How can you always be free
Most often, “freedom” is spoken of as freedom in the political sense, freedom from tyranny and oppression by other people. The Bible begins its story of freedom at this most basic level. The God of the Bible is a liberator, and a liberator in the literal and literal sense. The Ten Commandments begin with a solemn declaration: I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery (Exodus 20:2). God leads His people out of slavery—the very literal slavery in which the Jews were in Egypt—by breaking the stubbornness of their oppressors with formidable signs and wonders.
It is impossible to overestimate the influence that the story of the Exodus had on the formation of the consciousness of Christendom. Some things that we now take for granted looked quite strange in the pre-biblical world. A God who takes the side of the slaves, the side of the oppressed, the side of the powerless, against the powerful of this world - this was strange, incomprehensible and even outrageous news for contemporaries. The gods of the pagans symbolized strength, power, victory; they were closer to the dominant, reigning strata of human society - and farthest from the oppressed and slaves.
But the God of the Law and the Prophets time after time turns against the powerful and glorious and takes the side of the powerless and unknown. This is the fast that I have chosen: loose the chains of wickedness, untie the bands of the yoke, and set the oppressed free, and break every yoke (Isaiah 58:6).
It is no coincidence that the perception of freedom as a universal value developed precisely in the Christian world; and even those who rebelled against the Church and against faith in God in general, thinking that they would thereby gain greater freedom, consciously or not, appealed to biblical images.
Freedom without God
Biblical prophets attacked unrighteous rulers - including religious ones - in the name of God; and many movements that opposed oppression were distinctly religious in nature, be it the abolitionists advocating the abolition of black slavery or the US civil rights movement of the 1960s, led by Baptist minister Martin Luther King.
But in European history, a different understanding of freedom has developed - a freedom that is not only divorced from its biblical foundations, but also directly rebels against faith in God. This movement first made its presence known in France at the end of the 18th century, where a number of famous thinkers began to perceive the Church as a support of royal power and a source of oppression - oppression that had to be gotten rid of in order to build a new life on the principles of reason, freedom and fraternity. Most of these thinkers adhered to a kind of vague and adogmatic religiosity, faith in God, which had to be “cleansed” of church “superstitions”; but in the same movement “pure” atheists also appeared, such as Baron Paul Holbach, who fiercely rebelled against any faith, especially the biblical one.
The “Dawn of Freedom” that shone over France during the Great French Revolution at first caused an explosion of delight among the thinking European public, but then the news coming from Paris began to become more and more gloomy: the kingdom of reason and freedom turned into a kingdom of blood and terror. Beginning with the “September Massacre,” when mobs massacred thousands of people in Paris and other cities, considering them “counter-revolutionaries,” and continuing with General Turreau’s “hellish columns” that carried out what was later called the “French-French genocide” in the Vendée, the revolution turned its other side.
As the British thinker Edmund Burke wrote in his Reflections on the Revolution in France, “What is freedom without wisdom and virtue? This is the greatest of all possible evils; this is recklessness, vice and madness that cannot be curbed.”
Since then, the world has experienced a number of bloody revolutions, and one of the worst took place in our country. Slogans of freedom, equality, brotherhood were proclaimed, freedom from oppression was promised, people were inspired by dreams of a brave new world, but for some reason it all ended in massacres and the establishment of such tyranny that in comparison with it the regime overthrown by the revolution turned out to be a model of freedom.
From the “September Massacre” at the end of the 18th century to the Cambodian “killing fields” at the end of the 20th century, the promise of freedom turned into much blood. Why? Let us quote another statement from Edmund Burke: “The meaning of freedom for every individual is that he can do as he pleases: we must understand what he likes before we send congratulations, which may soon turn into condolences.”
Freedom from external constraints, if acquired by a person devoid of internal principles, turns into disaster. “Should I congratulate the murderer or the highwayman who has broken the bonds of prison,” wrote Burke, “on the acquisition of his natural rights? It would be like the episode of the liberation of criminals condemned to the galleys by the heroic philosopher - the Knight of the Sorrowful Countenance.”
Therefore, the freedom that the Bible speaks of is much more than just freedom from oppression by other people.
