The dialectical nature of Freedom. Freedom as a human control.

 

VasileiosMakrypoulias, phd in philosophy

                                          vasilios888@yahoo.gr

Title: The dialectical nature of Freedom.

Summary: Freedom is not a simple concept, freedom is a situation in constant reference to various concepts.Freedom in not an immanent matter because there is no freedom when we are in a nature situation where we just do things for living. This virtue starts when men understand universal principles which create moral systems. Ideas and moralities are based on morality because we are talking about this idea and morality and the opposite idea and morality. The first dilemma is between chaos and logos. Freedom is the choice of logos and not of chaos. But we have to think that there is no freedom if we conceive one way which starts from chaos, continues to logos, and then leads to chaos. So far freedom is the slavery of the world of ideas and morality.This world starts with two opposites ideas and moralities, freedom is the slavery of the choice between good and bad.

Key words:freedom, dialectic, conception, understanding, morality, religious.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ontological existence of “freedom”.

There is a fundamental question: Did the first man know the word freedom? We say “word” because there is no specific nature as far as we discuss about freedom. There is an evolutionary process until the moment philosophers called freedom a force, an idea, or anything else. In the begining we believe that the first man did not know this word because there was men and the universe. Plato in his famous dialogue “Protagoras” remembers that unce upon a time there were no men, when they came in existence nous was  the only weapon they acquired by the gods. Up to that moment men were unprotected. Plato did not write “they were slaves”or “they were not free”.  So far we understand that the whole of ideas –freedom as well- were something like a nooumenal apprehension. Man did not fell free or slave in the very beginning of his earthly life because they have just one ability, the ability of thinking. There were only men and the chaotic nature at that time. There were no bipolarities of thinking between good or bad thoughts. Men were thinking of universe forces and  activities. This is beyond the subsequent apprehension of freedom.

So far Plato did not discuss about free or not free nous in his mentioned dialogue. He wrote: «When Prometheus visited Epimetheus he saw man being naked, without shoes, without weapons”.(Plato, Protagoras, 321B6). If we think that Prometheus gave artificial wisdom (as a fire) to people in order to make them capable of political creation, we understand that freedom is not an ontological and archetypal conception. The first man was thinking of his diabilities not of his illiberality because he did not know the word “freedom”. We believe that Immanuel Kant discussed the same thing, when he put the sense of freedom not in the world of phaenomena but in the world of nooumena as an unresolved eternal problem. It is similar to say that freedom is only in our mind.

Kant’s argument in his “Critique of pure reason” is very known. Freedom belongs to the world of nooumena with the problem of God and immortality of souls. We have to emphasize the fact that German philosopher connected the concept of freedom with the force of the will. He discussed for freedom not generally but he put freedom of the will in the world of nooumena. Because freedom is something useless as such, unless this word will be correlated with something else. So Kant wrote: freedom of the will. We could compare the absence of freedom in the Platonic dialogue Protagoras with the Kantian freedom of the will. At  the outset men have just one ability. They are able of acting in according with  theorders of their mind. There is no choice as far as we talk about survival. So men, at that situation, are not free in a sense they do not have two choices, survival is the only way to walk. Much time later Immanuel Kant thought that men acguired many choices in their spiritual and moral life: Men should be morals or immorals, Christians or something else. Men should live according to this way or to another way. Because of this German philosopher understood that men gained choices through their life. So he discussed that there is freedom of the will. So choice is the cause of freedom birth.

The platonic birth of choice.

The birth of freedom coincides with the birth of choice. Because freedom is the ability of choice beteewn two choices. It is not difficult to support that Plato was the philosophical inventor of the noetical and moral choice. The first proof is that he wrote dialogues where  there are always two opinions in order one be selected. OnetranslatorofPlatowrote: « Platoknewthattheformedsituationinonestateisstrictlyconnectedwiththemoralityandvirtueandjusticeofgovernorsbecausesimplemen and not laws odideas dominatein a state “ (N.M.Skouteropoulos, 2002). We understand that simle men have made the choice to follow their mental nature and not just the instinctive nature. This is ths first noeticaal choice which is the very cause and philosophical mother of the idea of freedom. Plato strictly separated the natural  human situation where there is no logos from the political human situation where man adopts the orders of political logos. The Platonic choice between irrational natural situation and the rational political self, is the philosophical starting of freedom. So far freedom does not exist as such, this  word comes to exist when something else exists. So freedom is the eternal noetical motion. This motion needs to know the two choices and the conseguences. So freedom is noetical in the beginning but moral at  the end. We could say that freedom is just the descriprion of all human motions when citizens know their political situation.

