Freedom of trade Freedom of trade, see Free trade.

FREEDOM Freedom presupposes the absence of obstacles for an individual to independently build his life the way he wants to see it, without any external restrictions on his activities. Meanwhile, such an interpretation of freedom is successful mainly among

FREEDOM is a cultural universal of the subjective series, fixing the possibility of activity and behavior in the absence of external goal setting. In ancient culture, the activity of a slave to realize goals brought from outside is thought of as the execution of a program and

FREE WILL - a person’s ability to self-determinate in his actions. In the context of early Greek culture, the concept of S. V. emphasizes not so much the philosophical and categorical as the legal meaning. A free person is a citizen of the polis, one who lives on earth

3.10. Freedom and responsibility Freedom is a specific way of being of a person, associated with his ability to choose a decision and perform an action in accordance with his goals, interests, ideals and assessments, based on the awareness of objective properties and relationships

Freedom of speech. Freedom of conscience See also “Censorship” By the grace of God in our country we have three precious blessings: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and the prudence never to use either one or the other. Mark Twain The only way to fight for freedom legally is to

Conscience See also “Repentance. Repentance”, “Freedom of speech. Freedom of conscience”, “Shame” Conscience is a thousand witnesses. Quintilian Conscience is a small voice that asks you not to do what you just did. NN* Conscience is a mongrel that freely gives you

Censorship See also “Freedom of speech. Freedom of Conscience" No government can exist without censorship: where the press is free, no one is free. Thomas Jefferson* I just do not have the right to touch on power, religion, politics, morality in my articles,

One great man said that freedom is a conscious necessity. And there is some truth in this expression. Every self-respecting person strives to gain freedom and knows his rights in the modern world. But, unfortunately, many do not understand that behind freedom there is such an important factor as responsibility. For your actions, thoughts and deeds. How interrelated are these two concepts, and what problems does a person face today in the struggle for their freedom? Let's consider this issue in more detail.

Unity of individual freedom and responsibility

The concept of human freedom is associated with the philosophical side of life. Today the question has become rhetorical: does a person have real freedom or are all his actions dictated by the norms and rules of the society in which he lives? First of all, freedom is the opportunity to think freely and act as you want. This is a conscious choice of behavior and worldview. However, society limits the possibility of choice by various norms and rules, determined by the intention of the harmonious development of man in the entire socio-social system. This is where responsibility arises, as the other side of freedom.

There are several types of responsibility:

• moral, historical, political, legal;
• personal (individual), collective, group.

Freedom of law and personal responsibility are interconnected. Responsibility acts as the basis, the inner core of a person. It regulates his moral position, as well as the motivation of his actions and behavior in general. When a person regulates his behavior in accordance with social attitudes, we are talking about such a concept as conscience. However, the combination of freedom and responsibility is more contradictory than harmonious. These concepts both complement each other and are mutually exclusive.

The problem of individual freedom and responsibility

Back in the 18th century, the relationship between these two concepts was considered by Benedict Spinoza. The dialectic of freedom and responsibility of the individual, according to his reasoning, boiled down to the fact that responsibility is a necessity, and where there is a necessity, freedom cannot exist. Spinoza also argued that man, as a part of nature, is always subordinate to necessity, but in order to remain free, man, as the only thinking being, is obliged to cognize the world around him and be aware of his existence. Thus, a person cannot change the laws of nature and the course of time, but by organizing his activities, relying on them, he can become above these laws and gain dominance over the surrounding reality. However, not everyone accepts this approach to combining freedom and personal responsibility. Therefore, there are several models of the relationship between man and society:

• the struggle for freedom is an open and irreconcilable conflict between a person and society;
• adaptation to the surrounding world - a person voluntarily submits to the laws of nature and the surrounding reality, sacrificing his desire to become free;
• escape from the world - behavior in which a person, unable to gain freedom in society, withdraws “into himself” or goes to a monastery.

Personal self-realization, freedom and responsibility interact harmoniously only if a person is aware of the motives of his activities and does not go against the rules and norms established in society. A person can be realized only when he fully uses freedom as the right to choose. The higher the chosen life goal, the better the means of achieving it will correspond to the laws of development of the surrounding reality. Responsibility, in turn, is associated with the need to choose the means and methods through which the goal will be achieved. Thus, freedom contributes to the emergence of personal responsibility, and responsibility is the guiding incentive for freedom.

A person lives and develops within the framework of the free choice of his own path.

Liberty- this is a person’s ability to actively creative activity in accordance with his desires, intentions, ideals and values. In free activity, he achieves goals and realizes himself.