There is always a choice
In the ancient world, bandits attacking anyone traveling on the roads were a constant problem. The authorities could not organize patrols or cope with the task in any other way; therefore, they tried to compensate for their powerlessness with increased severity - the captured robbers were given a particularly painful death, which, as expected, should have had a sobering effect on the rest. We can imagine a robber who, as we would say, walks free - he must fear the authorities, but, on the other hand, no one is his master, he is not forced to work hard for some master, he can go wherever he wants. And this man was caught, tied up and thrown into prison. Does he retain his freedom? Obviously not. Thick stone walls, iron bars and stern guards stand between him and the free air. Finally, he was sentenced and, according to the custom of that time, crucified - so that he could not even move his hand and was forced to endure unbearable torment. Is this person free? The question itself may seem mocking. But this is a completely meaningful question, and there is a precise answer to it. A man who cannot move is nevertheless free to make the most important decision of his life. We read about this man in the Gospel of Luke: One of the hanged evildoers slandered Him and said: If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us. The other, on the contrary, calmed him down and said: Or are you not afraid of God, when you yourself are condemned to the same thing? And we were [condemned] justly, because we accepted what was worthy of our deeds, but He did nothing bad. And he said to Jesus: remember me, Lord, when you come into your kingdom! And Jesus said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise” (Luke 23:39-43).
There is a freedom that nothing can take away from us - in any circumstance we have a choice. The prisoner may become embittered or repent; a person confined to a wheelchair can be filled with bitterness, resentment and hatred towards the whole world, or he can turn to God and become a source of support and consolation for the healthy people around him. Circumstances put us before a choice, but they do not determine what we choose. We always determine this ourselves. It seems that freedom of choice is a self-evident, directly experienced experience; nevertheless, we are all inclined to deny it.
It's not me!
The third chapter of the Book of Genesis contains a surprisingly deep and accurate story about sin - the first sin, but at the same time sin in general. Have you not eaten from the tree from which I forbade you to eat? - God asks Adam. There seem to be only two answers: “yes, I ate” or “no, I didn’t.” But Adam said: The woman whom You gave me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate (Genesis 3:11,12). The fact that Adam broke the commandment is the fault of his wife - and, indirectly, of God, who slipped this wife to him.
Adam made a conscious choice to eat the forbidden fruit. But he says that this choice is not his, that he is determined by someone or something else - a wife, a serpent, God, just not by him, poor Adam.
A lot of time has passed since this story was written, but the attitude of people towards their lives remains the same: we tend to claim that our actions are determined by someone else. We get angry because other people make us angry; we sin because other people lead us into temptation; We hate our neighbor because he is such a scoundrel that we cannot help but hate him.
Our actions are forced by the circumstances around us - the weather, the country in which we live, genes, anything else - excluding our personal will. It’s not our fault—it’s someone else’s fault, or perhaps—this is fine with everyone—Mother Nature.
Why are we so eager to abdicate responsibility? After all, this is monstrously stupid and destructive from a purely earthly, practical point of view. When we refuse to acknowledge our actions as fully our own, we lose control of our lives.
Who turns out to be the author of the book of our lives, if not ourselves? Other people, circumstances, our own internal impulses that we don’t even try to control. Every passer-by finds himself on the captain's bridge of our lives, our rudder is turned by every random gust of wind, every seagull that sits down on it to rest.
What will happen to our lives? Nothing good. At best, it will simply be empty and pitiful - we will achieve nothing and gain nothing. At worst, we will simply crash into the reefs of alcoholism, drug addiction, or end our days in prison. In fact, what unites people who have suffered a downfall in life? Their belief is that their life and their actions are determined by someone else. They started drinking because those around them treated them like pigs; abandoned their family because their family “never understood them”; committed a crime because they were driven or forced. Even in order to put our lives in order on a purely worldly, this-worldly level, we must admit that we are free in the sense that we ourselves make decisions and are responsible for them.
Sometimes people resort to a more subtle way of denying the reality of choice and responsibility: they adhere to a philosophy that generally declares free will an illusion. The atheistic philosophy of materialism assumes that there is nothing in the world except matter moving according to unchanging laws, and that what we perceive as acts of thinking or free choice are the result of incredibly complex, but purely material processes. Your choice to read this article is due to electrochemical processes in your cerebral cortex, these processes are due to the previous state of the system, input signals and the unchanging laws of nature. You have no more freedom of choice than any other natural process. It seems to you that you are making a free choice, but, from the point of view of materialists, this is an illusion.