So far we  have understood  that the separation between nature and polis is the main cause of the birth of freedom. There is no need to be free when we are nature creatures. Everything at  that moment is so instinctive. But when we believe in bad or evil ideas and moral acts at that moment we feel free to choice between these dilemnas. So we could say that freedom is the result of the knowledge of good or bad. Knowledge (gnosis) is the mother concept of freedom. There is no freedom if there is no gnosis. Gnosis births dilemnas of this road or another road.

Let us remember the famous phrase of Socrates: “nobody is bad according to his will”(Timeus, 86d-e). This belief has the follow meaning. Everybody has two choices. One option is when men have not remember the verbs of agathon. Because o this men are unfree to follow the good and its requirements.They act accordin to their ignorance of agathon so they are unfree in their ignorance.They are slave to their passions. The other option is when men have remember inside  the nature of agathon as far as they have been in the world of ideas. As that situation people are free to choose the good way of thinking and acting.

This is the idea that freedom exists when knowledge of agathon and good also exist. Because men have the very ability to choose gnosis or ignorance. This is freedom, the choice between the gnosis of good and the gnosis of bad. So freedom is only in our  mind, there is no ontological existence of freedom. Nothing is free in universe bad only men in their mind. Because everything is moved according to their nature, only men can reform their nature according to knowledge of good. So education births freedom because education gives existence to good ideas or to bad passions. When I want to reform my nature according to Socrtaticpaideia and gnosis at that time freedom is presented. I am free to follow Socratic gnosis and morality, I am also free not to follow Socrates in order to stay at my natural situation.

In his Apology Socrates is very proud of his freedom because has two choices and he choose what he thought as the most spiritual and moral. In this Platonic dialogue we can see the dialectical nature af freedom inside an philosophical environment,because freedom starts when philosophical dualismus between good and bad inside the state starts. Let us read this (this quotation is from Socratic Apology where Socrates declares that he will die according to his beliefs about good or bad): “ Because these are what God demands. I believe that there is no bigger  agathon  than my sacrifice  for me and you and the State” (Apology, 28d-30c).

Socratic God is nous,  which has accumulated the forces of agathon and the ideas of good and  beneficial.  Apart from this there is chaos of noform (ασχημον)  and moral evil of unjust action. Freedom is the next noeticalforce in Socratic mind . It is the mental  and moral choice between good (good is the maintance of polis and its laws because there is no theory of agathon and praxis  of agathonapart  from city) and bad (bad is the atomic process of apolis and unjust man apart from the lawful city).

The virtual and  political frame of freedom in Aristotle.

There is no need of freedom  in Aristotle before the birth of logos and ethos. He is very concrete when he writes: “ There is no moral virtue by nature”(HthikaNikomaheia, B1,1-3). He means that Logos and education first teach the ideas of good to men and after they learn to them the moral action through the moral  repetition of good ideas and thoughts. So freedom is the new parameter as a choice between our irrational nature and the rational nature. Aristotle udes the example of stone, which never could be taught not to fall down but to go up. So freedom is our internal and moral decision (between two parameters: our unlogic nature and our educational nature) in order to promote ourselves according to philosophical good and ethos. So far we can understand that freedom is the way of philosophy to affect people’s lives. Because freedom enters inside men’s mind so we tlak that he is free or not free, freedom is the way to be according to philosophical demands.

But these demands become demands of state, and this is something very important because state influences people’s lives.Menare political creatures. Aristotle in his Politics births this connection between polis and the idea of freedom through ethos. Ethos becomes the measure and criterion of political and humane freedom. I am free when I am moral, otherwise I am slave to my  passions. Freedom  generally becomes the limit between logos and irrational (in a gnosiological level) the limit among passions and the action of virtues (in moral level). So freedom becomes the way to be soemeon a good citizen in a city which respects laws. So freedom is my consciousness and my signature that I want this world of ethos and logos in cities. Aristotle is very specific in his HthikaNikomaheia (B1, 7-8): “Through virtues we become dikaioi (just) when in our intercourses we act according to our virtues”.