In the history of social thought, the problem of freedom has always been filled with different meanings. More often it came down to the question of whether a person has free will or all his actions are determined by external necessity. The extremes in resolving this issue amounted to voluntarism and fatalism. According to the first approach, a person is free, free to do as he pleases. This is his generic quality. From the position of fatalism, everything in the world is predetermined, and every human action is only an unconscious link in the chain of cause and effect.

But in everyday life a person faces pressure from external circumstances. People are not free to choose the time and place of birth, the objective conditions of life, the existence of their specific existence. But on the other hand, human existence is not a one-dimensional line from the past to the future. These are always alternatives that involve a choice that is characterized by both different means of achieving goals and different results of achieving goals. Accordingly, a person is free in what consequences will come from his choice and to what extent he is responsible for them.

The concept of freedom often comes down to a perceived necessity. But freedom is always a choice in specific conditions or the possibility of such a choice. Absolute freedom does not exist, it is always relative. This is determined at least in the fact that society, with its norms and restrictions, determines the range of choice. In real life, freedom exists in the form of the need to choose.

No less important role in human life is played by such social and personal factor as responsibility. Responsibility is a social concept that characterizes an objective, historically specific type of relationship between an individual, a team and society from the point of view of the conscious implementation of mutual requirements placed on them.

Responsibility is formed in the individual as a dialectical unity of internal and external requirements.

The formation of personality involves instilling in it a sense of responsibility. Responsible behavior can come in different forms: discipline and self-discipline, organization, the ability to foresee the results of one’s own actions, the ability to be critical of oneself.

GOU VPO
Russian Economic University named after. G.V. Plekhanov

Department of Philosophy

Abstract on the topic:
“Freedom and social responsibility of a person (person).”

Moscow "2011"

Table of contents
Freedom and social responsibility of a person (personality) 3
1. Human (personal) freedom 5
1.1. The problem of human freedom in the history of philosophy 5
1.2. Philosophy of freedom by N.A. Berdyaev 11
2. Social responsibility of a person (person) 15
2.1 The relationship between human freedom and responsibility 15
2.2 Types of social responsibility 16
Conclusion 18
List of used literature 20

Freedom and social responsibility of a person (personality)

In the history of social thought, the problem of freedom has always been associated with the search for different meanings. Most often, it came down to the question of whether a person has free will or all his actions are determined by external necessity (predestination, God's providence, fate, fate, etc.).
If everything is clearly necessary, if there are practically no accidents or new opportunities, then a person turns into an automaton, a robot, acting according to a given program.
Freedom is the ability to do as you want. Complete arbitrariness in relation to other people, the impossibility of establishing any stable social connections.
The core of freedom is choice, which is always associated with the intellectual and emotional-volitional tension of a person (the burden of choice). Society, with its norms and restrictions, determines the range of choices. This range also depends on the conditions for the realization of freedom, the existing forms of social activity, the level of development of society and the place of a person in the social system.
Freedom is a specific way of being for a person, associated with his ability to choose a decision and perform an action in accordance with his goals, interests, ideals and assessments, based on awareness of the objective properties and relationships of things, the laws of the surrounding world.
Freedom exists where there is choice."But only freedom of choice gives rise to individual responsibility for the decision made and the actions that result from it. Freedom and responsibility are two sides of a person’s conscious activity. Freedom gives rise to responsibility, responsibility guides freedom.
Responsibility is a socio-philosophical and sociological concept that characterizes an objective, historically specific type of relationship between an individual, a team, and society from the point of view of the conscious implementation of mutual requirements placed on them.
Responsibility, accepted by a person as the basis of his personal moral position, acts as the foundation of the internal motivation of his behavior and actions. The regulator of such behavior is conscience.
As human freedom develops, responsibility increases. But its focus is gradually shifting from the collective (collective responsibility) to the person himself (individual, personal responsibility).
Only a free and responsible person can fully realize himself in social behavior and thereby reveal his potential to the maximum extent.

