CAFE

철학,Philosophy

자유(freedom, Liberty,自由)

작성자BLESS|작성시간17.01.23|조회수203 목록 댓글 0
■자유(freedom ,自由)       

      

요약 토마스 아퀴나스는 인간의 모든 사유와 행위는 예정되어 있고 신의 의지에 따른 것이지만 신이 자유롭기 때문에 인간의 예정에도 자유가 부여된다고 주장했다. 스피노자는 한 사물이 자기 본성의 필연성에 따라 존재하고 움직일 때 그 사물은 자유롭다고 보았다.
루소는 자유는 인간이 자연상태에서 지니는 속성이며, 오직 개인에게만 속한다고 보았다. 칸트는 자연과 자유를 같은 차원의 세계에서 조화시킨 것이 아니라 두 세계론에 근거해 각기 다른 세계의 원리로 보았다. 헤겔에 따르면 자유는 ‘절대정신’의 속성이며, 마르크스주의에 따르면 자유는 자연법칙을 특정 목적을 위해 계획적으로 적용하고 활용함으로써 자연과 사회에 대한 지배력을 늘려가는 데서 성립한다.

목차

접기
  1. 역사
    1. 현대사회와 자유

      아리스토텔레스는 인간의 행위를 의도적인 행위와 비의도적인 행위로 구별했다.

      "비의도적인 행위에 해당하는 것은 강제로 한 행위와 모르고 한 행위이다. 그에 반해 의도적인 행위는 행위를 움직이는 원리가 행위자 자신 속에 있으며 그 행위의 개별적 상황을 행위자가 완전히 알고 있는 경우라고 할 수 있다." 아리스토텔레스는 자유로운 결단과 지식을 연관짓고 있지만 자유문제를 주로 자유의지의 문제로 한정하여 다루는 경향이 있었다. 중세 봉건사회를 지배한 자유개념은 토마스 아퀴나스의 자유개념이다.

      아퀴나스는 인간의 모든 사유와 행위는 예정되어 있고 신의 의지에 따른 것이지만 신이 자유롭기 때문에 인간의 예정에도 자유가 부여된다고 주장했다.

      봉건주의에 대항하여 중세적 질서를 청산하려 한 부르주아지는 기계적 결정론의 틀 속에서 자유를 이해했다. 기계적 결정론은 결정론인데도 자유문제를 다룬다. 스피노자에 따르면 자유는 객관적 필연성과 변증법적 관계를 맺고 있다.

      그는 필연과 자유를 대립물로 보는 것에 반대하면서, 한 사물이 자기 본성의 필연성에 따라 존재하고 움직일 때 그 사물은 자유로우며, 다른 사물에 의해 어떤 특정한 방식으로 존재하고 움직이도록 규정될 때 강제된다고 보았다.

      루소는 자유는 인간이 자연상태에서 지니는 속성이며, 오직 개인에게만 속한다고 보았다. 이런 생각은 프랑스 혁명 당시 '인권선언' 제4항, 곧 "자유는 다른 사람을 침해하지 않는 범위에서는 무엇이든 할 수 있다는 점에서 성립한다"로 결실을 맺는다.

      인격의 자유는 자신의 사유 재산권을 아무런 제약도 받지 않고 완전히 자기마음대로 할 수 있는 자유를 포함한다. 18세기의 프랑스 유물론은 기계론을 바탕으로 객관적 필연에 대한 관념을 구체화했다. 그러나 인간의 행위를 비롯한 모든 사건이 기계적으로 결정된다는 견해를 고수한 나머지 결국 숙명론에 빠질 수밖에 없었다. 기계적 결정론은 라플라스의 가설로 정점에 이른다. 라플라스의 가설에 따르면, 특정 시점에서 우주에 존재하는 모든 미립자의 위치와 속도를 알고 있는 '괴물'이 있다면 이 괴물은 무한한 운동이 앞으로 어떻게 벌어지리라는 것을 예언할 수 있다.

      자유를 부정한 기계적 결정론에 대한 비판은 독일 고전철학에서 이루어졌다.

      칸트는 자연과 자유의 조화를 확보함으로써 기계적 결정론의 숙명론을 타파하려 했다. 그러나 칸트는 자연과 자유를 같은 차원의 세계에서 조화시킨 것이 아니라 두 세계론에 근거해서 각기 다른 세계의 원리로 보았다. 즉 세계를 자연 세계인 현상계와 물자체의 세계인 예지계로 나누고, 인간을 이 두 세계에 속하는 시민으로 보았다.

      자연 세계인 현상계는 예외 없이 인과성이 지배하며, 따라서 자연 존재인 인간의 행위는 인과적으로 결정된다. 그러나 이성적·도덕적 존재이기도 한 인간은 초감성적인 예지계에도 속하며 따라서 도덕법칙에서 구체화되는 자유의 주체이기도 하다. 피히테는 자아의 창조활동을 자유라고 보고 자유를 절대화하는 데로 나아갔다.

      자유 개념의 역사에서 헤겔의 기여는 자유를 역사적 범주로 파악했다는 점이다.

      스피노자와 마찬가지로 헤겔은 자유를 필연성과 변증법적 관계를 맺고 있는 것으로 보았다. "그 어떤 필연도 내포하지 않는 자유라는 것과, 자유가 전혀 없는 단순한 필연이라는 것은 추상적 규정이며 따라서 옳지 않다. 자유는 본질적으로 구체적이고 그 자신 속에서 영속적으로 규정된다. 그러므로 자유는 동시에 필연적이다." 헤겔에 따르면 자유는 '절대정신'의 속성이다. 인간 정신의 발전에 따라 자유는 점점 자기 자신을 의식하게 된다.

