom must comprise of the different aspects such as personal liberty, the right to life, equality and independence from coercion and repressive conditions such as poverty, ignorance and diseases. Any meaning of freedom is wanting if it does not address the issue of personal liberty.

Personal freedom

Freedom starts with a sense of self-control or rather self-ownership. In this case, reason influences the persons sense of freedom. In a free state, every person receives an equal chance of exercising freedom at personal level. In this case, no other person influences anothers decisions and the extent to which he/she makes decisions remains strictly limited by him/her.

This is in other words to say that in a free state a persons freedom is not limited as long as it does not impact negatively or limit the freedom of the other people. For instance, a persons freedom cannot include enslaving other people. As a slave, a person is not free to make certain decisions, movements and interactions with other people in the society.

In a free state therefore, a person is not entitle to take the freedom of another person for personal interests since it is against their wish to be treated so. My fellow panelist Sartre concurs with my view of freedom despite his limited definition of the freedom.

Sartres existentialist definition of freedom

According to Jean Paul Sartre, man is condemned to be free. This is without regard to whether he acts from external constraints to repress it or just follows his pragmatic decisions.

A person is free when s/he refuses to act in bad faith and instead follow what he is. For instance, when the waiter who knows really well that he is impersonating a waiter stops that and instead does what his freedom grants, he is at that particular moment embracing freedom.

By being a waiter, the person is only denying his or her own freedom. According to existentialism, one cannot claim that external forces shape his/her deeds or actions. For instance, the profession of a person cannot shape the persons identity considering that the roles played in that profession are only as a matter of bad faith and will eventually cease.

Being aware of ones significance in the process of doing the roles in the profession inform the choices that a person makes and that seem directed to the persons sense of freedom. However, I stand to criticize his definition based on how limited it appears.

Sartre, as well as other existentialists, concentrates more on the intrinsic definition of self-freedom rather than giving a definition and an extent to freedom that one can put into practice in the contemporary society. He does not clarify whether a person is free or not clearly defined in that existentialists hold that in every situation a person has still the freedom of choice.

Having the freedom of choice is not that important and does not qualify as being the absolute meaning of being free. This is basically for the simple reason that even a person who is enslaved by another has the freedom to choose either to rebel or to show complicity but that does not mean that they are free.

In the contemporary society, a person is only free if any other person or condition can implement his /her thoughts and choices without any repression. The issue of equality of freedom constitutes the meaning of freedom.

Equality and independence

Equality is very essential in any situation for a person to be free in the contemporary society. This ranges from political, sexual, racial as well as religious equality.

For people to consider another as free in a free state, he/she must go through an equal treatment with others regardless of their gender or any other affiliations. When a person is marginalized on the any of the above areas, their freedom is interfered with and eventually the person is deprived the necessity of being free.

With equality comes independence in making decisions as well as living without any coercion from anyone. This implies that the different types of independence that Karl Marx and others who embrace the Marxist school of thought argued mostly about.

Karl Marx on freedom

Karl Marx in his Manifesto of the communist party conceptualizes freedom from an economic point of view. Marx conceptualizes freedom from an individualistic point of view whereby he argues that freedom is an individuals collective use of reason to create a reconciled definition of personal and public freedom.

From this, Marx argues that a person who exercises freedom at the expense of the masses abuses it since the freedom of the majority is the one that matters. For instance, a person who owns means of production and abuses his employees for the sake of enriching himself and expanding his financial freedom by enriching himself is infringing the freedom of the others.

It is therefore clear from his arguments that Marxs view of freedom is more informed by the social relations of people in the society. He argues that for a state to be termed as free there has to be a revolution whereby the proletariat overpower the bourgeoisie and own the means of production.

In that case, the majority would be free in that they will be in a position to cope with life without the fear of being oppressed by a powerful ruling class. However, I stand to criticize the view based on its one-sidedness.

Marxs idea of the masses overpowering the ruling class, as a necessary precondition for their freedom, is one sided and has failed to hold on for a long time. This stands out because he fails to address other important aspects such as equality, the addressing of human rights and the dealing with other factors that lead to the oppression of people.

His address however on the issue of economic oppression holds until today as evidenced by workers rising up against their oppressive employers in the contemporary society and demanding for a fair exchange for their labor. This is because a persons freedom seems abused if he/she faces oppression in any given situation.

The practice of freedom

The fact that in order to be completely free one must keenly be aware of the limits of his/her freedom is a very important factor to consider when defining freedom in the society today.

This is in the sense that other peoples freedom is as important as your freedom. A question arises as to whether a person has or should have the right to defend him/herself against coercion. This brings forth a quite interesting aspect of freedom regarded as the freedom of defense.

In most Free states where freedom of people seems held with dignity, always a system acts to differentiate acts of coercion as either offensive or defensive. In this case, whether a person acted in an effort to defend him/herself or was interfering with anothers rights is established. Foucaults meaning todays of freedom is wanting based on its failure to explain how one can free him/herself.

Michael Foucault on freedom

According to Michael Foucault, being free is a practice of the different practices of freedom. To him it is therefore a continuous process. Foucault emphasizes more on the practices of freedom over the process of liberation. He argues that it the practices of freedom that eventually upholds freedom rather than the process of liberation.

For instance, he uses the example of a colonized nation, which liberates itself from the colonizers. The society would still be in need of practices of freedom as they engage in building their own government.

One can clearly notice that Foucaults works are in a way, skeptical about the extent to which people can free themselves. If people cannot stand out of the constraints of relations of power, knowledge and subjectivity, then to him their practices of freedom are simply on a small notion of resistance from within.

Conclusion

In order to answer the question of what one exactly means by being free in the contemporary society, it is of great essence to be all-round while addressing the aspects of freedom.

The problem with the definitions and the answers that philosophers Karl Marx, Michael Foucault and Jean Paul Sartre presents is that they are in most cases one sided whereby they all aimed at addressing a single aspect within the complex issue of freedom. Therefore, it is arguable that one can summon their arguments to contribute to the broad definition of todays freedom.