1. Human (personal) freedom

1.1. The problem of human freedom in the history of philosophy

“Freedom” is one of the main philosophical categories that characterize the essence of man and his existence. Freedom is the ability of an individual to think and act in accordance with his ideas and desires. Therefore, the desire for freedom is the natural state of man.
The problem of freedom has its roots in ancient times.
The term “freedom” in antiquity is used mainly in a legal context, since it is the consideration of law in a given society that most clearly shows to what degree of self-awareness freedom has reached. For example, ancient law, recognizing the opposition between a free person and a slave, was concerned with giving freedom a real status, making slavery of some a condition for the real freedom of others.
At the same time, antiquity showed that freedom, being real, remains only the privilege of some and cannot define the human essence in its universality.
Meanwhile, it was antiquity that demonstrated a limited, but concrete and real consciousness of freedom, while modern definitions of freedom directly include the limitation and denial of freedom. The freedom of each individual person ends where the freedom of another person begins, and the law must determine the boundary between freedoms. But, thus, human freedom is defined through the limitation or deprivation of a person’s freedom.
And although the term “freedom” is found in ancient authors (even the Epicureans argued that a person is free if he can realize his desires), in the philosophical sense, the problem of freedom is more or less clearly formed only in modern times. So G. Leibniz noted: “The term freedom is very ambiguous.” Negative definitions come down to stating the absence of opposition, and positive ones – to the state of a subject acting of his own free will.
In the works of English and French thinkers C. Helvetius, T. Hobbes, J. -J. Rousseau posed and solved the problem of freedom, as a rule, in the context of the theory of the social contract, where human rights to life, freedom and responsibility were revealed as “natural rights” of man. In social contract philosophies, freedom is represented primarily as the freedom of choice (libre arbiter) of the naturally independent individual. To overcome the contradiction, it is necessary that according to the “Social Contract,” that is, according to the agreement between free wills that constitutes society, each independent will loses “its natural freedom.” This loss is absolute, so that the formula of the contract would be the formula of a totalitarian society in which the individual, deprived of all rights, is completely subordinated to the social totality of which he forms a part. But such an absolute loss of all rights is contradictory as an absolute guarantee of all rights and true freedom.
The concept of freedom, built on the theory of the social contract, is being replaced by ontological and epistemological concepts characteristic of German classical philosophy. In German classical philosophy, two polar opposite views of human freedom competed: a deterministic interpretation of freedom, where freedom appears as a recognized necessity, and an alternative point of view, according to which freedom does not tolerate determination, but represents a break with necessity, the absence of restraining boundaries. Understanding the dialectical nature of freedom rests on the analysis of the interaction of “I” and “Not-I”, on the analysis of it as a mediator between all facets of the mutual transitions of the processes of development and alienation. Representing not a certain thing, but a measure of the procedural identity of opposites, freedom is always internally contradictory and, therefore, uncertain, blurred, ambivalent.
Immanuel Kant considered freedom to be an "inevitable problem of the purest reason" along with God and immortality.
According to Kant, saying “I must” is the same as “I am free” (otherwise obligation is meaningless). This is the metaphysical essence of freedom.
Kant clarifies: if freedom is understood in a positive sense, that is, as an analytical proposition, then intellectual intuition would be necessary (which is completely unacceptable here for the very reasons that he spoke about in the Critique of Pure Reason).
According to Kant: freedom is the independence of the will from natural phenomenal law; that which is outside the causal mechanism. Freedom is the quality of the will to determine itself through only the pure form of the law, without asking about its content. Freedom does not explain anything in the world of phenomena, but it explains everything in the sphere of morality, opening up a broad road to autonomy. Kant says that it would be folly to introduce freedom into science if practical reason and moral law did not have autonomy. Kant does not accept the formula “If I can, I will do it.” “You must, therefore you can,” this is the essence of Kantianism.