      즉 "세계사는 자유의식의 진보이다."

      마르크스주의에서는 자유를 논할 때 자연과 사회에 존재하는 객관적 필연, 즉 객관적 합법칙성에 대한 인간의 관계가 문제된다. 여기서는 자유와 필연의 관계가 변증법적인 관계로 파악되며 필연은 언제나 자유의 전제가 된다.

      필연은 절대적으로 작용하는 것이기 때문에 인간이 필연을 인식하지 못하는 한, 필연은 인간에 대해 맹목적으로 관철된다. 우리가 객관적으로 필연적인 것을 바라고 그에 맞추어 행동할 때, 필연은 맹목적으로 작용하기를 멈추고 자유 속에서 지양되어 보존된다. 그런 의미에서 필연은 자유로 전화하지만 그렇다고 해서 그 필연이 사라지는 것은 아니다. 그러므로 마르크스주의에 따르면 자유는 자연법칙에서 벗어나 있음으로써 성립하는 것이 아니라 오히려 이 법칙을 인식, 이 법칙을 특정 목적을 위해 계획적으로 적용하고 활용함으로써 자연과 사회에 대한 지배력을 늘려가는 데서 성립한다.

      역사

      서양의 중세 신분제 사회에서 자유는 기본적으로 '특권'을 의미하는 것으로 예를 들면 귀족의 자유, 도시의 자유 등이 이에 해당했다. 이러한 신분상의 여러 가지 특권과 투쟁하는 과정에서 자유롭고 평등하며 자율적인 개인이라는 관념이 형성되었다. 인간의 자유라는 문제가 구체적으로 제기된 것은 절대왕정기였는데 절대왕권은 전통적인 봉건신분제 사회를 붕괴시켰다.

      그러나 종교를 지배수단으로 하여 개인의 내면생활을 통제함으로써 특권으로서의 자유, 다시 말하면 자유의 억압에 대한 저항권을 강화시키는 계기가 되었다. 종교적 자유에 대한 주장은 우선 개개인에 대한 종교적 관용의 요구를 유발시켰다. 이렇게 하여 사상·신념·언론·출판의 자유 등이 주장되기에 이르렀다. 이

      같은 자유의 개념은 자연법을 기초로 하는 법에 의지하게 되었는데 이에 따라 자유는 권력으로부터 보호받아야 할 '개인의 자유'로 일반화되었다. '권력과 자유'라는 잘 알려진 대립개념은 이렇게 하여 형성된 것으로서, 여기에서의 자유라는 개념은 피치자(被治者) 쪽에서 볼 때에는 민사적(民事的) 영역에 한정된 소극적인 것이고 통치자 쪽에서 볼 때에는 권력에의 제약을 의미하는 것이었다.

      그러나 절대왕정 시대에서 근대 시민사회의 시대로 들어오면서 이같은 소극적 자유는 보다 적극적인 개념으로 전환하게 되었다. 즉 자유가 하나의 자유권으로 전개되어 '……로부터의 자유'와 함께 '……에의 자유'가 강조되기에 이르렀다. 홉스는 자유를 "장애가 없는 상태"로 정의했는데 이것은 "자연권으로서의 소극적 자유와 함께 계약에 의한 질서의 구성이라는 적극적 자유를 포함하는 것"이었다.

      로크는 적극적 의미의 자유를 "사유재산권의 보장을 기초로 하여 정치사회의 구성원으로서 사회질서를 자발적으로 형성하는 것"이라고 주장했다. 루소는 "보다 과격하게 정치사회의 재구성에 적극적으로 참여하는 것"이 자유라고 설파했다.

      이같은 자유개념의 전개는 군주주권론에서 국민주권론으로 주권의 주체가 바뀌는 과정과 표리를 이룬다. 부르주아 혁명을 거쳐 근대시민사회가 형성되면서 경제적 자유주의(레세페르)가 강하게 주장되었고 이에따라 자유는 점점 더 광범위하게 제도화되었다. 19세기에는 서유럽에서 법과 정치가 재구성됨에 따라 개개인의 권리가 공공제도 속에서 기능할 수 있도록 체제가 정비되었다.

      이같은 권리는 대체로 다음 3가지로 나누어볼 수 있다. 첫째, 정신의 자유로서 각자가 자신의 신앙이나 의견을 자유롭게 가질 수 있는 것을 말한다. 또한 개개인 상호간에 이런 신앙이나 의견을 교환할 수 있는 자유도 포함한다. 둘째, 물질적 자유로서 경제활동의 자유, 사회적 이동의 자유, 법에 의한 '안전'의 보장 등이 포함된다. 셋째, 정치적 자유로서 정치에 참가할 수 있는 권리를 말한다. 이들 여러 가지 권리가 헌법체계 속에서 보장됨으로써 자유의 보장은 구체적 형태를 띠게 된다.

      현대사회와 자유

      근대시민사회를 기초로 한 국민국가가 형성되었을 때 제도적으로 개인의 자유는 헌법체계를 통해 거의 완벽하게 보장되었다고 할 수 있다. 그러나 이러한 체제에서도 자유에는 약간의 문제가 있을 수 있다.

      가령 이러한 체제가 실질적으로는 대표제에 의한 부르주아의 지배를 의미하는 것이라면 '법 앞에서의 평등'이라는 원칙이 있음에도 불구하고 무산자계급 사람들은 자유로부터 점차 소외된다. 바꾸어 말하면 질서를 자발적으로 구성하는 공민으로서의 자유와 개인생활을 사적으로 향수하는 자유가 분열되는 것이다. 이렇게 되면 많은 사람들이 공적 자유에 대한 관심을 가질 수 없게 된다.

