home Secrets of medicine About freedom as a conscious necessity.

About freedom as a conscious necessity.

Accordingly, it turns out that freedom lies in the voluntary conscious adherence to necessity. In this understanding of freedom there is both a positive and a negative aspect. Freedom is opposed to arbitrariness, but the creative possibilities of human activity are underestimated. Creativity – creating something new, incl. and fundamentally new, not initially determined by necessity. Human activity constantly comes to the point where necessity must be creatively overcome. Such overcoming does not mean that the need is rejected and ignored. On the contrary, successful creative overcoming always presupposes its taking into account and processing. Man constantly expands the boundaries of necessity.

The modern understanding of freedom can be expressed as follows: it is the possibility of choice within the framework of necessity, or the possibility of creatively overcoming it.

It is with the possibility of free choice of options for human activity that the problem of human responsibility for what he chooses is connected. Responsibility is understood as the willingness to accept for granted all the consequences of one’s free choice, incl. and unfavorable for the one who makes this choice. Depending on the source of responsibility, it is divided into external and internal. External responsibility is responsibility to external entities (nature, society), and internal responsibility is to oneself (conscience).

Journalistic activity is one of those types of human activity for which a high degree of freedom is prerequisite their effectiveness. Regarding necessity, social necessity (historical necessity) plays the most important role. Journalism is a socially oriented activity. A journalist is expected to constantly reflect on social activity and look for an answer to the question of what is in this moment is necessary for society. The need for a high degree of freedom implies a high degree of responsibility for one’s behavior.

The general philosophical foundations of journalistic activity require specification during practical implementation in a specific society in a specific historical period.

Self-regulation of journalistic activity.

1) Professional ethics of a journalist

2) The principle of truthfulness and objectivity are the main professional principles of a journalist

From the Greek etos - custom.

Ethics are the rules of human behavior in society.

Concepts related to ethics are the concepts of “morality” and “morality”.

Mores – morals (lat.)

These words are often used interchangeably, but in a strict sense their meanings are different.

Morality is social requirements for human behavior, what society expects from us.

Morality is how social requirements are internalized specific person, personality and turn into a person’s own attitudes and beliefs.

The concept of “ethics” combines the content of the concepts of morality and morality. Any ethics contains recommended options for human behavior (incentive ethics) and undesirable options (prohibitory ethics). Ethical norms and rules are enshrined in the form of traditions and customs, the observance of which is supported by society and cannot but be recorded in any written sources. If written recording occurs, then, as a rule, these are religious sources. There are written and unwritten ethics. Ethical standards are not enshrined in legislation and are not supported by the possibility of coercion and legalized violence.

The action of general ethics applies to all people, regardless of the field of their professional employment. In some professional areas, there is a need to supplement the requirements of general ethics with special requirements (professions with increased social significance, including journalism). Journalism is included here because the media have a great opportunity to influence mass consciousness and the consciousness of specific people.

The professional ethics of a journalist are general principles, as well as specific norms and rules of conduct for a journalist when performing his professional duties, corresponding to the requirements of general morality. Begins to be developed at the beginning of the 20th century. In 1901, a union of journalists was created in Sweden, and the condition for joining this union was the adoption of the code of ethics developed by this organization. In many countries, active work is being done to introduce ethical standards in professional activity journalists begins in the 20s of the 20th century (France, USA). In Russia, the first attempts to formulate the rules of journalistic ethics date back to the pre-revolutionary period, in Soviet times ethical issues were periodically discussed, but no code of ethics was developed. This is due to the fact that journalistic ethics has real value only in a democratic society where journalists are given a fairly high degree of freedom. In an authoritarian society, journalism is subordinated state power and guided by ethical standards journalists can only to a limited extent. It is no coincidence that journalistic ethics is referred to as self-regulation of journalistic activity.

The current code was adopted in 1994 by the Russian Union of Journalists. In addition to national ethical codes, international ethical principles for journalism have been developed since the mid-20th century. In the mid-1950s, they were adopted by the International Federation of Journalists as a “declaration of rules of conduct for journalists.” This declaration defines the basic principles of journalistic activity and proposes to take them as a basis when developing national codes of ethics.

International principles journalistic activities:

1st principle: respect for the truth and the right of society to know the truth is the main duty of a journalist.

Principle 2: based on principle 1, a journalist must defend the right to freely collect and disseminate information, as well as unbiased commentary and criticism.

Principle 3: when reporting on events, a journalist must use information whose reliability has been accurately established by him; a journalist should not hide important facts or falsify sources of information.

Principle 4: A journalist must use fair methods of gathering information.