If we define freedom as the independence of the will from natural laws and from the content of the moral law, then we will get its negative meaning. If we add to this the property of the will to self-determine, we obtain its specifically positive meaning. Autonomy consists in the fact that the will prescribes a law to itself. For Kant, freedom, autonomy and “formalism” are inextricably linked in the sense that matter can never be the motive or determining condition of volitional action. Otherwise, a law cannot be constructed from a maxim because of its unreliability.
In the “Critique of Practical Reason” the concepts of freedom as the subject of the third antinomy of the cosmological idea, the immortality of the soul and God already become postulates. Postulates are not theoretical dogmas, but prerequisites from a practical point of view. So, freedom is a condition of the imperative. Kant even calls the categorical imperative a synthetic a priori proposition that structurally includes freedom. But he goes further: the category of cause, the pure concept, is itself applicable to both the world of phenomena and the world of noumena, understood as mechanical and free. The will will be a free cause. Man as a phenomenon recognizes his subordination to mechanical causality. But as a thinking being, he is free thanks to the moral law. No matter how immediate the property of any person is the feeling of freedom, it, nevertheless, is not on the surface of consciousness. A depth of analysis is required for a holistic perception of the principle of freedom to emerge.
Certain provisions about the nature of human freedom, derived by I. Kant, found their embodiment and further development in the philosophy of I. G. Fichte. As the philosopher noted, between the process of formation of freedom and its actual discovery and manifestation, as a rule, a time interval is formed. Freedom is realized in stages. Some boundaries determine its formation, while within others its embodiment takes place.
Fichte's philosophy is a philosophy of pure obligation. Each subsequent historical stage of freedom acts as a cause of the previous one. Humanity is losing its original “state of innocence” not for some reason, but for some reason. This is what the ultimate goal of history is for. The historical process has a circular structure: the end is a return to the beginning, albeit on a new level.
Only from the point of view of religion does a person overcome freedom, and with it the duality that enters the world along with consciousness. Only now can he achieve unity with the Divine absolute.
In his lectures “On the Purpose of a Scientist,” he develops the idea that a person’s desire for freedom means his desire for identity with the “pure Self.” This goal is unrealizable, but a person certainly strives for it. The purpose, therefore, is not to achieve this goal, to achieve social equality of people as an ideal. But a person can and must approach this goal more and more ad infinitum. Fichte develops the thesis that a person learns about the existence of other rational beings through a call to him to be free.
So, a positive sign of society is “interaction through freedom.”
Freedom in history, according to F. Schelling, has a contradictory, dialectical character: it is generated by the activities of people and, thanks to them, is removed. This is embodied in the dialectically opposed judgments of the German philosopher: “The emergence of a universal legal system should not be a matter of chance, and yet it can only be the result of the free play of forces that we observe in history.” And further: “A person has a history only because his actions cannot be determined in advance by any theory. Consequently, history is ruled by arbitrariness." At the same time: “A universal legal structure is a condition for freedom, since without it freedom cannot be guaranteed... Freedom must be guaranteed by an order as clear and unchangeable as the laws of nature.” And finally: “... history does not proceed either with absolute regularity or with absolute freedom, but exists only where a single ideal is realized with endless deviation... the whole image as a whole.” Thus, the only possible (in the logic of F. Schelling) in this case is the creation of a “philosophy of absolute identity,” which confirms the dialectical nature of freedom in history.
The second direction in the philosophical thought of Germany is associated with G. Hegel, who emphasized that Fichte’s scientific teaching is “the first reasonable attempt throughout history to derive categories.” It was G. Hegel who most fully analyzed the ontological components of freedom. Freedom is interpreted by Hegel extremely broadly and this can be seen in the writings of the Berne period (1793-1796). There Hegel appears as a researcher for whom freedom is the value of all values, the principle of all principles. He means, first of all, “freedom from”: from despotism, from oppression, from the arbitrariness of the powers that be. In this regard, Hegel turns to human dignity.
In his main work, “Phenomenology of Spirit,” he proceeds from the idea that the individual is able to somehow experience his relationship to the form of sensory certainty. But this experience is not only his individual experience. It seems to appear on the stage of the forms of the emerging spirit. For example, one of the chapters of Phenomenology, “Freedom and Horror,” turns to the analysis of such forms of consciousness appearing on the stage of the spirit that are associated with the understanding of freedom as unlimited. The result of such freedom is absolute horror.