      그러나 20세기에 들어와 대중사회화가 진전되면서 자유의 개념은 점점 더 확산되었다. 그러나 사회의 집단화와 개인의 부품화가 진행되면서 개인과 환경의 거리가 점점 더 커져서 환경을 변혁하는 주체인 개인으로서의 자유의식은 점점 상실되었다. 이에 따라 대중은 개인생활에만 집착하고 변혁의 대상인 공공환경에 대해서는 무관심을 드러내게 되었다.

      자유의 개념은 소극적인 '……로부터의 자유'에만 국한되어 E. 프롬의 '자유로부터의 도피' 내지는 '자유로운 것에 대한 공포'가 일반화되었다. 따라서 나치즘이나 파시즘은 이러한 잘못된 자유의식의 병리현상이라고 할 수 있는 것이다. 이때문에 오늘날에는 소극적 자유을 지키고 또 적극적 자유의 중요성을 강조하기 위해 국민자치의 운동과 집단에의 자발적 참여가 널리 강조되고 있다.

      각주
       본 콘텐츠의 저작권은 저자 또는 제공처에 있으며, 이를 무단으로 이용하는 경우 저작권법에 따라 법적 책임을 질 수 있습니다.

      / 출처

      다음백과
      다음백과








      ■Liberty
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      Jump to: navigation, search
      For other uses, see Liberty (disambiguation).
      The Magna Carta (originally known as the Charter of Liberties) of 1215, written in iron gall ink on parchment in medieval Latin, using standard abbreviations of the period. This document is held at the British Library and is identified as "British Library Cotton MS Augustus II.106".

      Liberty, in philosophy, involves free will as contrasted with determinism.[1] In politics, liberty consists of the social and political freedoms to which all community members are entitled.[2] In theology, liberty is freedom from the effects of "sin, spiritual servitude, [or] worldly ties."[3]

      Generally, liberty is distinctly differentiated from freedom in that freedom is primarily, if not exclusively, the ability to do as one wills and what one has the power to do; whereas liberty concerns the absence of arbitrary restraints and takes into account the rights of all involved. As such, the exercise of liberty is subject to capability and limited by the rights of others.[4]

      Philosophy

      Main article: Free will

      Philosophers from earliest times have considered the question of liberty. Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (121–180 AD) wrote of "a polity in which there is the same law for all, a polity administered with regard to equal rights and equal freedom of speech, and the idea of a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed."[5] According to Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), "a free man is he that in those things which by his strength and wit he is able to do is not hindered to do what he hath the will to do" (Leviathan, Part 2, Ch. XXI).

      John Locke (1632–1704) rejected that definition of liberty. While not specifically mentioning Hobbes, he attacks Sir Robert Filmer who had the same definition. According to Locke:

      "In the state of nature, liberty consists of being free from any superior power on Earth. People are not under the will or lawmaking authority of others but have only the law of nature for their rule. In political society, liberty consists of being under no other lawmaking power except that established by consent in the commonwealth. People are free from the dominion of any will or legal restraint apart from that enacted by their own constituted lawmaking power according to the trust put in it. Thus, freedom is not as Sir Robert Filmer defines it: 'A liberty for everyone to do what he likes, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws.' Freedom is constrained by laws in both the state of nature and political society. Freedom of nature is to be under no other restraint but the law of nature. Freedom of people under government is to be under no restraint apart from standing rules to live by that are common to everyone in the society and made by the lawmaking power established in it. Persons have a right or liberty to (1) follow their own will in all things that the law has not prohibited and (2) not be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, and arbitrary wills of others."[6]
      John Stuart Mill.

      John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), in his work, On Liberty, was the first to recognize the difference between liberty as the freedom to act and liberty as the absence of coercion.[7] In his book Two Concepts of Liberty, Isaiah Berlin formally framed the differences between these two perspectives as the distinction between two opposite concepts of liberty: positive liberty and negative liberty. The latter designates a negative condition in which an individual is protected from tyranny and the arbitrary exercise of authority, while the former refers to the liberty that comes from self-mastery, the freedom from inner compulsions such as weakness and fear.

      Politics

      Main article: Political freedom

      History

      A romanticised 19th-century recreation of King John signing the Magna Carta
      Liberty Enlightening the World, known as the Statue of Liberty, was donated to the US by France and is an artistic personification of liberty.

      The modern concept of political liberty has its origins in the Greek concepts of freedom and slavery.[8] To be free, to the Greeks, was to not have a master, to be independent from a master (to live like one likes).[9] That was the original Greek concept of freedom. It is closely linked with the concept of democracy, as Aristotle put it:

      "This, then, is one note of liberty which all democrats affirm to be the principle of their state. Another is that a man should live as he likes. This, they say, is the privilege of a freeman, since, on the other hand, not to live as a man likes is the mark of a slave. This is the second characteristic of democracy, whence has arisen the claim of men to be ruled by none, if possible, or, if this is impossible, to rule and be ruled in turns; and so it contributes to the freedom based upon equality."[10]

      This applied only to free men. In Athens, for instance, women could not vote or hold office and were legally and socially dependent on a male relative.[11]

      The populations of the Persian Empire enjoyed some degree of freedom. Citizens of all religions and ethnic groups were given the same rights and had the same freedom of religion, women had the same rights as men, and slavery was abolished (550 BC). All the palaces of the kings of Persia were built by paid workers in an era when slaves typically did such work.[12]

      In the Buddhist Maurya Empire of ancient India, citizens of all religions and ethnic groups had some rights to freedom, tolerance, and equality. The need for tolerance on an egalitarian basis can be found in the Edicts of Ashoka the Great, which emphasize the importance of tolerance in public policy by the government. The slaughter or capture of prisoners of war also appears to have been condemned by Ashoka.[13] Slavery also appears to have been non-existent in the Maurya Empire.[14] However, according to Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund, "Ashoka's orders seem to have been resisted right from the beginning."[15]

      Roman law also embraced certain limited forms of liberty, even under the rule of the Roman Emperors. However, these liberties were accorded only to Roman citizens. Many of the liberties enjoyed under Roman law endured through the Middle Ages, but were enjoyed solely by the nobility, rarely by the common man.[citation needed] The idea of inalienable and universal liberties had to wait until the Age of Enlightenment.