Principle 5: the journalist maintains the secret of the source of information provided to him confidentially.

Principle 6: a journalist must do everything in his power to correct any adverse consequences from the dissemination of false information.

Principle 7: a journalist must foresee possible discriminatory consequences of media activities for any social groups and prevent such consequences.

Principle 8: the journalist considers violations unacceptable professional ethics: plagiarism, distortion of information, slander, defamation and false accusations, accepting bribes in any form, both for dissemination and refusal to disseminate information.

Principle 9: only a journalist who complies with all the listed requirements can be considered a true professional.

The Code of Ethics of a Russian Journalist (code of professional ethics of a Russian journalist) provides for the regulation of the following relations in the field of journalistic activity:

1) Journalist - audience

2) Journalist – source of information

3) The journalist is a character in his work

4) Journalist - colleagues

5) The rules regarding the relationship between journalistic activity and certain other types of activity are separately stipulated, namely:

· A journalist is prohibited from combining his professional activities with work in government bodies, with leadership activities in political organizations, parties, and combining journalistic and advertising activities is also prohibited.

· For violation of professional ethics, journalists must bear responsibility to the professional community, public opinion, as well as internal responsibility to themselves.

· The need to follow ethical standards is designated by the concept of “professional duty”, and compliance with them in practice is “professional honor”.

Journalism as a profession.

1) Specifics of the journalistic profession

2) Types of activities and specializations in the field of journalism

3) Professionogram

4) Professional organization of journalists

1) Profession - type labor activity people who have the necessary theoretical knowledge and practical skills for this, which are acquired during special training and from work experience. Professions develop historically in the process of division of labor. Gradually, individual areas become isolated, and the need arises for a group of people who provide this area of activity. Social point of view. A profession allows a person to be involved in social activities, perform socially useful functions and receive rewards. From the point of view of the person himself, a profession allows one to provide oneself with a means of subsistence, and is also one of the main forms of self-realization of a person in society.

Classifications of professions.

1 person Live nature. Agricultural professions.

2. Man inanimate nature(technique).

4. Human sign systems.

5. Man is a product of creative activity.

Journalism is communicative in nature. Accordingly, journalism should first of all be classified as a third type of profession. However, journalistic information is disseminated in society in the form of journalistic works. Therefore, it should be classified as the fifth type. Like any other profession, journalism provides people engaged in journalistic activities with certain advantages, but also carries certain threats.

2) Like many professions, journalistic activity is complex. Journalism combines several types of activities. Main: author's activity, editorial activity, organizational activity. Creation of journalistic works and texts intended for distribution through the media. Includes two stages: cognitive and communicative. The cognitive stage involves constant observation of reality, searching for interesting topics, collecting and processing information on selected topics.

Editorial activity involves correcting works created by journalists and their final preparation for the media. Editing includes professional text correction. works and literary editing. The works are already being edited from the point of view of the Russian language. Organizational activities involve the participation of a journalist in the production of an information product as part of the editorial team. Depending on the position held, organizational activities may have a leadership character. Organizational activities include mass organizational work of the editorial office.

3) In addition to types of activities, specializations are distinguished. Relatively independent types of private activities within more general view activities. Specialization is distinguished for various reasons. Media classification - according to the types of media in which journalism operates. So, the following specializations are distinguished: press worker. Journalists are divided into literary staff and photojournalists. Convergence trend. Convergence is the ability of one journalist to create messages for different media. An example of a convergent newsroom is RIA Novosti. It often happens that journalists specialize in certain areas. Well, here we can highlight the following specializations: political journalism, economic journalism, social journalism, sports journalism, secular journalism. Genre specialization of journalism. Genre is a type of journalistic work. Information genres, analytical, artistic and journalistic genres. Reporters, analysts, publicists.

Journalism is the active presence of the author's principle, perhaps some of the analytical genres, for example, comments. A journalist can be an interviewer, or a feature writer, a feuilletonist. An essayist can only write essays, an interviewer can only write interviews, etc. A journalist may be the host of a television talk show on political topics. Specialization divides the cognitive and communicative stage into stringers and rewriters. Stringers are people who specialize in collecting information. Journalism uses not only journalistic professions, but also related activities and service professions.

A professiogram is a characteristic of a profession. A professiogram can consider a profession in theoretical and practical terms. The profession is viewed as it should be. The profession is described as it is, what it is at a given historical stage, including deviations from the theoretical model of the profession. The professional profile of a journalist involves consideration of the professional structure person's personality, and also the professional and personal qualities necessary for a journalist.