Hegel is well aware of all the paradoxes and dead ends of such freedom. The idea of ​​peaceful resolution of social conflicts begins to prevail in his social philosophy. This idea was not alien to the reformers, but Marxist literature has always been critical of it. Hegel believes that society, on the one hand, is called upon to protect the freedom of the individual, and on the other, to create a legal state based on reasonable mutual understanding of citizens.
Law is interpreted by Hegel as an integral system of freedom arising from the teleological development of the will.
Hegel believes that a person learns about other “I”s because they limit his freedom, which he must defend in the struggle for recognition.
So, taking as a starting point the idea of ​​self-movement of the concept, Hegel logically “organized” nature and spirit, religion and art, state and personality. He is such a “consistent idealist” that his philosophy already means a transition to a kind of realism. Thanks to the “dialectics of the concept,” Hegel realized the thesis that freedom is the “truth of necessity.”
Hegel believed that the initial existence of freedom is possible only through the state. That is why he attaches such great importance to the theory of the state. The people cannot, according to Hegel, be free on their own. Moreover, ideal freedom, Hegel believed, is freedom in consciousness, nothing more.
Ontological transformations of the principle of freedom can be found in Marx, who paid great attention to the problem of freedom. Freedom for him was tantamount to self-determination of the spirit striving for self-knowledge.
The lack of publicity and openness is such a limitation of freedom that actually reduces it to zero. Moreover, according to Marx, freedom cannot be partial at all, it cannot concern only one side of life without extending to others, and, on the contrary, a limitation of freedom in one thing is a limitation of it in general. “One form of freedom,” writes Marx, “conditions another, just as one member of the body conditions another. Every time this or that freedom is called into question, freedom in general is thereby called into question. Whenever any one form of freedom is rejected, freedom in general is thereby rejected...” By freedom again we mean, first of all, the freedom of reason, for it is also assumed that it is the failure to exercise this freedom that is the final cause of all other unfreedoms, including the “unfree state.”
In contrast to the existing “unfree state,” the “reasonable state” represents an association of people following the “natural law of freedom” and united for its maximum implementation. In the context of these arguments, freedom and reason turn out to be largely synonymous. Defining a “rational state” as a “union of free men,” Marx demands that the state be “considered with human eyes,” that is, the state must be “corresponding to human nature,” must be built “on the basis of the reason of freedom,” and must be “the exercise of rational freedom.” .
Dealing with issues of social ontology, Marx argued that “modern philosophy considers the state as a great organism in which legal, moral and political freedom must be exercised, and the individual citizen, obeying the laws of the state, obeys only the natural laws of his own mind, the human mind.”
Marx believed that real freedom cannot be judged on the basis of a speculative idea of ​​freedom, which is only a figment of theoretical imagination. Marx tried to comprehend freedom as an ontological problem, as a problem of people mastering the economic and political forces of social development alienated from them. In this regard, freedom acted for him as the activity of people in the practical development of necessity, in mastering the means of life and individual development. But since this interpretation was associated mainly with political struggle, with the revolutionary overcoming of capitalism, it actually presupposed the creation of repressive structures that significantly limited the freedom of individual subjects, its legal and economic foundations. If we continue this thought further and say that socialism is “a leap from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom” (F. Engels), then freedom acquires a high ontological status.
In the 18th century Benedict Spinoza sought to resolve the contradiction between freedom and necessity. It was he who formulated the well-known thesis “freedom is a perceived necessity.” The logic of his reasoning boiled down to the following. In nature, everything is subordinated to necessity; there is no freedom (or chance) here. Man is a part of nature and, therefore, also subject to necessity. However, the natural state of man remains the desire for freedom. Not wanting to deprive a person of the state of freedom, Spinoza argued that a person is free only when he knows. At the same time, he cannot change the course of events, but, knowing the laws of reality, he can organize his activities with them, thereby turning from a “slave” of the real world into its “master”.