      Social contract

      Eugène Delacroix – Liberty Leading the People (La liberté guidant le people) (1830)
      In French Liberty. British Slavery (1792), James Gillray caricatured French "liberty" as the opportunity to starve and British "slavery" as bloated complaints about taxation.

      The social contract theory, most influentially formulated by Hobbes, John Locke and Rousseau (though first suggested by Plato in The Republic), was among the first to provide a political classification of rights, in particular through the notion of sovereignty and of natural rights. The thinkers of the Enlightenment reasoned that law governed both heavenly and human affairs, and that law gave the king his power, rather than the king's power giving force to law. This conception of law would find its culmination in the ideas of Montesquieu. The conception of law as a relationship between individuals, rather than families, came to the fore, and with it the increasing focus on individual liberty as a fundamental reality, given by "Nature and Nature's God," which, in the ideal state, would be as universal as possible.

      In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill sought to define the "...nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual," and as such, he describes an inherent and continuous antagonism between liberty and authority and thus, the prevailing question becomes "how to make the fitting adjustment between individual independence and social control".[4]

      Origins of political freedom

      England and Great Britain

      England and following the Act of Union 1707 Great Britain, laid down the cornerstones to the concept of individual liberty.

      In 1166 Henry II of England transformed English law by passing the Assize of Clarendon act. The act, a forerunner to trial by jury, started the abolition of trial by combat and trial by ordeal.[16]

      In 1215 the Magna Carta was drawn up, it became the cornerstone of liberty in first England, Great Britain and later, the world. [17][18]

      In 1689 the Bill of Rights grants 'freedom of speech in Parliament', which lays out some of the earliest civil rights.[19]

      In 1859 an essay by the philosopher John Stuart Mill, entitled On Liberty argues for toleration and individuality. If any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.[20][21]

      In 1958 Two Concepts of Liberty, by Isaiah Berlin, determines 'negative liberty' as an obstacle, as evident from 'positive liberty' which promotes self-mastery and the concepts of freedom.[22]

      In 1948 British representatives attempt to and are prevented from adding a legal framework to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (It was not until 1976 that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights came into force, giving a legal status to most of the Declaration.) [23]

      United States

      The United States of America was one of the first nations to be founded on principles of freedom and equality, with no king and no hereditary nobility[citation needed]. According to the 1776 United States Declaration of Independence, all men have a natural right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". But this declaration of liberty was troubled from the outset by the presence of slavery. Slave owners argued that their liberty was paramount, since it involved property, their slaves, and that the slaves themselves had no rights that any White man was obliged to recognize. The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott decision, upheld this principle. It was not until 1866, following the Civil War, that the US constitution was amended to extend these rights to persons of color, and not until 1920 that these rights were extended to women.[24]

      By the later half of the 20th century, liberty was expanded further to prohibit government interference with personal choices. In the United States Supreme Court decision Griswold v. Connecticut, Justice William O. Douglas argued that liberties relating to personal relationships, such as marriage, have a unique primacy of place in the hierarchy of freedoms.[25] Jacob M. Appel has summarized this principle:

      I am grateful that I have rights in the proverbial public square – but, as a practical matter, my most cherished rights are those that I possess in my bedroom and hospital room and death chamber. Most people are far more concerned that they can control their own bodies than they are about petitioning Congress.[26]

      In modern America, various competing ideologies have divergent views about how best to promote liberty. Liberals in the original sense of the word see equality as a necessary component of freedom. Progressives stress freedom from business monopoly as essential. Libertarians disagree, and see economic freedom as best. The Tea Party movement sees big government as the enemy of freedom.[27][28]

      France

      France supported the Americans in their revolt against English rule and, in 1789, overthrew their own monarchy, with the cry of "Liberté, égalité, fraternité". The bloodbath that followed, known as the reign of terror, soured many people on the idea of liberty. Edmund Burke, considered one of the fathers of conservatism, wrote "The French had shewn themselves the ablest architects of ruin that had hitherto existed in the world."[29]

      Ideologies

      Liberalism

      Main article: Liberalism


      According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, liberalism is "the belief that it is the aim of politics to preserve individual rights and to maximize freedom of choice". But they point out that there is considerable discussion about how to achieve those goals. Every discussion of freedom depends of three key components: who is free, what are they free to do, and what forces restrict their freedom.[30] John Gray argues that the core belief of liberalism is toleration. Liberals allow others freedom to do what they want, in exchange for having the same freedom in return. This idea of freedom is personal rather than political.[31] William Safire points out that liberalism is attacked by both the Right and the Left: by the Right for defending such practices as abortion, homosexuality, and atheism, by the Left for defending free enterprise and the rights of the individual over the collective.[32]

      Libertarianism

      Main articles: Libertarianism, Minarchism, Libertarian Socialism, and Anarcho-capitalism