1) Abilities - inclinations - beliefs

2) Personal characteristics

5) Responsibility

Abilities are objective prerequisites for the implementation of a prof. activities. Inclinations can sometimes contradict abilities. The necessary knowledge about your profession, broad knowledge of reality. Responsibility is divided into external and internal. External - in front of society, including legal and judicial. Internal - in front of yourself.

A description of the journalistic profession may include three groups of professional characteristics:

Demographic

Psychological

Moral

The profession of a journalist is associated with increased responsibility, so moral qualities have here important. The ability to empathize and sympathize with other people.

All people employed in any professional field. activities are called a professional community. Prof. community of journalists, like any other developed professional. The community today is united into various profs. organizations. Prof. organizations are usually called trade unions, but in our country creative organizations are called creative associations. The functions of such organizations are broader than those of a regular trade union. The Union of Journalists is accepted by both individual journalists and private journalists. organizations. The Union of Journalists operates on the basis of a charter and program, which should define their functions. These functions can be summarized as follows:

Uniting the professional community. If a journalist finds himself in a difficult situation, the entire community helps him.

Representation of interests in relations with authorities and the public

Interaction with the executive and judicial authorities

Trade union function. Protection of the rights and legitimate interests of journalists as employees.

Self-regulation of journalistic activity

Improving the professional level of journalists

Journalistic organizations. In Russia main organization is the Union of Journalists of Russia. The organization traces its history back to November 1918, when the first congress of journalists of Soviet Russia took place. The organization has been headed by Vsevolod Bogdanov since 1992. In the structure of Russia there is a separate trade union of journalists. The task is to sort out conflicts related to journalistic activities.

The International Federation of Journalists has existed since 1926. This organization unites journalistic organizations from more than a hundred countries around the world, numbering about half a million journalists. The boss's name is Aiden White. The organization is widely represented in the UN, UNESCO, International Organization Labor, in the Human Rights Committee.

International Confederation of Journalists' Unions. This organization unites the CIS and Baltic countries.

The activities of organizations in Russia are often criticized. Basic provisions.

Weak influence in the professional community

Weak influence in the regions, activities are mainly concentrated in the capital

Failure to control the situation in a professional manner Russian journalists

Not independent enough from the authorities

Weak ability to protect the rights of journalists as employees

The problem of freedom of journalistic activity. General philosophical aspect of the problem. Political and legal aspect. Economic aspect.

The general philosophical aspect of journalism involves consideration of fundamental philosophical concepts related to the freedom of human activity in general. Freedom of journalism is considered in ideal terms, that is, what it should be like. We need to start with the concept of “freedom”. The general philosophical aspect involves considering the concept of freedom and correlating it with related concepts - necessity and responsibility. In everyday understanding, freedom means the absence of restrictions, the possibility of restrictions, the ability to act according to one’s own will. From a philosophical point of view, such an understanding is incomplete and not entirely correct. In philosophy, the absence of any restrictions is explained by the concept of “arbitrariness.” Philosophers proceed from the fact that human activity is always associated with limitations, many of which do not depend on the conscious will of a person. All possible restrictions can be divided into three groups:

Natural (imposed on human activity by the laws of nature and have an objective nature)

Social (imposed by the laws of society and have an objective-subjective nature)

Personal (they are imposed by a person on himself, his needs, aspirations, interests, subjective character)

All restrictions that human activity may encounter are united in philosophy by the concept of “necessity”. A correct understanding of freedom is possible only when it is compared with necessity. At first, the relationship between freedom and necessity was understood by the following philosophical formula - freedom is a conscious necessity

Freedom is a conscious necessity. Freedom lies in the voluntary, conscious adherence to necessity. In this understanding of freedom there are also positive and negative moments. Positive point: freedom is opposed to arbitrariness. The negative point is that the creative moments in human activity are underestimated. (Creativity is the creation of something new, fundamentally new; something that was not initially given by necessity.) Human activity constantly comes to the point that necessity must be creatively overcome. On the contrary, successful creative overcoming always presupposes its taking into account and processing. A person cannot be given the opportunity to fly. Overcoming necessity, a person constantly expands its boundaries. The modern understanding of freedom can be expressed as follows: it is the opportunity to choose within the framework of necessity, or the opportunity to creatively overcome it. It is with the possibility of free choice, options for human activity, that the problem of human responsibility for what he chooses is connected. Responsibility means the willingness to take everything for granted. possible consequences of your free choice, including unfavorable ones. Depending on the source of responsibility, it is divided into external and internal. External responsibility is responsibility to external entities, internal responsibility is to oneself. Journalistic activity is one of those types of human activities for which a high degree of freedom is a prerequisite for effectiveness. As for the need - main role social and historical necessity plays a role. It is assumed that a journalist must constantly comprehend social reality and seek for himself the answer to the question of what is currently necessary for society. This assumes both responsibility to society and responsibility to oneself, as a professional and a person.