There is a problem as far as we are concerned with the apeiron and infinite  of human nature. How should I Know what I have to materialize every time? Freedom suddenly becomes something dangerous if I am free to do what I want. Aristotle introduced the meaning of mesotita (mediocrity). He says: «Every scientist avoids the exaggeration and the deficiency. He looks for medium average and this is what he chooses according to ourselves and not according to things”. This is a very important foundation of freedom, because through this theory man becomes free internally. We talk about the whole connection of man with the idea of freedom because we are free anymore or we are not free. Freedom  becomes a main humane idea which leads to concrete actions, moral actions,  because It has to do with my internal  configured nature which is based to the dialectic between bad passions and good logical morality. Freedom is my conscious decision to choose what I logically want.

Aristotle is not a descriptive philosopher. He configures human nature because he thinks that logos is a universal principle. Polis is the logical  result  for the whole mankind. Aristotelian syllogism is (in an Hrakleiteian way) simple  (he analyzes this syllogism in his famous work “Politika”): Every man has the cohesive principle of logos, so everybody could be in a logical union which is called polis. Logos is the fundamental basis of polis. This decision has the opposite decision: I do not want to be in polis. Aristotle believes that apolis is something bad because men through polis could be self-sufficient and euthaimones (happy). No freedom acquires its political character: Freedom becomes humane political choice of human life. Man chooses to be a citizen and not apolis. As Aristotle says (Politica, A,2 , 5-6): “Man is a political creature”.He believes (he agrees with Homer) that apolis, afritor, and anestios, is really something evil, because men become slaves to their passions through these situation. Inside the polis logos can develop all the ways of evolution, endeleheia, self sufficiency. Otherwise men are just trying to survive without logical improvement which is acquired through the coexistence with other political creatures. So freedom is a decision of my political way of life. Freedom is not anymore  an ontological or spiritual decision but a real political decision which is evidenced through my way of life. Aristotle made freedom a main humane characteristic, Aristotle created  the free  political person.

He is very specific in Politica where he writes : « Every polis has been created because of the supreme good (which is self sufficiency though virtue) (Poitica, A,1-1). So far freedom is the humane way of happiness inside the real political world through the others. It is the best way of living for the real existence. If we think that logos created the political Aristotelian system we could understand that freedom is the supreme real humane decision not in our  mind but in our action: Because of this freedom has to do with the morality. It  is the supreme presupposition of the morality.

It is not at a random that Heidegger seriously considered the decision as an existential category. Freedom –as we saw- does not really exist. It starts to exist when men have the choices of logos,  so freedom reveals itself through decision. Heidegger believes that decision is a great existential category because it has to do with the great feeling of freedom. During humane history men learned to be logically free or slaves to their ignorance. When the human beings decide to be free they decide to follow their logos. Heidegger believes that this is a great moment for the existence because it is led to its open horizons (ξέφωτο).Freedom always is a way of proceeding through the world which has been created by humane logos. The German  philosopher writes: «Ιcould answer to your question but first we must make clear the meaning of the word turning (στροφή). It is without meaning  for men to wander with unterritorial claims. This turning leads to Being (Είναι) to open horizons (ξέφωτο)» (Heidegger, 1953, p.248). We understand thet freedom is a birth place of many existential categories such as: choice, decision, turning, so freedom Is a real quide of human existence in its way to its Being.

Τhe interactive relationship between truth and freedom. The Socratic example.

So far we have seen that freedom has to do with the choice between spiritual  or moral principles which were born through the philosophical way of men. Logos divided the universe in two parts, the one is under the demands of Logos the other  is the chaotic  side of human self which I am free to overcome with Logos. Socrates deified the gnosis through inductive and definitive principles. He believed that everything was anamnesis (reminiscence) of the supreme good (agathon): In Timaeus claimed that: «asking and learning is anamnesis of the whole (which is already exists inside men) (Timaeus, 80d).