      According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, Libertarians hold liberty as their primary political value.[33] Libertarian philosophers hold that there is no tenable distinction between personal and economic liberty – that they are, indeed, one and the same, to be protected (or opposed) together. In the context of U.S. constitutional law, for example, they point out that the constitution twice lists "life, liberty, and property" without making any distinctions within that phrase.[34] Their approach to implementing liberty involves opposing any governmental coercion, aside from that which is necessary to prevent individuals from coercing each other.[35] This is known as the non-aggression principle.[36]

      Republican liberty


      According to republican theorists of freedom, like the historian Quentin Skinner[37][38] or the philosopher Philip Pettit,[39] one's liberty should not be viewed as the absence of interference in one's actions, but as non-domination. According to this view, which originates in the Roman Digest, to be a liber homo, a free man, means not being subject to another's arbitrary will, that is to say, dominated by another. They also cite Machiavelli who asserted that you must be a member of a free self-governing civil association, a republic, if you are to enjoy individual liberty.[40]

      The predominance of this view of liberty among parliamentarians during the English Civil War resulted in the creation of the liberal concept of freedom as non-interference in Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan.[citation needed]

      Socialism and Marxism

      Main articles: Socialism and Marxism


      Socialists view freedom as a concrete situation as opposed to a purely abstract ideal. Freedom involves agency to pursue one's creative interests unhindered by coercive social relationships that one is forced to engage in in order to survive under a given social system. From this perspective, freedom requires both the material economic conditions that make freedom possible alongside the social relationships and institutions conducive to freedom. As such, the socialist concept of freedom is a specific interpretation of the liberal concept of freedom.[41]

      The socialist conception of freedom is closely related to the socialist view of creativity and individuality. Influenced by Karl Marx's concept of alienated labor, socialists understand freedom to be the ability for an individual to engage in creative work in the absence of alienation, where alienated labor refers to work people are forced to perform and un-alienated work refers to individuals pursuing their own creative interests.[42]

      For Karl Marx, meaningful freedom is only attainable in a communist society characterized by superabundance and free access, would eliminate the need for alienated labor and enable individuals to pursue their own creative interests, leaving them to develop their full potentialities. This goes alongside Marx's emphasis on the reduction of the average length of the workday to expand the "realm of freedom" for each person.[43][44] Marx's notion of communist society and human freedom is thus radically individualistic.[45]

      Historical writings on liberty


      According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, liberalism is "the belief that it is the aim of politics to preserve individual rights and to maximize freedom of choice". But they point out that there is considerable discussion about how to achieve those goals. Every discussion of freedom depends of three key components: who is free, what are they free to do, and what forces restrict their freedom.[30] John Gray argues that the core belief of liberalism is toleration. Liberals allow others freedom to do what they want, in exchange for having the same freedom in return. This idea of freedom is personal rather than political.[31] William Safire points out that liberalism is attacked by both the Right and the Left: by the Right for defending such practices as abortion, homosexuality, and atheism, by the Left for defending free enterprise and the rights of the individual over the collective.[32]

      Libertarianism

      Main articles: Libertarianism, Minarchism, Libertarian Socialism, and Anarcho-capitalism
      Part of a series on
      Liberalism
      Yellow flag waving.svg
      Part of a series on
      Libertarianism

      According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, Libertarians hold liberty as their primary political value.[33] Libertarian philosophers hold that there is no tenable distinction between personal and economic liberty – that they are, indeed, one and the same, to be protected (or opposed) together. In the context of U.S. constitutional law, for example, they point out that the constitution twice lists "life, liberty, and property" without making any distinctions within that phrase.[34] Their approach to implementing liberty involves opposing any governmental coercion, aside from that which is necessary to prevent individuals from coercing each other.[35] This is known as the non-aggression principle.[36]

      Republican liberty

      Republicanism
      Phrygian cap on pole.svg
      Politics portal

      According to republican theorists of freedom, like the historian Quentin Skinner[37][38] or the philosopher Philip Pettit,[39] one's liberty should not be viewed as the absence of interference in one's actions, but as non-domination. According to this view, which originates in the Roman Digest, to be a liber homo, a free man, means not being subject to another's arbitrary will, that is to say, dominated by another. They also cite Machiavelli who asserted that you must be a member of a free self-governing civil association, a republic, if you are to enjoy individual liberty.[40]

      The predominance of this view of liberty among parliamentarians during the English Civil War resulted in the creation of the liberal concept of freedom as non-interference in Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan.[citation needed]

      Socialism and Marxism

      Main articles: Socialism and Marxism
      Part of a series on
      Socialism
      Red flag waving.svg

      Socialists view freedom as a concrete situation as opposed to a purely abstract ideal. Freedom involves agency to pursue one's creative interests unhindered by coercive social relationships that one is forced to engage in in order to survive under a given social system. From this perspective, freedom requires both the material economic conditions that make freedom possible alongside the social relationships and institutions conducive to freedom. As such, the socialist concept of freedom is a specific interpretation of the liberal concept of freedom.[41]

      The socialist conception of freedom is closely related to the socialist view of creativity and individuality. Influenced by Karl Marx's concept of alienated labor, socialists understand freedom to be the ability for an individual to engage in creative work in the absence of alienation, where alienated labor refers to work people are forced to perform and un-alienated work refers to individuals pursuing their own creative interests.[42]

      For Karl Marx, meaningful freedom is only attainable in a communist society characterized by superabundance and free access, would eliminate the need for alienated labor and enable individuals to pursue their own creative interests, leaving them to develop their full potentialities. This goes alongside Marx's emphasis on the reduction of the average length of the workday to expand the "realm of freedom" for each person.[43][44] Marx's notion of communist society and human freedom is thus radically individualistic.[45]