The general philosophical foundations of journalistic activity require specification and practical implementation in a specific society, in a specific historical period of time.

Abstract philosophical concepts must be translated into concrete legal norms that can be applied to regulate the activities of the media in society. It is important to take into account not only the legal norms regulating journalistic activity, but also the peculiarities of their use in the conditions of a particular society, because sometimes legal norms are applied inadequately or remain declarative. It happens that law enforcement practice deviates greatly from the legal norm.

Three main concepts have historically developed in politics and freedom of journalism.

Authoritarian concept. Based on the following position. Freedom of journalistic activity can only be enjoyed by those social forces that exercise power in society. Other social forces are either not allowed to engage in journalistic activities at all, or their journalistic activities are subject to control by state authorities. Those means that limit opposition media. For example, administrative pressure, the establishment of state media, economic pressure on the media, through the owner, but the owner is loyal to the state, and so on, up to force. Traditionally, state control over railways is designated by the term “censorship”. Censorship can be carried out openly, for which appropriate state authorities are created. authorities, or unofficially. The degree of government intervention in the activities of the media is largely determined by the rigidity of the implementation of the authoritarian concept. Soft authoritarianism allows for the existence of opposition media and regulates journalistic activity to a lesser extent. Severe authoritarianism nationalizes the media. The implementation of the authoritarian concept sooner or later gives rise to opposition from those social forces whose activities are limited. As a result, the concept of freedom of journalism is formed.

The concept of freedom of journalism. This concept was first formed in society in the 17th century. The starting point of this concept is that all social forces existing in society should have equal access to freedom of journalistic activity. The implementation of this concept requires compliance with three main conditions. All social forces must be able to express their ideas publicly. The right to speak should be given to everyone in society. All citizens should have the opportunity to become familiar with ideas presented publicly. Full access to information. If the first and second conditions are met, social progress is automatically ensured, because from the ideas presented publicly, society will always choose the best. The concept of freedom of journalism is based on the idea of philosophy and enlightenment, on the idea of the priority of reason in public life and the oppositional nature of the human mind.

Wise thoughts

(November 28, 1820, Barmen, now Wuppertal area - August 5, 1895, London)

German philosopher, one of the founders of Marxism, friend, like-minded person and co-author of Karl Marx.

Quote: 154 - 170 of 204

Freedom is a conscious necessity.

Freedom does not lie in imaginary independence from the laws of nature, but in the knowledge of these laws and the ability, therefore, to systematically use them for certain purposes. This is true both about the laws external nature, and about those that regulate the physical and spiritual life of the person himself...

Freedom... consists in domination over ourselves and over external nature, based on knowledge of the needs of nature...

Consequently, the abolition of classes presupposes such a high stage of development of production at which the appropriation by a special social class of the means of production and products - and with them political domination, the monopoly of education and mental dominance - not only becomes unnecessary, but also constitutes an obstacle to economic, political and mental development. This stage has now been reached.
(*Anti-Dühring. Revolution in science carried out by Mr. Eugene Dühring*)

. …chance is only one pole of interdependence, the other pole of which is called necessity.

Man’s own essence is much more majestic and sublime than the imaginary essence of all kinds of “gods”.

The accomplishment of this liberation work constitutes the historical vocation of the modern proletariat. To investigate the historical conditions and the very nature of this revolution and thus clarify to the now oppressed class called to carry it out the meaning of its own cause - such is the task of scientific socialism, which is the theoretical expression of the labor movement.
(*Anti-Dühring. Revolution in science carried out by Mr. Eugene Dühring*)

According to the bourgeois understanding, marriage was a contract, a legal transaction, and, moreover, the most important of all, since it determined the fate of the body and soul of two people for the rest of their lives. At that time, formally this deal, however, was concluded voluntarily; the matter could not be resolved without the consent of the parties. But it was all too well known how this consent was obtained and who actually entered into the marriage.

. ...the productive forces created by the modern capitalist method of production and the system of distribution of goods developed by it are in flagrant contradiction with this very method of production, and to such an extent that a transformation of the method of production and distribution, eliminating all class differences, must certainly take place, under the threat of the destruction of the entire society .
(*Anti-Dühring. Revolution in science carried out by Mr. Eugene Dühring*)

Justice is always only an ideological, heavenly expression of existing economic relations, either on their conservative or on their revolutionary side.