But what is the reason for such ridiculous behavior? What is so terrible that people are trying to escape from by resorting to such destructive lies?
What we can't help but know
People can deny both the reality of objective law and the reality of our free choice; but this is such an awl that you can’t hide it in a bag. In reality, we all deeply believe in both, and this is evident in our tendency to judge other people. As the holy Apostle Paul writes, therefore, you are without excuse, every man who judges [another], for with the same judgment with which you judge another, you condemn yourself, because when you judge [another], you do the same (Rom 2:1).
Indeed, in order for human actions to constitute the subject of guilt or merit, two conditions are necessary: first, people must perform them freely; secondly, we must evaluate them from the point of view of some law, some criterion of good and evil. A natural process—for example, digestion—is not subject to moral evaluation. We do not scold a person for having a sick stomach and do not praise him for a healthy one. Only his free decisions can make a person guilty. By blaming someone, we are already recognizing that he made a free choice, and this choice is wrong. It was his will to break the moral law or to keep it, and he violated it; this is what makes him guilty and worthy of condemnation.
But for the law to make him guilty, it must be an objective law that we are all obliged to obey, regardless of whether we recognize it or not. By reproaching someone for immorality, we thereby affirm the reality of such a thing as morality, which the other person was obliged to adhere to. But, says the Apostle, since such a law exists (and we ourselves recognize this in relation to other people), then it also exists in relation to ourselves. We ourselves can be - and will be - held accountable for violating it.
Behind the law is the Lawgiver and the Judge, to whom we must give an account. The prospect of possible condemnation frightens us—like Adam. And - like Adam - we try to alleviate our fear by shifting the blame to others or inventing complex systems of self-justification for ourselves.
If the Son sets you free...
Man was originally created free - and has abused his free will to become very corrupt. Christ comes to save us from this corruption. But why was Golgotha necessary for this? Why can't God just undo the consequences of our sins? Because God gives us real freedom of choice - with real consequences. Our choice cannot simply be undone; that would mean that His gift of freedom was invalid from the very beginning. God acts differently - He descends to us and becomes a Man in the person of Jesus Christ to die for our sins. As He himself said at the Last Supper - and as the Church has repeated at every Liturgy since then - this is My Blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins (Matthew 26:28). This forgiveness of sins is obtained by everyone who runs to Him with repentance and faith; but the freedom that Christ brings is not only freedom from the guilt of sins.
Imagine a drug addict who committed a crime while trying to get money for the next dose - if only he is released from conviction without curing his vice, in a short time he will break the law again. Likewise, a sinful person needs not only forgiveness, but also a deep inner change that will free him from the craving for sin. Therefore, the Apostles speak of freedom in a deeper sense - freedom from sin, freedom for righteousness, freedom to correspond to the true good and purpose of man.
In the absence of external constraints, a person can do what he wants - but what does he want? The alcoholic desperately wants to get drunk; at the same time, deep down, he wants to get rid of his vice and live a sober and healthy life. The fornicator wants an easy, non-binding connection - but at the same time, in his heart he yearns for true, devoted love. We want different things at the same time, and often our own desires bind us much more strongly than prisons and chains.
The inability to live as we should - and as we want in moments of enlightenment - constitutes that bitter slavery about which the Lord says: everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin (John 8:34). An angry person is not free to remain calm; the fornicator is not free to remain faithful; a greedy person does not control money, but tolerates being controlled by money. So any sin says that our human nature is flawed, insufficient, sick.
And Christ brings us new life, which gradually changes us from the inside; prayer, personal and church, instructions from priests, participation in the Sacraments, reading the word of God - these are the means that God gives us for spiritual growth. This process of finding true freedom will not be easy or smooth - God does not deal with clay, but with free individuals who continue to fall and make mistakes - but if we follow Him, Christ will lead us to that eternal and blessed life for which He created us.
What if I say no?
The Gospel is a book of hope: the most lost sinner, a person who, by all accounts, is hopelessly lost, can turn to Christ and find salvation. But what if I refuse? How often do you hear a direct or implied demand: “I’m not going to believe and repent, but you promise me that everything will be okay with me.” But this actually means that we must deny people their free choice and assure them that they will be dragged into heaven without their consent. We cannot do this - it would simply not be true. God does absolutely everything possible for the salvation of every person - and the Cross of Christ reminds of this. But a person can say “no” and refuse the gift offered to him. He may refuse to enter the door where he is persistently invited - and remain behind the door.