      Historical writings on liberty

      See also

      References

      1. Jump up ^ "The fact of not being controlled by or subject to fate; freedom of will." Oxford English Dictionary.[1]
      2. Jump up ^ "Each of those social and political freedoms which are considered to be the entitlement of all members of a community; a civil liberty." Oxford English Dictionary.[2]
      3. Jump up ^ "Freedom from the bondage or dominating influence of sin, spiritual servitude, worldly ties." Oxford English Dictionary.[3]
      4. ^ Jump up to: a b Mill, J.S. (1869)., "Chapter I: Introductory", On Liberty. http://www.bartleby.com/130/1.html
      5. Jump up ^ Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations", Book I, Wordsworth Classics of World Literature, ISBN 1853264865
      6. Jump up ^ Two Treatises on Government: A Translation into Modern English, ISR, 2009, p. 76
      7. Jump up ^ Westbrooks, Logan Hart (2008) "Personal Freedom" p. 134 In Owens, William (compiler) (2008) Freedom: Keys to Freedom from Twenty-one National Leaders Main Street Publications, Memphis, Tennessee, pp. 133–38, ISBN 978-0-9801152-0-8
      8. Jump up ^ Rodriguez, Junius P. (2007) The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery: A–K ; Vol. II, L–Z,
      9. Jump up ^ Mogens Herman Hansen, 2010, Democratic Freedom and the Concept of Freedom in Plato and Aristotle
      10. Jump up ^ Aristotle, Politics 6.2
      11. Jump up ^ Mikalson, Jon (2009). Ancient Greek Religion (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. p. 129. ISBN 978-1405181778. 
      12. Jump up ^ Arthur Henry Robertson, John Graham Merrills (1996). Human Rights in the World: An Introduction to the Study of the International Protection of Human Rights. Manchester University Press. ISBN 0-7190-4923-7.
      13. Jump up ^ Amartya Sen (1997). Human Rights and Asian Values. ISBN 0-87641-151-0.
      14. Jump up ^ Arrian, Indica:

        "This also is remarkable in India, that all Indians are free, and no Indian at all is a slave. In this the Indians agree with the Lacedaemonians. Yet the Lacedaemonians have Helots for slaves, who perform the duties of slaves; but the Indians have no slaves at all, much less is any Indian a slave."

      15. Jump up ^ Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund (2004). "A history of India". Routledge. p. 66. ISBN 0-415-32920-5
      16. Jump up ^ "The History of Human Rights". Liberty. Retrieved 17 August 2015. 
      17. Jump up ^ Danziger & Gillingham 2004, p. 278.
      18. Jump up ^ Breay 2010, p. 48.
      19. Jump up ^ "Bill of Rights". British Library. Retrieved 23 June 2015. 
      20. Jump up ^ Mill, John Stuart (1859). On Liberty (2 ed.). London: John W.Parker & Son. 
      21. Jump up ^ Mill, John Stuart (1864). On Liberty (3 ed.). London: Longman, Green, Longman Roberts & Green. 
      22. Jump up ^ Carter, Ian (5 March 2012). "Positive and Negative Liberty". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 16 August 2015. 
      23. Jump up ^ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Final authorized text. The British Library. September 1952. Retrieved 16 August 2015. 
      24. Jump up ^ The Constitution of the United States of America, The World Almanac and book of facts (2012), pp. 485–86, Amendment XIV "Citizenship Rights not to be abridged.", Amendment XV "Race no bar to voting rights.", Amendment XIX, "Giving nationwide suffrage to women.". World Almanac Books, ISBN 978-1-60057-147-3.
      25. Jump up ^ Griswold v. Connecticut. 381 U.S. 479 (1965) Decided June 7, 1965
      26. Jump up ^ "A Culture of Liberty". The Huffington Post. 21 July 2009. 
      27. Jump up ^ Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan, Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press, 2009, ISBN 978-0-19-920516-5.
      28. Jump up ^ Capitol Reader (21 June 2013). Summary of Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto - Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe. Primento. pp. 9–10. ISBN 978-2-511-00084-7. 
        Haidt, Jonathan (16 October 2010). "What the Tea Partiers Really Want". Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Retrieved 17 March 2015. 
        Ronald P. Formisano (4 April 2012). The Tea Party: A Brief History. JHU Press. p. 72. ISBN 978-1-4214-0596-4. 
        Williams, Noel S. (5 October 2013). "The Tea Party is Colorblind". American Thinker. Retrieved 18 March 2015. 
      29. Jump up ^ Clark, J. C. D., Edmund Burke: Reflections on the Revolution in France: a Critical Edition, 2001, Stanford. pp. 66–67, ISBN 0-8047-3923-4.
      30. Jump up ^ Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, Oxford University Press, 2009, ISBN 978-0-19-920516-5.
      31. Jump up ^ John Gray, Two Faces of Liberalism, The New Press, 1990, ISBN 1-56584-589-7.
      32. Jump up ^ William Safire, Safire's Political Dictionary, "Liberalism takes criticism from both the right and the left,...", p. 388, Oxford University Press, 2008, ISBN 978-0-19534334-2.
      33. Jump up ^ "Libertarianism". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2014-05-20. libertarianism, political philosophy that takes individual liberty to be the primary political value 
      34. Jump up ^ "The Advocates for Self-Government Definitions of Libertarianism – The Advocates for Self-Government". The Advocates for Self-Government. 
      35. Jump up ^ David Kelley, "Life, liberty, and property." Social Philosophy and Policy (1984) 1#2 pp. 108–18.
      36. Jump up ^ George J. Dance. "The Non-Aggression Principle". Nolan Chart. 
      37. Jump up ^ Quentin Skinner, contributor and co-editor, Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage, Volume I: Republicanism and Constitutionalism in Early Modern Europe, Cambridge University Press, 2002, ISBN 978-0-521-67235-1
      38. Jump up ^ Quentil Skinner, contributor and co-editor, Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage, Volume II: The Values of Republicanism in Early Modern Europe Cambridge University Press, 2002, ISBN 978-0-521-67234-4
      39. Jump up ^ Philip Pettit, Republicanism: a theory of freedom and government, 1997
      40. Jump up ^ Niccolò Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, Harvey C. Mansfield & Nathan Tarcov, translators, University of Chicago Press, 1996, ISBN 0-226-50036-5
      41. Jump up ^ Bhargava, Rajeev (2008). Political Theory: An Introduction. Pearson Education India. p. 255. Genuine freedom as Marx described it, would become possible only when life activity was no longer constrained by the requirements of production or by the limitations of material scarcity…Thus, in the socialist view, freedom is not an abstract ideal but a concrete situation that ensues only when certain conditions of interaction between man and nature (material conditions), and man and other men (social relations) are fulfilled. 
      42. Jump up ^ Goodwin, Barbara (2007). Using Political Ideas. Wiley. pp. 107–09. ISBN 978-0470025529. Socialists consider the pleasures of creation equal, if not superior, to those of acquisition and consumption, hence the importance of work in socialist society. Whereas the capitalist/Calvinist work ethic applauds the moral virtue of hard work, idealistic socialists emphasize the joy. This vision of 'creative man', Homo Faber, has consequences for their view of freedom...Socialist freedom is the freedom to unfold and develop one's potential, especially through unalienated work. 
      43. Jump up ^ Wood, John Cunningham (1996). Karl Marx's Economics: Critical Assessments I. Routledge. pp. 248–49. ISBN 978-0415087148. Affluence and increased provision of free goods would reduce alienation in the work process and, in combination with (1), the alienation of man's 'species-life'. Greater leisure would create opportunities for creative and artistic activity outside of work. 
      44. Jump up ^ Peffer, Rodney G. (2014). Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice. Princeton University Press. p. 73. ISBN 9780691608884. Marx believed the reduction of necessary labor time to be, eval‎uatively speaking, an absolute necessity. He claims that real wealth is the developed productive force of all individuals. It is no longer the labor time but the disposable time that is the measure of wealth. 
      45. Jump up ^ Karl Marx on Equality, by Woods, Allen. http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/docs/IO/19808/Allen-Wood-Marx-on-Equality.pdf: "A society that has transcended class antagonisms, therefore, would not be one in which some truly universal interest at last reigns, to which individual interests must be sacrificed. It would instead be a society in which individuals freely act as the truly human individuals they are. Marx's radical communism was, in this way, also radically individualistic."