1.2. Philosophy of freedom by N.A. Berdyaev

Berdyaev’s philosophy is considered existentially sharpened due to the fact that he declared its main problem to be clarification of the meaning of being in the perspective of human existence. The world has meaning only insofar as there is a person. Berdyaev's main existential category is freedom, which he understands in a rather original way. Freedom has an extra-existential nature: it existed even before being itself, before God, in general - before the division of the world into certainties. Berdyaev distinguished three types of freedom:
* Primary irrational freedom, that is, pure arbitrariness.
* Rational freedom, that is, the fulfillment of moral duty.
* Freedom in God.
Berdyaev is convinced that true freedom is not limited by anything, it cannot be controlled even by God, for it is greater than God. Freedom can be directed towards both good and evil deeds. Only the moral law and faith in God can direct free activity in the direction of good.
The true solution to the problem of reality, the problem of freedom, the problem of personality - this is the real test for any philosophy. The powerlessness to solve the problems of reality, freedom, personality or a false solution to these problems is a sure indicator of the bad qualities of philosophy, its internal impotence, the falsity of the path it has chosen. Suspicious is that philosophy for which reality is illusory, freedom is illusory, personality is illusory. Don't believe this philosophy, look for another. And so, if you approach the whole of modern philosophy with this test, the results will be the saddest. Modern philosophy denies reality, freedom, personality or affirms them illusoryly. Modern philosophy is an illusionistic philosophy about the advantage, its epistemology rejects not only the reality of the relationship to being, but also being itself, deprives a person of the original consciousness of freedom, immeasurable and groundless freedom, decomposes personality into fractional parts, rejecting its original substantiality. Modern philosophy will always be able to ghostly save reality, freedom, personality; for this there are numerous tools of sophistry and epistemological balancing act. A living person is no better off from these epistemological tricks; he is plunged into the realm of illusoryness, deprived of personality, freedom, and the reality of existence. But it is unfair to blame modern philosophy for everything; it is paying for the sins of the past. The entire new philosophy has followed that abstract rationalistic path on which the problems we have posed cannot be solved. Philosophical rationalism reflected the sinful fragmentation of the spirit. Neither the nature of reality, nor the nature of freedom, nor the nature of personality can be comprehended rationalistically; these ideas and these objects are completely transcendental for any rationalistic consciousness, they always represent an irrational remainder. Because truly: rational reality, rational freedom, rational personality are only ghosts of abstract, self-sufficient thought. Even German idealism of the early 19th century, the idealism of Fichte, Hegel and Schelling, with all its creative power, was unable to cope with these problems that were fatal to all philosophy. Fichte and Hegel idealistically and rationalistically denied reality, affirmed freedom only illusory and illusory, and in their ontology there was no place left for a specific personality. This is all too well known. Even Schelling, who tried to break out of the vicious circle of rationalistic idealism towards concrete being and mysticism, even Schelling was powerless to cope with these problems. And for him there is no true freedom, no true personality, no true reality; he still remains a pantheistic idealist. And in pantheistic idealism, as in the ocean, personality, freedom, and concrete reality drown. Only Franz Baader was able to cope with the problems, but his path was special, not the same as that of all philosophy. German idealism carried the idealistic movement to the extreme, to the point of absurdity, in which reality, freedom, and personality turned into a ghost and abstraction. The entire experience of new philosophy loudly testifies to the fact that the problems of reality, freedom and personality can be truly posed and truly solved only for those initiated into the mysteries of Christianity, only in an act of faith, in which not illusory, but genuine reality and concrete gnosis are given. Only Christian metaphysics affirms the reality of being and the reality of the paths to being, comprehends the great mystery of freedom, which cannot be decomposed into anything and cannot be reduced to anything, and recognizes the substance of a specific personality inherent in eternity. Only in the mystical gnosis of Christianity is all this given and nowhere else. Christian gnosis leads to transcendental realism, to concrete personalism, to the philosophy of freedom. Freedom, above all freedom, is the soul of Christian philosophy and this is what is not given to any other, abstract and rationalistic philosophy.
For rationalist philosophy, freedom is incomprehensible and always comes down to necessity or turns out to be an illusion. For mystical philosophy, freedom is the starting point; it is affirmed in its immensity and bottomlessness and cannot be reduced to anything. Freedom, like reality, is irrational for rationalistic, intellectualistic philosophy, but understandable for the philosophy of an integral spirit.
Freedom is Berdyaev's main idea. In its development, he comprehends the questions of why man, by nature a free and creative being, uses these gifts of the Almighty so ineptly, why in history something completely different from what was intended by man is realized, why man turns his knowledge and skills to harm himself, to oppression their own kind, why talent is lonely, the fate of genius is tragic and mediocrity triumphs, why man was born to be free, and yet is always and everywhere forced to be in chains. Freedom is groundless; it is not drawn into the causes of the relations to which being is subject. Berdyaev noted that freedom is a prerequisite in creativity. But on the other hand, the great creative act needs matter, because it does not take place in emptiness. But human creativity cannot be determined only by the material; there is something in it that does not obey world laws. This is the element of freedom. He considers any problem through the prism of his ideas about freedom, only then including it as part of his philosophizing.
The philosopher is convinced of the self-evidence of human freedom. The fact that a person is aware of the world speaks of freedom from the world. A person can experience light, meaning, freedom because there is light, meaning, freedom in himself. And even when a person recognizes himself as only a creation of the world environment and is entirely dependent on it, he rises above it and discovers in himself a principle higher than world activity, he exposes himself as an alien from another world and another plane of the world. Berdyaev's freedom is the freedom of a person's spirit, his consciousness and self-awareness. For him, freedom does not appear as a form of action, but rather as free will. “Freedom is dynamic and can only be understood dynamically. And it brings us closer to the secret of freedom, its internal dialectics.”
We can conclude that in his metaphysics of freedom Berdyaev truly remained a “lonely” thinker (his own admission). “You need to choose between two philosophies - a philosophy that recognizes the primacy of being over freedom, and a philosophy that recognizes the primacy of freedom over being,” the philosopher insisted. - This choice cannot be determined by thinking alone, it is determined by the holistic spirit, i.e. and will. Personalism must recognize the primacy of freedom over being. The philosophy of the primacy of being is the philosophy of impersonality. An ontology system that recognizes the absolute primacy of being is a system of determinism. It deduces freedom from being... But freedom cannot be deduced from being, freedom is rooted in nothing, in the bottomless, in non-existence, if we use ontological terminology. Freedom is unfounded, undefined and ungenerated by being.”