. “Justice,” “humanity,” “freedom,” etc., may demand this or that a thousand times; but if something is impossible, it does not actually happen and, in spite of everything, remains an “empty dream.”

Among women, prostitution corrupts only those unfortunates who become its victims, and even they are not to the same extent as is usually believed. But it imparts a base character to the entire male half of the human race.
(“The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State,” 1884)

Old Horace reminds me in places of Heine, who learned a lot from him, but politically was essentially the same scoundrel. (about Heinrich Heine in a letter to Karl Marx)

The value which a worker creates during a 12-hour working day has nothing in common with the value of the means of subsistence which he consumes during that working day and the periods of rest associated with it.
(*Anti-Dühring. Revolution in science carried out by Mr. Eugene Dühring*)

The desire for happiness is innate to man, so it should be the basis of all morality.

Why does society and politics need philosophy?

Alexander Khaldey

Hunter: Are you saying that a person can lift himself up by his hair?

Munchausen: Definitely! thinking man I just have to do it from time to time.

If, according to Bulgakov, he ruined the Muscovites housing problem, then the Marxists were ruined by their lack of understanding of their own philosophy. Marxists talked a lot about dialectics, but in 99% of cases they mentioned it in vain, not understanding the essence of what Engels said. In general, studying the dialectics of Marxism should begin with studying the dialectics of Hegel, and after Lenin and Stalin no one climbed so deeply into the jungle of Marxism. And this is not the fault of the Marxists - they simply did not publish Hegel in the USSR. There was simply nowhere for the Shirnar masses to read it - not everyone had access to the treasures of the library of the Institute of Philosophy of the USSR Academy of Sciences. So what grew up was a generation of communist leaders who had the classics of Marxism in their office for the sake of image.

Now communism as a worldview system has become an unused programming language. They remember him, some authors are somewhat influenced by his ethics, but they do not understand the core and do not use this system to explain the world. They just sometimes experience the impulses of Marxism as residual phenomena or phantom pains in a severed limb. For example, they don’t like oligarchs or the government’s pension reform. They don’t like the word “exploitation”, they really don’t like the word “capitalism” (they don’t like the word “communism” either, so it’s not possible to define their worldview as a system). They do not fully accept the word “freedom”, denying both its radical communist and liberal connotations.

In a word, the masses, together with the layers of anti-liberal intelligentsia who help them formulate their opinions, find it difficult to determine their systemic worldview and live within the framework of profane everyday “common sense,” colloquially understood as “for everything good against everything bad.” Not bad for an intellectual mechanic, but unacceptable for a doctor of all humanities - from economics to political. And since the Soviet educational system, from the depths of which they emerged, at one time produced them in great numbers, without ever bringing them to the point of philosophical readiness, the army of these semi-idealists, semi-professionals (essentially the real Vekhi intellectuals) roams around Mother Russia , grumbling and grumbling, criticizing existence for its inconsistency with consciousness and seducing many little ones who believe in them and their scientific degrees and expert verdicts.

The most difficult issue for our humanities professors is the topic of the relationship between freedom and necessity. Engels at one time seduced them with his formula of freedom as perceived need, and they, having accepted her shell, remained in disagreement with her inner essence. Our intelligentsia understands freedom as will; to understand it as a necessity, it is internally confused, sensing a totalitarian coercive catch here. Such a subconscious repression of disagreement with the basic position of their basic ideological system becomes among Marxist professors, directly according to Freud, the cause of a kind of humanitarian neurosis, when the conflict is repressed into the subconscious and there is vaguely experienced as something disturbing that one does not want to think about. Our red humanities professors, now working in the field of public journalism, could not overcome the discomfort of dialectics, since they failed to master the topic of dialectics itself.

Dialectics requires understanding the theme of the unity of opposites. A non-trivial and very humanitarian mind is capable of thinking this. Engineers and mathematicians with their binary logic will never be able to accept this, considering it not just heresy, but schizophrenia. In the field of mathematical logic this is true. But society is not a mechanism, and its logic is not mathematical. And therefore, one should not seriously let engineers, mathematicians and programmers get involved in humanitarian problems, although they absolutely love to chat about these topics, considering themselves quite mature for this. And it’s true - if a person has overcome mathematical analysis and sopromat, then it seems reasonable to him that economics and politics are completely within his grasp. And he transfers his mental schemes to social problems, without even suspecting how unsuitable they are for this.