It is sometimes said that God is too good to leave anyone at the door - and this is, of course, true. God will accept even the lowest sinner, but even God cannot do anything with those who refuse to be accepted. He wants us to remain free until the end. It's just our choice. And our responsibility is whether we say yes or no, respond to the call or refuse to come.
The door of His house is open; nothing and no one can prevent us from entering - like that prudent robber. But no one can do this for us.
What is Freedom? Many of you ask this question, but the answer is usually ambiguous. Many people are concerned and interested in this question, but not everyone can give a specific definition or interpretation of this concept. This issue worries me very much, so I even created an entire project dedicated to Freedom and its various manifestations in our world. So why is it so difficult to give any definitive answer to this question? Why are there so many different opinions on this matter? Yes, because this concept is more complex than it seems at first glance.
And, I dare say, most of your opinions are partly correct, because Freedom is much more than just one private subjective opinion. I thought about this question for a long time, digested many versions, opinions, analyzed various options, and now, it seems to me, I can now give a specific definition and answer to the question - what is Freedom.
So, first, let’s look at the frankly erroneous understanding of the concept of Freedom.
False interpretation liberal doctrine dictates to us. Freedom is the ability to do “what you want”, the ability to have choice- says liberalism. But it is not true!
If I can afford to do what I want, then I am free, says the liberal paradigm. This interpretation is entirely designed to ensure that its bearer behaves like a consumer and endlessly consumes various goods and services of various capitalists. This is a common marketing ploy of Western businessmen in order to get as much money as possible from a person (consumer), as much profit as possible (“surplus value” according to Marx). With such “freedom”, a person, considering himself truly free and religiously believing in this, becomes a very good consumer, creates great demand and stimulates economic growth, in which the capitalist, i.e. the bearer of capital receives the maximum profit from the sale (sale) of his goods and services to such a consumer.
In what way is this interpretation incorrect?
At first glance it seems that if I can do as I please, then I am free. This interpretation motivates a person to act, i.e. you have to want it. In this case, you will be free if you act, do something, what you want. And if you don’t do anything, then it turns out that you are not free at the moment. It turns out that in order to remain free, you must constantly want something and get it. But if you have a need for something, then you are dependent on it. Then such an interpretation does not make a person free at all - on the contrary, it makes him dependent, i.e. limits this freedom. But a dependent person cannot be free, right?
Let's imagine a drug addict. I think no one will doubt that such a person is addicted. And he is dependent on a psychoactive substance, i.e. drug. Since he is dependent on it, his body requires this substance. So, when injecting himself with a new dose, a person does what he wants? He really wants to take this substance and use it. Likewise, an alcoholic, waking up in the morning, is looking for a new way to get money for an alcoholic drink. They are dependent - that means they are not free. Intoxicating substances suppress the will of these people, and most of their actions are carried out for the sake of this substance, i.e. the drug becomes the master of these people. This means that this definition is incorrect and cannot be used to describe the term Freedom.
Then what is Freedom?
First of all I want to say that:
Liberty- this is liberation from any dependencies, from everything that fetters a person and suppresses his will. Those. A person is free only when he has managed to free himself from any dependence, habit, from any vices or passions. Those. he became even more free than he was before.
The ability to do "whatever you want" doesn't make you free(!) , but what makes a person free is liberation from these very desires.
In my understanding, Freedom is presented as a kind of absolute, as an incorporeal philosophical structure that includes various other freedoms. Those. one Great Freedom, as an absolute, includes small freedoms. Freedom from one, from another, from a third, from a fifth and a tenth - this is how a collective image is formed. Absolute Freedom or Great Freedom is an ideal unattainable for a person, which one should strive for if one wants to be free, but it is impossible to achieve it (and it is not necessary). I see it as a scale or percentage, where 100% - this is absolute freedom, everything less 100 - the way to achieve this Great Freedom through the gradual acquisition of small freedoms.
Rice. 1. Conditional scale of freedoms, where 100% - absolute freedom, 0% - complete dependence.
