The free will seen during the story

The free will seen during the story

At present, the concept of freedom usually comes together with the availability of being able to act in conscience and without another intervening by telling you if doing so is wrong or well. But it has not always been like that. That is why the concept of freedom will be treated in this chapter based on philosophy (philosophers such as Aristotle and Kant), Christianity, liberal thinking and illustration.

We will begin by explaining the etymology of the word freedom, that its origin is found in the Latin "libertas", "libertātis". In turn, the Royal Spanish Academy defines it as a state of the person who is not a slave or who is not subject to another in a coercive way. As we see the most basic form of freedom. [1: Royal Spanish Academy and Association of Academies of the Spanish Language, 23va Ed., s. v. ‘Libertātis.’]

Freedom as philosophy.

Freedom forms part of the budgets of the human being, which together with human dignity builds the essence of the rights of the person, within their legal scope as a personnel.

Freedom has been one of the main concerns of classical philosophical thinking, and in that temporality we find exponents such as Aristotle and Tomás Moro, who are the ones who are part of the basis of liberal philosophical thinking and inspire John Locke and Emmanuel Kant.

One of the oldest conceptions of the term freedom, and in some cases the most recurring (as we saw is similar to the definition of R.

A.AND.), It is the Roman, which is understood as the natural faculty by virtue of which man can do what he wants and whatever, unless the force (of another being) or the law (the State) prohibits it (the State). Now, it is a fairly limited notion, because despite being one of the basic ideas of freedom, it finds in itself a direct limitation in the force of an external agent to oneself. But the philosophical concept of freedom is only the natural ability of man to do, which derives that it is intrinsic in the condition of human being, is contemplated as the ability to work and decide in the way in which it is desired, in The moment one creates convenient. [2: Montanelli, Indro, History of Rome, Barcelona, ​​Debolsillo, 2003, P. 284.]

From this point of view, or conceptualization, freedom is presented as an individualized conviction, not insensitive to human nature, but as a positive self-determination of acting in one way or another.

For Aristotle, the idea of ​​freedom comes and, in turn, is linked to the essence of the human being. Aristotelian freedom recognizes the person the ability to decide freely and rationally in the face of a wide range of options previously offered, and this follows the freedom to act according to the decision that the individual has been able to take. [3: Aristotle, politics, trad. Pallí Bonet, Julio, Spain, Bruger, 1974, P. 78.]

In his classic work entitled politics, he stated that man is political by nature and, therefore, he must be free, that is, not to be subject to the power of someone else, so the person subject to slavery or captive does not He has that nature for being prevented to participate in social life through the expression of his own ideas and decisions.

Freedom in the socio-political sense opposes slavery, indicating the physical or not belonging of a man in front of himself, which brings great social advantages and benefits for those who possess another.

On the other hand Kant, begins by speaking of will before freedom, the latter being a property of the causality of will, since he understands the will as a kind of causality of living beings. [4: Kant, Manuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. San Juan Puerto Rico. P 59.]

He also explains that the previous definition is negative and therefore we cannot know its essence. But from it a concept is derived that “from a causality carries with it the concept of laws that, through something that we call cause, something must be put, namely: the consequence. Where it turns out that freedom, although it is not a property of the will, according to natural laws, that is why it lacks law, but must be rather a causality, according to immutable laws, although of particular species; Otherwise a free will would be an absurd ". [5: Kant, Manuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. San Juan Puerto Rico. P 59.]

Freedom is not only linked to the concept of will, but through it it tells us that it is belonging to all rational beings, who are endowed with freedom. For “every being that cannot work from another luck than under the idea of ​​freedom, that is why truly free in a practical sense, that is, they are worth all the laws that are inseparably linked to freedom, as well as as If your will be defined as free in itself and by valid mode in theoretical philosophy. However; I maintain that to every rational being that has a will we must necessarily attribute the idea of ​​freedom, under which he works. Because in such being we think a reason that is practical, that is, that it has causality with respect to its objects ”. [6: Kant, Manuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. San Juan Puerto Rico. P 61.]

With this, Kant tells us that no being can act outside his will and therefore cannot act without freedom, since we mention before, freedom follows the will of the rational being. And it can be inferred that outside rational beings there is no will and, therefore, either freedom. And, to act with will, it seems that in man there are imperatives that he must fulfill them if he wants to be free, because he will be free as soon as he acts according to those norms or laws.

Freedom and Christianity.

For Christianity, freedom is considered within the framework of God. Moral presupposes freedom. The only way to be free and Christians, at the same time, is through the Gospel, which is the Word of God preached by Jesus Christ and transmitted over the years by people close to him. Once we possess the Word of God; In it we will find enough food, joy, peace, light, art, justice, truth, wisdom, freedom, and all kinds of goods in superabundance. And the Word is nothing other than the preaching of Christ, which is contained in the Gospel.

Two statements can be released from the Gospel:

• The Christian is free and lord of all things and he is not subject to anyone.
• The Christian is a servant of all things and he is subject to all.