Dialectics, with its unity of opposites, requires understanding freedom as a necessity that must be accepted through an “I can’t.” If you refuse to do this, then you are going beyond the scope of dialectics, and this is a shame for a thinker. The same as for a mathematician to go beyond the multiplication table. The non-dialectical - that is, profane - mind demands to separate freedom from necessity, and in this it sees common sense. This can be done - to separate freedom from necessity, but then what about dialectics, where opposites merge in the synthesis of unity? If you don’t understand this, and begin to judge it, then you become a laughing stock among the community of those who understand. True, those who understand are always in the minority, and those who reason are quite satisfied with the support of a community of laymen like themselves. However, this has nothing to do with getting closer to the truth.

If professors who sympathize with the leftist idea condemn this world with its oligarchs and pension reform, then they are breaking with dialectics. They do not accept freedom as a conscious necessity, which is expressed in the brilliantly simple conclusion of the authors of the immortal “Golden Calf”: “If there are some banknotes roaming around the country, it means that somewhere there must be people who have a lot of them.” If you are not a Marxist in its purest form, demanding in an ideal society the abolition of commodity-money relations and the ban on money, then you must accept the inevitability of oligarchy as a phenomenon.

Accepting does not mean justifying, because we accept the existence of viruses, although we do not justify it. We simply understand that there are opposites in the world and somewhere they come together. There is a world of people, and there is a world of money. Somewhere these worlds intersect - however, we are not close to these intersection points. This does not need to be justified, just as the law of gravity, because of which many people died, does not need to be justified. But no one starts a war with this law and its adherents - physicists. Why then do they dislike dialecticians so much? Because it seems that the law of attraction cannot be canceled, but the law of value can?

Of course, although only a few can understand the illusory nature of this. Many people are constantly drawn to the barricades in order to remove the contradiction of opposites there. Not through synthesis, but through the destruction of that side that is declared to be the bearer of the opposite. And when necessity leads to the fact that in the place of the destroyed opposite, over time, exactly the same one grows, revolutionaries call this “degeneration” and call for repeating the mission of violence. Calling it freedom.

What about dialectics? Where is the synthesis? There have been a lot of barricades and revolutions in history - but the opposites have not gone away. Opposites are not resolved by revolutions. Evolution is painful and unbearable. Dialecticians are to blame - they are called compromisers and opportunists, the most stupid thing that can be invented in the field of mental operations. Then the biggest opportunists and compromisers are aircraft designers - they are always trying to adapt to the law of gravity, instead of banning it - and that's all.

Dislike for the oligarchs is lack of freedom as an unconscious necessity, showing the lack of mastery of dialectics by the former Marxist intelligentsia. Dialectics would require an understanding of freedom as a conscious necessity. What about a world in which money circulates? Can this world be perfect? What are the morals and ethics here? And are there any limits to the desire for such perfection? What are these boundaries? Do freedom and necessity merge or are they separated?

Shouting “down with you” does not contribute to the search for answers to such questions. It is excusable not to ask them to laymen, but unforgivable to professors. This is not an apologetics for evil - this is a question about what evil is, because there is such a struggle for good that only multiplies evil. To drive a recruit away is to cause him harm. But the war will reveal that it turns out that it was good. What about the oligarchs? Is it possible to avoid their occurrence or are they inevitable? What is evil here, what is good here and where do these opposites merge? Simply put: what is the harm from the oligarchs and what is the benefit from them? After all, one cannot exist without the other - this is dialectics. You just need to be able to see it.

The government's pension reforms are another unconscious necessity, which is opposed not only by the masses who do not think in dialectics, but also by professors, whose scientific degree itself does not order them to operate within the framework of everyday thinking. To understand the pension reform and thereby freely accept it - this is dialectics training for our professors, which she successfully failed.

An economics professor comes out and says: “I am a Doctor of Science. There is a lot of money in the budget, everyone who says otherwise is lying. Down with pension reform! It’s just done by sadists to torture you.” "Hooray!" - the Shirnarmass shout and lift the professor above them. The professor is happy - he will never see such a reception among his fellow professors - they will require proof and not every proof will be accepted as infallible. What about dialectics? She is crying quietly in the corner. Who needs it?

Professors who have emerged from the Marxist overcoat and have now become not scientists, but propagandists, keenly sense the situation. Now doing science is boring. Politics is where the drive and adrenaline are. The authority of the opinion has already been scientifically substantiated - all that remains is to come into unison with the opinion of the masses. The masses will not say: “Justify me, colleague!” The masses at one time were accustomed to the fact that in the world of capital there is exploitation, which is expressed in the alienation of surplus product. It was the destruction of exploitation among the survivors that justified the bloody revolutionary era. But now the state has taken the place of the private owner as an employer. In the person of the bureaucracy, of course. And then the fight against bureaucracy began.