      Bibliography

      External links

      Library resources about
      Liberty

       

      See also

      References

      1. Jump up ^ "The fact of not being controlled by or subject to fate; freedom of will." Oxford English Dictionary.[1]
      2. Jump up ^ "Each of those social and political freedoms which are considered to be the entitlement of all members of a community; a civil liberty." Oxford English Dictionary.[2]
      3. Jump up ^ "Freedom from the bondage or dominating influence of sin, spiritual servitude, worldly ties." Oxford English Dictionary.[3]
      4. ^ Jump up to: a b Mill, J.S. (1869)., "Chapter I: Introductory", On Liberty. http://www.bartleby.com/130/1.html
      5. Jump up ^ Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations", Book I, Wordsworth Classics of World Literature, ISBN 1853264865
      6. Jump up ^ Two Treatises on Government: A Translation into Modern English, ISR, 2009, p. 76
      7. Jump up ^ Westbrooks, Logan Hart (2008) "Personal Freedom" p. 134 In Owens, William (compiler) (2008) Freedom: Keys to Freedom from Twenty-one National Leaders Main Street Publications, Memphis, Tennessee, pp. 133–38, ISBN 978-0-9801152-0-8
      8. Jump up ^ Rodriguez, Junius P. (2007) The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery: A–K ; Vol. II, L–Z,
      9. Jump up ^ Mogens Herman Hansen, 2010, Democratic Freedom and the Concept of Freedom in Plato and Aristotle
      10. Jump up ^ Aristotle, Politics 6.2
      11. Jump up ^ Mikalson, Jon (2009). Ancient Greek Religion (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. p. 129. ISBN 978-1405181778. 
      12. Jump up ^ Arthur Henry Robertson, John Graham Merrills (1996). Human Rights in the World: An Introduction to the Study of the International Protection of Human Rights. Manchester University Press. ISBN 0-7190-4923-7.
      13. Jump up ^ Amartya Sen (1997). Human Rights and Asian Values. ISBN 0-87641-151-0.
      14. Jump up ^ Arrian, Indica:

        "This also is remarkable in India, that all Indians are free, and no Indian at all is a slave. In this the Indians agree with the Lacedaemonians. Yet the Lacedaemonians have Helots for slaves, who perform the duties of slaves; but the Indians have no slaves at all, much less is any Indian a slave."