Both statements are clearly exposed in the epistles of St. Paul: "Therefore, being free of all, I have made a servant of all".Also: "You should not be anything, but to love each other".The love, however is helpful and is subject to what is put; And to the Galatians where he says of Christ himself: "God sent his son, born of a woman and born under the law". [7: 1 Cor. 9:19 Revised Standard Version.] [8: Ro. 13: 8 Revised standard version.] [9: Gá. 4: 4 Revised standard version.]

Three ways of freedom are distinguished:

1. Freedom of coercion, which is the condition of the subject that is not prevented by anything.
2. Freedom of choice is the freedom to love. Make a decision or another, is contrary to psychological determinism.
3.  Freedom as value, be free from the impulses of sins.

In Saint Thomas, freedom means human excellence, the total and absolute fulfillment of his fate; what distinguishes us as a human person from the rest of the natural world beings.

Santo Tomás, however, conceives the free arbitration as "the will itself in the exercise of the choice of the means to achieve its end". Continuing with the spirit and meaning of both definitions of freedom, I risk defining freedom as "ability to deliberately choose as best as possible".[10: Aquino, T. Theological sum. Madrid: BAC, 1989.]

The freedom to love (better known as free arbitration) is an inner freedom. A decision is free when exempt from a necessary inclination to put the act, to make such a choice, make such a decision.

A biographical example that the most important freedom is the interior, is the life of Saint Maximilian María Kolbe, rather her death. Being imprisoned in the Auschwitz concentration camp, seeing that they were going to execute a family father, he offered his life in exchange for the father of the family and died locked in a cell, dead of hunger and thirst. That family father was able to attend the canonization of the saint, immensely grateful. [11: Frossard, André. Do not forget love: Maximiliano Kolbe’s passion. Editor word.]

It seems that being imprisoned I was deprived of all his freedoms, but we see that prison only deprives the freedom to act or coercion, the exterior, but the interior, the one to want to always remain free, if we want it so.

 Freedom in liberal thinking and illustration.

Liberalism is a political doctrine that preaches to defend individual freedom, in addition the parties that follow this current, called liberal parties they present themselves as defenders of freedom against social democracy, since, they attribute an excessive dependence on the State and They assure that this dependency limits the freedom of the individual.

The question that leads us after understanding that it is liberalism, is what is the freedom that claims to defend liberalism? Indeed, it seems to be answered with a simple "defends man’s actions, since the State does not repress you". Not really, to understand this we must analyze what groups and social classes have benefited from these liberal policies.

They are precisely the business classes are the ones that have benefited the most in the face of popular classes, it is an economic liberalism, which separates the State as an inspection and mediator.

But it is not only economic, but also talk about equality before the law, referring to legal and political fields. Citizens are equal to the law and against the State. Division of powers of the State and freedom of cults, this implies a separated church from the State.

This freedom is based on Locke’s right to resistance. It explained that the tyrant and oppressive state should not be followed, and there was only one appeal to heaven. The people are not obliged to obey when the norms “Locke refers at all times to the loss of authority, illegality as a condition of the possibility of the dissolution of the Government, before which the resistance is legitimate ‘is reference The question is can the people rebel for any issue that you consider important? The answer is no, “Locke insists that the people do not rise for trifles, and are able to tolerate a large number of injustices. Only when violations of the law or for the purposes of society are perpetuated over time, peoples resist ’. [12: Rodríguez Varela, Alberto. History of political ideas. Buenos Aires: A-Z Editora. P 223.] [13: Rodríguez Varela, Alberto. History of political ideas. Buenos Aires: A-Z Editora. P 224.]

As for the Enlightenment, it must be argued that it was a cultural and intellectual movement of the 18th century. The thinkers of the time argued that human knowledge could combat ignorance and tyranny.

Jointly, the authors of the Enlightenment defended the idea that man was born free and therefore has the right to choose the government, to participate in state institutions and the search for happiness.

One of the most important and influential characters of the time of the Enlightenment, was Jean Rousseau, who in his top work "The social contract" will play issues of our interest such as freedom in man and society [14: Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Social contract. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.]

He speaks of a common freedom that is a consequence of the nature of man and equals the first societies to normal families, detailing that they were all free and equal in it. It is then that based on this freedom, Rousseau prepares to talk about slavery, about which he argues that “since no man has natural authority over his fellow men, and since nature does not produce any right, there are, therefore, there are therefore, the conventions as the basis of any legitimate authority among men ". [15: Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Social contract. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. P 37.] [16: Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Social contract. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. P 39.]

He affirms that giving up freedom is giving up the quality of being men, until giving up their rights and obligations as such. Such resignation is incompatible with the nature of man. [17: Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Social contract. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. P 41.]

Finally, he raises a social contract by which every man who wants. He rules out that the link is given through force, but voluntarily, since man was born free by nature. [18: Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Social contract. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. P 45.]