And this state, represented by the bureaucracy fighting bureaucracy, began to confiscate the surplus product no longer to the private owner, but to the state. That is, for myself. And she began to manage it herself. If she wanted, she shared with the shirnarmass; if she wanted, she stopped sharing and privatized everything. And no one made a sound - the property was not theirs, it was someone else’s. State that is. But what about the dogmas of socialism, that everything around is collective farm, everything around is mine? They lied, then?

In the person of a bureaucrat fighting bureaucracy, the Shirnarmass received another exploiter, who called himself a representative of the Shirnarmass, and anyone who doubted this was exterminated either organizationally or physically. It was called socialism. We are building where the exploitation of man by man was defeated. It was forbidden to say that human exploitation by the state had arisen. It was said that now there is no exploitation, and the state acts on behalf of us and for the benefit of all of us, and therefore IT IS POSSIBLE.

They may say to me - what about free education and healthcare? This is all true, and this is very good, but that’s not what I’m talking about now. I'm talking about exploitation. So did she disappear or just change her form? Justified or not justified? And what is better - exploitation of a person by the state or exploitation by a person? And is it even possible to have an economy completely without exploitation? Including self-exploitation? And isn’t this a fraudulent term – exploitation? Are alienations in the form of regulation exploitative? wages and taxes as a relatively fair form of taking money?

People think at different levels of understanding existence. And now I have no complaints about the population who are looking for a way to survive. I myself am looking for these ways to survive, and I also don’t like oligarchs, capitalism, exploitation, pension reform, and I don’t like taxes either. But there is truth. She calls out from her conscience. To its misfortune, the Soviet education system seriously taught me philosophy, and to its misfortune, it hooked me. I tried to pass it not “on the ball”, as the students said. And therefore I feel that somewhere nearby sits and is silent, offended by everyone, philosophy, which was mockingly called the queen of sciences. Have you seen such kings whom their servants treat with such contempt? The ball is ruled by jesters - politicians, economists and political scientists, but where have you seen at least one philosopher? Is it a different time now? Well, the time is always the same.

Truth is always not in honor, and therefore philosophy is not in honor. Not because it gives answers, but because it raises questions. Questions are more important than answers. There are those questions to which there are no simple answers. Sometimes not for centuries. This irritates the masses; they need answers - and not just answers, but ones that the masses can understand and calm down.

Philosophy does not engage in applied psychotherapy, it does not give advice on how to calm people down, but raises eternal questions. And not abstract from being, but the most profound, essential for being. It's difficult, it's not easy. This is precisely why the world does not like philosophers. But so much the worse for the world. A world without philosophy is a world of manipulators and swindlers, a world of triumph of PR and social deceitful technologies of deception. The attitude towards philosophy is a mirror held up to the face of modernity, and it is not the mirror’s fault if it sometimes reflects an unsightly face.

The position of freedom as a cognized necessity is found in a certain place - in Marxist philosophy. This dialectical (Hegelian) relationship between freedom and necessity, reworked in a materialist key, has become one of the basic concepts of Marxism, which is often presented as an aphorism.

Indeed, in terms of the completeness and depth of thought, the refinement and laconicism of the form, the definition “freedom is a recognized necessity” fully corresponds to the aphorism. However, another undoubted feature of the aphorism, namely the immutability of its verbal form, i.e. the text itself turned out to be uncharacteristic of this situation. Cognition of necessity is easily replaced by awareness of necessity, as if these are absolute synonyms.

This observation is interesting: Yandex statistics show that the combination “recognized need” is requested approximately 166 times a month, while “realized need” is requested 628 times, and the second request produces mixed results - “conscious” together with “recognized.” For the first request, there is no mixed picture. Those. obviously, it turned out to be more popular original text, but modified, and the confusion in the second case shows that different combinations are more often presented as identical.

What are the reasons for the substitution is an interesting question, and the substitution itself is a significant question, since opponents and critics of Marxism use exclusively the combination “conscious necessity,” interpreting the Marxist definition of freedom as either absurd or immoral.

Of course, the words “cognize” and “realize,” being cognate, are related, but obviously not absolute synonyms. To cognize means to comprehend, study, gain knowledge, experience. Realize - understand, accept, consciously assimilate. The difference is clearly visible in the examples. Any believer will confirm that he realizes the greatness of God (without this there is no Faith), but it is impossible to know the greatness of God through religion. Self-awareness is an indispensable component of a person, a person. Knowing oneself is a process that can last a person’s entire life, and not everyone necessarily engages in self-knowledge. We may be aware of some danger without, fortunately, ever knowing it.