      15. Jump up ^ Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund (2004). "A history of India". Routledge. p. 66. ISBN 0-415-32920-5
      16. Jump up ^ "The History of Human Rights". Liberty. Retrieved 17 August 2015. 
      17. Jump up ^ Danziger & Gillingham 2004, p. 278.
      18. Jump up ^ Breay 2010, p. 48.
      19. Jump up ^ "Bill of Rights". British Library. Retrieved 23 June 2015. 
      20. Jump up ^ Mill, John Stuart (1859). On Liberty (2 ed.). London: John W.Parker & Son. 
      21. Jump up ^ Mill, John Stuart (1864). On Liberty (3 ed.). London: Longman, Green, Longman Roberts & Green. 
      22. Jump up ^ Carter, Ian (5 March 2012). "Positive and Negative Liberty". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 16 August 2015. 
      23. Jump up ^ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Final authorized text. The British Library. September 1952. Retrieved 16 August 2015. 
      24. Jump up ^ The Constitution of the United States of America, The World Almanac and book of facts (2012), pp. 485–86, Amendment XIV "Citizenship Rights not to be abridged.", Amendment XV "Race no bar to voting rights.", Amendment XIX, "Giving nationwide suffrage to women.". World Almanac Books, ISBN 978-1-60057-147-3.
      25. Jump up ^ Griswold v. Connecticut. 381 U.S. 479 (1965) Decided June 7, 1965
      26. Jump up ^ "A Culture of Liberty". The Huffington Post. 21 July 2009. 
      27. Jump up ^ Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan, Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press, 2009, ISBN 978-0-19-920516-5.
      28. Jump up ^ Capitol Reader (21 June 2013). Summary of Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto - Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe. Primento. pp. 9–10. ISBN 978-2-511-00084-7. 
        Haidt, Jonathan (16 October 2010). "What the Tea Partiers Really Want". Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Retrieved 17 March 2015. 
        Ronald P. Formisano (4 April 2012). The Tea Party: A Brief History. JHU Press. p. 72. ISBN 978-1-4214-0596-4. 
        Williams, Noel S. (5 October 2013). "The Tea Party is Colorblind". American Thinker. Retrieved 18 March 2015. 
      29. Jump up ^ Clark, J. C. D., Edmund Burke: Reflections on the Revolution in France: a Critical Edition, 2001, Stanford. pp. 66–67, ISBN 0-8047-3923-4.
      30. Jump up ^ Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, Oxford University Press, 2009, ISBN 978-0-19-920516-5.
      31. Jump up ^ John Gray, Two Faces of Liberalism, The New Press, 1990, ISBN 1-56584-589-7.
      32. Jump up ^ William Safire, Safire's Political Dictionary, "Liberalism takes criticism from both the right and the left,...", p. 388, Oxford University Press, 2008, ISBN 978-0-19534334-2.
      33. Jump up ^ "Libertarianism". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2014-05-20. libertarianism, political philosophy that takes individual liberty to be the primary political value 
      34. Jump up ^ "The Advocates for Self-Government Definitions of Libertarianism – The Advocates for Self-Government". The Advocates for Self-Government. 
      35. Jump up ^ David Kelley, "Life, liberty, and property." Social Philosophy and Policy (1984) 1#2 pp. 108–18.
      36. Jump up ^ George J. Dance. "The Non-Aggression Principle". Nolan Chart. 
      37. Jump up ^ Quentin Skinner, contributor and co-editor, Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage, Volume I: Republicanism and Constitutionalism in Early Modern Europe, Cambridge University Press, 2002, ISBN 978-0-521-67235-1
      38. Jump up ^ Quentil Skinner, contributor and co-editor, Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage, Volume II: The Values of Republicanism in Early Modern Europe Cambridge University Press, 2002, ISBN 978-0-521-67234-4
      39. Jump up ^ Philip Pettit, Republicanism: a theory of freedom and government, 1997
      40. Jump up ^ Niccolò Machiavelli, Discourses on Livy, Harvey C. Mansfield & Nathan Tarcov, translators, University of Chicago Press, 1996, ISBN 0-226-50036-5
      41. Jump up ^ Bhargava, Rajeev (2008). Political Theory: An Introduction. Pearson Education India. p. 255. Genuine freedom as Marx described it, would become possible only when life activity was no longer constrained by the requirements of production or by the limitations of material scarcity…Thus, in the socialist view, freedom is not an abstract ideal but a concrete situation that ensues only when certain conditions of interaction between man and nature (material conditions), and man and other men (social relations) are fulfilled. 
      42. Jump up ^ Goodwin, Barbara (2007). Using Political Ideas. Wiley. pp. 107–09. ISBN 978-0470025529. Socialists consider the pleasures of creation equal, if not superior, to those of acquisition and consumption, hence the importance of work in socialist society. Whereas the capitalist/Calvinist work ethic applauds the moral virtue of hard work, idealistic socialists emphasize the joy. This vision of 'creative man', Homo Faber, has consequences for their view of freedom...Socialist freedom is the freedom to unfold and develop one's potential, especially through unalienated work. 
      43. Jump up ^ Wood, John Cunningham (1996). Karl Marx's Economics: Critical Assessments I. Routledge. pp. 248–49. ISBN 978-0415087148. Affluence and increased provision of free goods would reduce alienation in the work process and, in combination with (1), the alienation of man's 'species-life'. Greater leisure would create opportunities for creative and artistic activity outside of work. 
      44. Jump up ^ Peffer, Rodney G. (2014). Marxism, Morality, and Social Justice. Princeton University Press. p. 73. ISBN 9780691608884. Marx believed the reduction of necessary labor time to be, eval‎uatively speaking, an absolute necessity. He claims that real wealth is the developed productive force of all individuals. It is no longer the labor time but the disposable time that is the measure of wealth. 
      45. Jump up ^ Karl Marx on Equality, by Woods, Allen. http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/docs/IO/19808/Allen-Wood-Marx-on-Equality.pdf: "A society that has transcended class antagonisms, therefore, would not be one in which some truly universal interest at last reigns, to which individual interests must be sacrificed. It would instead be a society in which individuals freely act as the truly human individuals they are. Marx's radical communism was, in this way, also radically individualistic."

      Bibliography





                    






























































































































































































































































































































































      다음검색
      현재 게시글 추가 기능 열기
      • 북마크
      • 신고 센터로 신고

      댓글

      댓글 리스트
      맨위로

      카페 검색

      카페 검색어 입력폼