Let us again imagine the same drug addict and compare him with someone who is not addicted to drugs, i.e. for those who do not use. It turns out that independent, by some fraction of a percent (let’s say, by 30% ), freer than that drug addict. This means that a person who does not have this dependence is a little freer than another. This means that every person is both free and not free at the same time. It is on some division, on this scale, on some percentage. When we say that we are completely free, we are disingenuous, since we can be free at a given moment in time from something, as a rule, from various affairs, worries, but to some fraction of a percent we still remain dependent people. In order to become more free, you need to try to free yourself from our habits , needs, dependencies.
What are the types of dependencies?
There are dependencies natural, such as eating, sleeping, etc. And dependencies unnecessary, i.e. other. For example, the same smoking, since it is not a natural activity for a person. Or the habit of heating water in an electric kettle (it’s faster, I know) instead of prolonged heating on a stove or fire. There are actually a lot of such small dependencies. Everyone, having delved into himself, will be able to discover a lot of them. At first glance they seem funny, because they are. Well, what about heating water with an electric kettle, that’s stupidity! That’s right, it’s stupid, but this habit arose at the moment when electric kettles began to appear in stores, improving the life of a city dweller. Therefore, now, when boiling water in an electric kettle, we must buy it, and also use electricity, which is not free (kettles consume up to 1-2 kW of electricity). The kettle breaks, the heating element burns out - go and buy a new one, because you’re used to it and can’t do it any other way. It’s stupidity, but from such small stupidities and trifles our addiction accumulates, which sometimes turns out to be worse than addiction to smoking.
Many of you will not like this definition. You say, it turns out that in order to be free, you need to want nothing? Why then live at all? The question is good and correct. Why do we even need this freedom? And if you use my interpretation, it would be more accurate to say, Why do we need this Absolute Freedom? Limitless and all-encompassing. And then people make sense, people make sacrifices, sacrificing their freedoms (small freedoms) for the sake of something and/or someone. Of course, if we want unlimited and maximum possible freedom, then we will strive with all our might to free ourselves from as many addictions as possible, but this does not always seem like the best option for building our life. At some point, the thought arises to stop and not try to move further along this scale to the highest division. Sometimes you should leave some addictions to yourself, not kill yourself with them, but work on something else...
one of the main factors of human existence; This is a person’s ability and ability to think, act, and perform actions based on his own motives, interests and goals. An internally free person has not only autonomy, but also independence, is independent and sovereign in choosing goals and means of activity, and is responsible for decisions made.
Great definition
Incomplete definition ↓
FREEDOM
one of the fundamental ideas for European culture, reflecting the attitude of the subject to his acts, in which he is their determining cause, and they are not directly caused by natural, social, interpersonal-communicative, individual-internal or individual-generic factors. In Russian the word "S." in the most general sense it means the absence of restrictions and coercion, and in relation to the idea of will - the ability to do as you want. The initial idea of socialism of a social person is correlated with the law and, accordingly, with responsibility for its observance and punishment for its violation. The idea of S. in developed monotheistic religions is correlated with grace. These images of S. are generalized in the idea of S. as a perceived necessity. Limitations that do not depend on a person can be hidden in him and are determined not only by ignorance and inability, but also by fears (Epicure, S. Kierkegaard), in particular the fear of S. herself (E. Fromm), passions/affects (R. Descartes, Spinoza ). One source of constraint may be power. The characterization of S. as an action contains the important problem of S.’s elevation from arbitrariness to creativity. In arbitrariness and creativity, S. is revealed - both S. negative and S. positive. I. Kant saw real value precisely in positive S. In ethical terms, positive S. appears as good will, subordinate to the moral law. In modern European philosophy, the concept of socialism is emerging as the political and legal autonomy of a citizen. Autonomous will is revealed as free through the curbing of self-will. In the sphere of law, this is the subordination of personal will to the general will expressed in social discipline. In the sphere of morality, this is the alignment of personal will with duty. Psychologically, autonomy is expressed in the fact that the individual acts in confidence that others recognize his self and, out of respect, do not interfere with it, and also in the fact that he demonstrates respect for the self of others. In morality, the maxim “One person’s power is limited by another person’s power” is reinterpreted as a personal task and receives a strict form of imperative: to limit one’s own self-will, subordinating it to respect the rights of others, not allowing oneself to do injustice to others and promoting their good.
in philosophy: the possibility of a subject expressing his will on the basis of awareness of the laws of nature and society. Legally, i.e. In a narrower sense, freedom means the subjective ability of a person and citizen to perform or not perform specific actions based on his constitutional rights and freedoms. Freedom in the subjective sense is a legal form of the possibility of choosing one or another behavior option for an individual.