Socrates solved the Parmenedian problem of the indentification of noein and Einai. He attained it according to a noeticalgnosiological way. Because when men think of inductive principles of virtues and justice automatically are being good and agathoi. Morality is the safe way for this. So the noein and act the inductive principles of virtues and justice are the same with the human being of good and just. In the dialogue Gorgias Socrates believes that it is better for the citizen to get a raw deal than to be wrong against others.

Gnosis connects  thenoein and Einai of human beings. The next step belongs to freedom. Freedom becomes something internal apart from the external decision because when man is his gnosis every time he is free to act according to this attained gnosis. So far Socrates unites truth and gnosis and freedom. The immediate results Is that men freely live according to their gnosiological truths and moral happenings. Men do not just decide to be free, men are free. Socrates converted the humane variable character to human Einai of stable internal connection of truth and gnosis and freedom. Men are something  true and noetical and moral , and do not need to live according to natural chaos. So men do not decide to be free but if they know the truth they are free. So far human being identified freedom with the supreme good, freedom became the main quality of god. Men forgot that there is no freedom inside the real nature , freedom is born inside the world of ideas which enforce men to see everything in reference with nous and not in relationship with the real natural moving of universe forces. Freedom became the supreme idea, nobody complains that agathon is not free because it exists before freedom.

The source of Socratic freedom is given in Politeia: Plato says: “Philosophers can conceive the thing which is invariably unchanging” (Politeia, 484 a). Socrates thought that has mentally conceived what Anaximandrus called as an indestructible and eternal force which rules the world and his moving. His everlasting moving. Socrates said the obvious  through his maieutic and moral philosophy: you are free to follow the only one indestructible and eternal mental and moral road which leads to agathon. So freedom mutated to a way of man proceeding. Apart from this,  freedom is not something self-existent.First Socrates thought of noetical and moral truth, after this freedom appeared as a way to mental inventions. So freedom is the way to follow what others have invented and probably these inventions are my truth as well. So I feel free only  according to this way which becomes my way as well.

Freedom  as a way of moral life. The Stoic reality.

There was a citizen and a polis-kratos when Socrates talked about freedom. Citizen was a concrete person inside the democratic city of Athens. Freedom was a mental and moral way of a  good life according to Socratic way. So far freedom was something more spiritual as a choice about philosophical  theories. Athenean citizen was safe as a citizen of Athens. He just had to obey the laws of city, he should follow his rights and duties.

This realtiy changed in Hellenistic ages. Alexander the great united the whole known world under the auspieces of Greek Logos. This was something new and something vaque. At that time philosophy changed her mental and moral character. Philosophy became a way of life uniting her theories with praxis (moral actions). Philosophy became a way of surviving in a chaotic syncretism world, which has to assimilate every god and mind of the antiquity in order to lead people to new ages. The meaning of freedom lost her theoretical background. So far freedom became an external choice of a concrete way of life. According to Stoic philosopher Poseidonius  a new philosophical dimension determined human lives. This size was sympathy. If we analyze etymologically this word we find that it  consists of the  preposition “syn” (in connection to) and the word “pathos” (it becomes from the verb πασχωwhich means I suffer something by someone). So in this new era everybody has to feel the feeling of the common spiritual and moral suffering. People suffered because there was a chaotic syncretic world which was united under the Greek Logos of nous and morality. This suffering could be overcome if people could follow their mental and moral nature. It was necessary prerequisition for men to feel free to follow the demands (επιταγές) of Logos. Feeling the common suffering (sympathy) people were feeling the same sentiment. This common sense made them free to be logically mental and moral. So far freedom became a way of life and not just a way of thinking.