2. Social responsibility of a person (person)

2.1 The relationship between human freedom and responsibility

The real free action of a person appears, first of all, as a choice of behavior. Freedom exists where there is choice. In such a situation, the problem of a person’s moral and legal responsibility for his actions is of particular interest.
Freedom and responsibility are two sides of one whole - conscious human activity. Freedom is the opportunity to carry out goal-setting activities, the ability to behave and act knowledgeably for the sake of the chosen goal. It is realized the more fully, the better a person knows real conditions, the more the chosen goal and means of achieving it correspond to the interests of the individual and society, the natural trends of the historical process. Responsibility is the need to choose the method and means of action, conditioned by objective processes and their awareness, the need for active activity to achieve the set goal by the person himself or society. Freedom creates responsibility, responsibility guides freedom.
Freedom is impossible without a person's responsibility to himself and other people, to society and the state. Responsibility is the inevitable price of freedom and its reward. Freedom requires from a person such manifestations of responsibility as rationality, expediency, morality and will, without which it will inevitably degenerate into arbitrariness and violence against other people, into the destruction of the surrounding world.
Human freedom always presupposes his responsibility to society for his actions. Freedom and responsibility are two sides of a single whole - conscious human activity. Freedom is the opportunity to carry out goal-setting activity, the ability to act knowledgeably for the sake of a chosen goal. It is realized the more fully the better the knowledge of objective conditions, the higher the chosen goal, and when the means of achieving it correspond to objective conditions and natural trends in the development of reality. Responsibility is associated with awareness of objective conditions and a subjectively set goal, the need to choose a method of action to achieve this goal. Freedom always generates responsibility, and responsibility guides freedom.
The relative nature of freedom is reflected in the responsibility of the individual to other individuals and society as a whole. The dependence between freedom and responsibility of the individual is directly proportional: the more freedom society gives a person, the greater his responsibility for using these freedoms. Otherwise, society-corroding anarchy sets in. We all must remember this every hour and every minute. As Goethe said, “it is not that we recognize nothing above ourselves that makes us free, but precisely that we know how to respect what is above us. Because such respect elevates us; by our recognition we show that we carry within ourselves that which that is higher than us, and thereby deserve to be equal to him."

2.2 Types of social responsibility

Social responsibility arises when an individual’s behavior has social significance and is regulated by social norms. Social responsibility has two meanings:
 positive responsibility (prospective, prospective) - means a person’s awareness of the need to fulfill his duty, the entire amount of responsibilities that lie on the individual, the degree of fulfillment of these responsibilities. This is responsibility for future behavior. Positive responsibility is active in nature, it is responsibility for real and positive actions.
 retrospective (negative) responsibility - means the adoption or imposition of certain measures of influence, restrictions or obligations resulting from a violation of social duties. This is responsibility for past actions previously committed. This is the most common understanding of responsibility; it is the one that has a legally significant character. Negative responsibility is, to one degree or another, associated with suffering the adverse consequences of one’s actions.
In this second meaning - as the need to be responsible for what has been done - social responsibility is divided into types. The criterion is the sphere of social activity and connection with certain social norms. Sociological science, based on these criteria, identifies legal, moral, economic, and political responsibility. In the legal literature, the list of types of social responsibility is broader and is not exhaustive. There are: political, moral, legal, professional, public responsibility, etc.
Political responsibility arises from the characteristics of political relations and the norms governing them. These relations arise between classes, nations, states in the process of relationships. The uniqueness of political responsibility lies in the fact that it occurs not only for guilty actions, but also for ineptitude, opportunism, opportunism, rashness in political matters, etc. Its essence is a negative assessment of the political misconduct of a subject on the part of a certain class, group or society as a whole.
Moral responsibility has a very wide scope. Its most important property is the condemning attitude towards a violator of social norms that develops in society or a team, a negative assessment of an act that is contrary to moral norms.
These norms directly come from popular ideas about good and evil, justice and honor, dignity and virtue, etc. and act as a criterion for social assessment of certain personality traits of the offender. Moral responsibility appeals to his conscience to recognize and realize the mistakes he has made, and to strictly comply with generally accepted rules of behavior.
Professional responsibility is associated with the types of activities of the subject: pedagogical, medical, scientific, judicial, investigative, etc.
Public responsibility in the sense of this classification is responsibility towards a public organization. Responsibility to a social organization and moral responsibility are not the same. The first type is narrower, since it occurs only if the person who violates moral norms simultaneously encroaches on the norms of a given social organization of which he is a member. Forms of condemnation for such responsibility can be a warning, a citation, a reprimand, a severe reprimand, etc. In responsibility to a public organization, elements of public censure are expressed more strongly than in moral responsibility.
Legal responsibility is a specific type of social responsibility; this is determined primarily by its connection with state coercion.