Great definition
Incomplete definition ↓
FREEDOM
one of the main qualities of a person, along with the presence of his mind, will and feelings, which consists of a person’s ability to act in accordance with his needs, interests and goals, based on the knowledge of necessity. The basis of freedom as a moral phenomenon is the objective discrepancy and opposition of the interests of society and the individual, as well as the conditionality of human life and activity by natural laws and conditions. In the history of philosophy and ethics, personality has been understood ambiguously. In ancient ethics, S. was considered as the subordination of the individual to the objective laws of the polis or cosmos (Socrates, Stoicism, Epicurus); in the Middle Ages, freedom was understood as the need for a person to follow the will of God (Augustine, F. Aquinas); in the Renaissance, freedom was considered as a person’s independence from God, nature and other people, as his ability to achieve goals based on his interests and fight for his earthly happiness (L. Valla, P. della Mirandola, M. Montaigne); in modern times, human freedom began to be understood as actions subject to certain restrictions and rules, natural and social laws (“free necessity” by B. Spinoza, “liberation through submission to the law” by I. Kant and J. G. Fichte, “simple rational action” G. W. F. Hegel). In modern ethics, all previous interpretations of freedom are reproduced. In Russian ethics, the prevailing tradition comes from B. Spinoza and German classical philosophy: human freedom is his simple rational action or action in accordance with conscious necessity. This understanding of personal freedom is devoid of the extremes of fatalism and voluntarism - a one-sided exaggeration in the consciousness and behavior of people either of objectively necessary factors, or of their individual needs, interests and goals - and assumes the responsibility of the individual for his choice.
Freedom is a state that almost every individual desires. However, each person puts his own meaning into the concept of “freedom”, and what it is depends on the personality of the individual, and on the upbringing received, and on the society in which he lives.
What does freedom mean?
Philosophers, sociologists, psychologists, and politicians argue about what freedom is. And they all define freedom in different ways; only one condition remains common - a person must determine his own actions. Those. freedom can be defined as the absence of dependencies within the framework of law and morality.
Every person is free at the moment of birth, but over time this quality is lost, the individual acquires restrictions. A person simply cannot have absolute freedom; he will always depend, at a minimum, on the need to get food and warm himself.
Since absolute freedom is unattainable and is considered something abstract, an ordinary person can only achieve freedom:
- physical – freedom to work, move, do something, but subject to compliance with laws;
- spiritual - freedom of thought and speech, religion,
- political – freedom to reveal one’s personality without state pressure, lack of oppression of a person as a citizen;
- national – freedom to consider oneself a member of one’s society, people;
- state – the freedom to choose any country to live in.
Freedom of thought and speech
The right to freedom of thought and speech is enshrined in the Constitution and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In a broad sense, this right can be interpreted as follows: everything that is not prohibited is permitted. This applies to oral and written speech, the creation of artistic images, etc. A person is free to express his own assessments, thoughts, judgments, and views using words.
Information is a derivative of a person’s thoughts and words, and it, in turn, shapes public opinions and moods. The information is subjective in any case, because comes from one individual or group of people. Freedom of thought and speech can be prohibited only if it is used for extremist purposes, inciting racial, social or religious conflicts.
Political freedom
Political freedom is the constitutional right of a person to participate in the public and political life of the country. Lack of political freedom occurs in totalitarian states. You can exercise your right to this type of freedom only with the ability to reach a compromise and make a choice; in this case, political freedom contributes to the development of a person as an individual.
Emotional freedom
Emotional freedom is the human right to express a wide range of emotions. This type of freedom is different from 
described above in that the ban on emotions in most cases is not external, but internal, but it is the result of the influence of society. The attitudes that a child receives in childhood, the rules learned in adulthood, force him to restrain himself, which leads to stress, neuroses, tension, bad mood and even illness.
Is the concept of “human freedom” real?
In modern society, a person is considered free if he has the opportunity to engage in any activity to his liking, which brings him, first of all, moral pleasure. Unfortunately, most people are mainly concerned with material wealth - and this is the main sign of lack of freedom from money. The main indicator of one’s own freedom is a person - if he is satisfied with life, has the opportunity to realize his talents, communicate, relax, travel, he is free.