Kleanthis, a great Stoic philosopher, said that virtue is not possible to be lost because it is an acquisition of nous. So we understand that there was a concrete human subject far away from his unlogicnatural situation. During the Hellenistic years men lived as civil creatures in cities. They were political creatures, they had no connection with the nature as such. Civil situation is the first child of nous and education. Cities are a way of educated nature which unites all the people. This new civilian way of life is based on nous which obeys to Laws. Internal and external laws.In order men to live according to their innate logic nature.Freedom is the thinking and sentiment that as a way of life I will live according to common  philosophy of ecumenical logical  principles which characterize the political world as a nature of common logos   in order to live as best  as I could. So freedom is a natural and logic measure inside polticalworld , there is no unlogic and primitive  freedom. Between natural and political situation intervenes the gnosis of the universe and self. So men are free to follow their gnosiological truths. Freedom is a way of a political life to follow the universal law of the common world which is represented  by the common  Logos. This concept of freedom  is born as a political meaning in order men to follow the noetical and moral way of life inside the huge ecumenical world which represents  the common logic ecumenical nature. I am free means that I should live according to innate natural universal laws which are activated in cities through my free choice to follow the logical laws of a common logical world which has the characteristic that consists of the common natural logos.

Freedom as a political factor became a limit between my previous natural unlogic situation and my next  educated  situation according to logos. So freedom became the way of logos, there is no logos without free life. Natural unlogic life identified with slavery and when logos creates the logic humane naturethis nature is identified with freedom.  Freedom is identified with the new logic nature of men. So freedom became the same with Logos.

It is refered that: «Stoics  compare philosophy to a living being, likening logic to bones and sinews, ethics to the fleshier parts, and physics to the soul. They make a further comparison to an egg: logic is the outside, ethics what comes next, and physics the innermost parts; or to a fertile field: the surrounding wall corresponds to logic, its fruit to ethics, and its land or trees to physics.(Diogenes Laertius, 26B). WeareintheHellenisticchaoticandoicoumenical world. Thereisacommon prinliple among people which could unite all the mankind, this principle is logos. Logos is the common substratum of all people in reference to the way men think of god and nature and the self. Sofreedomistheoicumenical way for everybody to free his innate logos in order to live according to a philosophical way in a chaotic oicumenical world. Freedomisnotanideaanymore, is a characteristic of human being, a moral characteristic of an acring person. Because shortly before the appearance of Christianity praxis is getting something superior than thinking. People are alone in the chaotic Hellenistic world, so they need moral manners in order to live as best as they could. Sofreedomisthewayofmorallyacting persons in a practical world. Apartofthisjustfewpeoplethought  thatpersons  lost their atomic ontological  way in their atomic nostos and physically absorbed by the lure of freedom in Hellenistic kind of world in which all the mankind had to be united before oicumenical moral and logical principles which men freely and consciously should follow.

The problem of free will.

Stoicphilosopherspointedoutthe most significant side of freedom. The freedom of the will. Itwas not enoughtobesaid “allpeopleare free according to logos and morality”  because there was the problem of fate and the invisible divine forces which influenced the more or the less human lives. SofarStoicscorrelatedfreedomwith human will, because they had foreseen the  atomic nature of human beings inside the chaotic Hellenistic world. Becauseoftheatomichumannature freedom had to be united with the every will of every man. Otherwisefreedomshouldbeablinddevotion to an abstract logos.

Thisconnectionhadtodo with the problem of fate (eimarmeni). In the very stoic philosophy fate (eimarmeni) is identified with the idea of god. Because  eimarmeni has made men to communicate spiritually with their ideas. Thisistheconnectedideaamongallcreatures,thisis the Logos according to which the world is guided. AccordingtoChrysippuseimarmeni is the logos which governs the world, as a world is meant the whole of ideas and virues which lead men to their supreme nature. AsChrysippussays “Logosgovernseverything so what has been done this always has been done” (Sharpies R.W, 2002, p.95).

As we can understand this theory, that eimarmeni is the Logos of God which governs every creature in the earth, is very significant on its consequences. It is a great value changing because the cause of the eternal changing (according to Stoics: eimarmeni) is equalized with God and his Logos. Inside the chaotic Hellenistic world the atom participated in this Logos with his mind and action. So Men essentially participated in God manner to control  the world changing with the control of eimarmeni. So far freedom becomes the most significant manner in order somebody to be in the eternal changing of the eimarmeni through God’s and Logo’s way: Because it is a point of free will to follow God in the way of Logos (if somebody has free will means that follows Logos in his travel according to the demands of eimarmeni (fate).So far  freedom  as a free will becomes the   birth point of the free atomic person who is united with the eternal changing of eimarmeni through Logos of God which every person with free will could follow. So freedom as free will is identified with the salvation of the existence. There is no other path for the existence to save herself from this closed world in which the sum of ideas and values from east and west have slaved her except the free will to follow the eimarmeni which is realizied in the meaning of God’s Logos. Existence has lost her ontological way , she does not know how she could go to her nostos.