Conclusion

Freedom is a specific way of being for a person, associated with his ability to choose a decision and perform an action in accordance with his goals. There can be no absolute, unlimited freedom either in the physical or in the social aspect of human existence. Complete freedom for one would mean arbitrariness in relation to the other. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where all articles are devoted to the rights and freedoms of the individual, the last one, which contains a mention of responsibilities, states that in the exercise of his rights and freedoms, each person should be subject only to such restrictions as are intended to ensure recognition and respect for the rights of others .
The relationship between the categories of freedom and necessity can be considered through the analysis of Hegel's aphorism: “freedom is a perceived necessity.” Everything in the world is subject to forces that act immutably and inevitably. These forces also subordinate human activity. If this necessity is not comprehended, not realized by a person, he is its slave, but if it is cognized, then the person acquires “the ability to make a decision with knowledge of the matter.” This expresses human free will.
But what is the nature of "necessity"? Necessity, a number of philosophers believe, exists in nature and society in the form of objective, i.e. laws independent of human consciousness. In other words, necessity is an expression of a natural, objectively determined course of events. Supporters of this position do not believe that everything in the world, especially in public life, is strictly and unambiguously determined; they do not deny the existence of accidents. But the general natural line of development, deviated by chance in one direction or another, will still make its way.
In addition to objective natural necessity, a person is encouraged to act one way and not another by certain social conditions. There are norms of morality and law, traditions and public opinion. It is under their influence that a model of “proper behavior” is formed. Taking into account these rules, a person acts and acts, makes certain decisions.
"Man is completely free in his inner life." These words belong to the French thinker J.-P. Sartre. He belongs to a philosophical movement called "existentialism", i.e. philosophy of existence. Among the founders of this direction is the Russian philosopher N. Berdyaev. The focus of existentialists is on the problems of the essence and existence of man. To understand the positions of these philosophers, let us turn to the statements of Sartre. In one of his works, he reasoned as follows: when making a thing, a person first forms its idea; for example, a craftsman who makes knives, before starting to make another knife, proceeds from his ideas about the essence of this object, i.e. about what a knife is in general, and accordingly what kind of knife he should make now. Here the essence precedes the existence (of the new knife). A child, having been born, already exists, but he still has to become a person, acquire a human essence. Consequently, there is no predetermined nature of man, no external force, no one other than a given individual, can bring about his becoming a man. This greatly increases a person’s responsibility for himself, for being successful as a person, and for everything that happens to other people.
Responsibility is a self-regulator of an individual’s activity, an indicator of the social and moral maturity of an individual. Responsibility presupposes that a person has a sense of duty and conscience, the ability to exercise self-control and self-government. Conscience acts as the controller of all human actions. The choice made by a person, the decision made, means that the person is ready to take full responsibility, even for what he could not foresee. The inevitability of the risk of doing “the wrong thing” or “the wrong thing” presupposes that a person has the courage necessary at all stages of his activity: both when making a decision, and in the process of its implementation, and, especially in case of failure. Thus, freedom is associated not only with necessity and responsibility, but also with a person’s ability to make the right choice, with his courage and with a number of other factors.
It is necessary to pay attention to the relationship between freedoms and civic responsibilities. Expanding personal rights and freedoms and strengthening the rule of law. Freedom and historical necessity. How do you understand Sartre’s words: “Man is nothing more than a projection of his free decisions... man is doomed to freedom”? Do you agree with the statement: “It is impossible to live in society and be free from society?” By answering these questions sincerely, you will be able to know the truth.

List of used literature

1) Berdyaev N. A. Philosophy of freedom; The meaning of creativity - M.: Pravda, 1989. - 607 p.
2) Johann Gottlieb Fichte. Essays. Works 1792-1801 - M.: Ladomir, 1995. – 656 p.
3) Marx K. G. Economic and philosophical manuscripts of 1844 // Marx K. G., Engels F. F. Soch., T.42, 1932, – 41-174 p.
4) Spinoza B. M. Ethics. – St. Petersburg: Asta-press ltd., 1993. – 248 p.
5) Schelling F.V. System of transcendental idealism//Works: In 2 vols.-M., 1987. – 500 s.