The reverse course of freedom in Christian theology.The  identification of freedom with the truth of Christian God.

We have seen that freedom was born inside the Platonic Idea and the Aristotelian teleology of endeleheia (ενδελέχεια). Freedom followed the reverse way in Christianity and identified herself with God and His qualities. It was impossible for freedom to avoid this identification because Christian God is a personal God who demands absolute and concrete worship and noetical as moral devotion. It is said  in the Gospel of John (John, 8,32): « Know the truth and the truth will free you».  It is very important that gnosis is identified with freedom as a way of thinking God’ laws and as a way of acting God’ s morality. So I am free because I belong with my mind and motality to this God. Freedom becomes the way to God, it is the first time that the personified Christian Subject becomes teleologically free.

FreedombirthsfromthenatureofGodandmeansachoiceoflifeofsavenessagainstthelife of loss. ChristianGodhastotallycompletedPlatonicIdeaasasumofnoeticalandmoralforces. So this kind of God is able to give his eternal saveness to personifies people. There is a change in the nature of God. Christian God becomes purpose (telos) for sinner people in order to be saved in God’s eternal Kingdom. So freedom becomes a strictly necessary factor in order men to be saved in God’ Kingdom. Freedom so far is identified with God’s nature so there is no freedom apart from God. God is Freedom so man becomes free. Freedom gradually demarcates the Christian world from every other conception of the world. We are free if we know God’s demands, if we act God’s demands. Freedom comes from the high level of God as His present. So this deification of freedom identifies freedom with god’s nature,so if a man becomes free  at the same time becomes something superior. It is the reverse  proceeding. God gives me the eternal salvation so I have freely follow him. Free God becomes a real pattern for me. I am not free in order to know or to act something which I will invent. I am free because there is the saved eternal way of God which leads to the eternal salvation. So far freedom is not just a predicate, Freedom is the existence, Freedom is me. In a personified Christian religion Freedom becomes me, Freedom is me, I am my personified Freedom. Freedom is my total gnosis and morality. There is not a saved man apart from freedom.

Professor Nikolaideswrites: “ Apathy is the synonym word for the situation of theosis. This word (apathy) becomes from stoic philosophy,but It acquires a new meaning in the christiantheology.Apathy means that I am free to feel nothing else but God’s holy will in order to know and act His demands” (Nikolaides, 2006, p.25). Freedom changes her nature.It is not a simple situation or a simple decision. Freedom becomes God’ quality, freedom Is something so important. So people have to be free because want to be something superior. Christianity gave the conception of this kind of  free Subject to the mankind, this Subject wrote the History of the world as we know the world today.

The protestantic secularization of free person.

There was a problem. Man became free but he was free in constant reference with God. We are in Middle ages where Renaissance, the great discoveries, the Industrial beginning brought many rearrangements and made man to want his independent course on earth. Man was free at that time, but he wanted to be free according to his way . we read: “ Cartesius –against the beliefs of scholasticism-believed that men ought no more to follow god’s beliefs or the conclusions of great philosophers –as Plato and Aristotle- in order to acquire knowledge.Men just should follow their nous (mind) in order to acquire their truth through the function of ambiguity” (Cartesius, 1948, p.22).

Freedom followed necessarily these new data because this was something noetical inside the nous of men as well. Luther made the next step in order to make free person something very earthly. Luther said that only faith connects people with the God. This theistic belief had very important consequences. Man totally felt  independent as far as we talk about his relationship  with  god. Luther gave this dogma, that only faith (sole fide) connects people with god. So far the mankind was released from the traditional union with the God. We could say that man became twofold according to the following way: Man internally believed in God, this is enough for his salvation any more. Man externally acts in relation to the world according to his nous demands and conceptions. Freedom becomes twofold as well. I am internally free in order to believe in God as my saviour, but at the same time I am externally free to doubt about everything in order to impose my laws as far as we talk about the creation of the new western  world of science and political  evolution. Fredom is the path which leads from the internal self of faith to the external self of action. We are free to make new scientific laws, new political systems, new ways of living in order  men become masters of the earth. Freedom gradually proceeds from men to his creatures. Because machines, scientific inventions and technological inventions are free to be expanded in every world, are free to govern men on the earth. Freedom is expanded to the world which becomes a condrete way of life making man a slave of his creation. The world is getting free because is moved according to scientific and political laws, but man becomes free only if he assimilates him self to this kind of the world. Freedom is the limit between my chaotic self and my modern material self. My choice makes me free or makes me slave. It depends on my  pointof view. Someone feels  free if he lives according to this scientific and technological world , but at the same time someone feels free if he denies this material and technological inhuman world. Freedom returns to the human nature, who returns to her last crossroad, to her last choice: Because freedom is anymore the last choice between my this material self or my forgotten universal and sympantic self.But this dilemma cancels the illusion of freedom. Freedom never exists. The human way according to humane eimarmeni only exists.Because we are our way beyond freedom or slavery.As Hume says: « When we have acted something, apart from the fact that we are enforced from many factors, it is difficult to convince ourselves that we should not have acted differently” (Hume, 1985, p.455). Man is not free, man never was free or slave, humane history is the History of a proceeding from one side of chaos to the other side of chaos. This is our only choice but we are not slave because it is the only choice. Freedom was the ontological and philosophical illusion of the false construction of the unexisted two choices.

Conclusion.

Freedom was a philosophical conception in order men to justify their historical choices. If we carefully watch the meaning of freedom we will ascertain that two persons were feeling free at the same time doing  the same things from the opposite side. Every man feels free and at the same time is slave on the fact of death. Freedom was an invention for this life apart from the infinite and ontological way of life. Apart from all these conclusions freedom was the manner according to which philosophers, priests, politicians, scientists convinced the humanity in  order  civilization  to be born.

VasileiosMakripulias, phd in Philosophy.

 

Bibliography.

1.Πλάτωνος, Απολογία Σωκράτους, μτφ: Κουραβέλος Κ, εκδ.Πολιτεία, 1990, Αθήνα.

2.Πλάτωνος Γοργίας, μετάφραση: Καλλιγάς Παύλος, εκδ.Πολιτεία, Αθήνα 2020.

3.Πλάτωνος  Πολιτεία - μετάφραση Ν. Μ. Σκουτερόπουλος, 2002, εκδ.Κάκτος.

4.Πλάτωνος Τίμαιος, μετάφραση Μαυρόπουλος Θεόδωρος, εκδ.Πολιτεία, Αθήνα, 2010.

5..Αριστοτέλους, Ηθικά Νικομάχεια, μετάφραση: Γκολίτσης Παντελής, εκδ.Πολιτεία, 2013, Αθήνα.

6..Αριστοτέλους, Πολιτικά, μτφ: Τσιλογιάννης Παύλος, εκδ.Πολιτεία, Αθήνα, 2001.

7.Χάϊντεγγερ, Μάρτιν, Εισαγωγή στη Μεταφυσική, εισ-μτφ-σχόλια: Χρ.Μαλεβίτση, εκδ: Δωδώνη.

8.Τσακνάκης, Α, Εγχειρίδιο, σύνοψη Στωϊκής φιλοσοφίας και Ηθικής, εκδ.Πολιτεία, Αθήνα

9.Sharples R. W., «Στωικοί, Επικούρειοι και Σκεπτικοί», Θεσσαλονίκη, 2002.

10.Νικολαΐδη ,Απ, Προβληματισμοί χριστιανικού ήθους, εκδ.Γρηγόρη, Αθήνα, 2006.

11.Διογένης Λαέρτιος, μτφ: Κυργιόπουλος Νίκος, Άμμων εκδοτική, Αθήνα, 2020.

12.Ντεκάρτ. Ρ, Λόγος περί της μεθόδου,μτφ: ΧρηστίδηςΧρ, Γαλλικό ινστιτούτο, Αθήνα, 1948.

13.Ηume,D, A treatise of human nature, 1985, London, Penguine books.

14.Η Αγία Γραφή, εκδ.Πολιτεία, Αθήνα, 2014.