What about necessity? Even without a detailed analysis, it is clear that necessity is a very broad concept. So, the need for water for life is one thing, the need for a foreign passport for travel is another. The need to have the correct condition for solving a formal problem is one necessity, the need to help one’s neighbor is completely different. It is impossible to reduce physical, normative, logical, ethical, linguistic necessity to one another. Not every need is realized or recognized. At the same time, what all necessities have in common is contained in the name itself: something that cannot be done without - in different areas, at different levels, in the objective world or in the subjective world of each individual person.

The same with freedom - free entry, free fall, free choice... What do all freedoms have in common? Probably the general opposite of any freedom, and most agree that this is the very necessity.

Then the simplest definition would be: freedom is the absence of necessity. But... “I am free, like a bird in the sky...” Does this mean that a free bird in the sky has no need? Even if the beautiful, but narrow poetic image of freedom is forced to make room, if we put next to it the narrow, but quite specific meaning of this flight - it itself is dictated by a certain necessity. Animals generally do nothing unless necessary; their whole life is subject to a series of needs. And then the animals have no freedom at all, although they do not realize it.

So we come to the conclusion that freedom as a category, concept, as a state, as a possibility relates only to a person - to a subject with consciousness. Necessity embraces the entire objective world, the entire reality, constituting in its various manifestations the conditions for the existence of all nature and society, as well as the individual.

It is unlikely that anyone will dispute the connection between object and subject, matter and consciousness, objective reality and subjective reality, necessity and freedom. Disagreement begins over the direction of this connection. A purely idealistic approach implies a direction from the subject, from consciousness, from subjective reality, from freedom. Vulgar-materialistic - direction from the object, from matter, from objective reality, from necessity. And then freedom as will exists completely independently of necessity and is only limited by it, or freedom as will is inevitably and completely suppressed by necessity.

This seems surprising, but the definition “freedom is a conscious necessity” is used not only to criticize Marxism on both sides (“how can freedom be unfreedom, and even consciously so?!”, “Marxism gives freedom to some to suppress the freedom of others and requires them to realize this”) , but can easily be accepted by both sides. I have read discussions that anyone can become free by recognizing necessity, accepting it as inevitable, and this frees the choice created by necessity. Or vice versa - awareness of necessity is a manifestation of the original freedom that a person is endowed with. Truly the definition of a chameleon...

The definition “freedom is a recognized necessity” is inconvenient for turning this way or that way. The dual connection between freedom and necessity is fixed by cognition, which is a process that constantly changes the ratio of freedom and necessity. Cognition of necessity is comprehension of the realities of the world, gaining knowledge about the connections of this world and studying their patterns. Knowledge is power; it provides tools for influencing necessity and subordinating it to human will. Free action is action, as Engels put it, “with knowledge of the matter.” The degree of freedom is determined by the depth of knowledge - the deeper the knowledge about the need, the greater the choice a person has for action.

Humanity in general and every person is born in the kingdom of necessity. The first knowledge not only means the acquisition of initial degrees of freedom, but also strengthens the desire to expand this freedom, which drives knowledge. Moreover, an action performed in certain conditions of freedom of choice becomes an objective reality, it is woven into common system connections of the objective world, changing necessity, i.e., in essence, creating it. This contradiction between freedom and necessity is resolved in the only way - by constantly deepening the knowledge of necessity - a process that constantly expands freedom.

The philosophical dialectical-materialist understanding of freedom denies the illusory nature of freedom, which is not associated with the knowledge of necessity, and also reflects the relative nature of freedom. Freedom is not abstract, but always concrete. The actions performed in the presence of a certain choice are specific, the consequences of these actions are specific, the necessity transformed as a result is specific, the knowledge of which is another free step towards a new level of freedom.

There is none of this in the awareness of necessity, and there is no real freedom in awareness. There is only a departure from real necessity into illusory freedom of awareness or conscious, and therefore free, submission to necessity.

Two simple examples. How freely could we move through the air today if we realized, and did not know to a certain level, the obvious need to move exclusively on land or water? How free will a person be if a child from early childhood is not motivated to learn about necessity, but is forced to make him aware of it, which is most easily done with the help of physical and/or psychological pressure?

The concept of freedom is especially important, complex and always relevant in relation to society, to the needs that arise in the course of its historical development. More details about this, as well as about the possible reasons for replacing “cognition” with “awareness” in the Marxist definition of freedom, are probably worth and will have to be discussed separately.

Freedom is a conscious need

In my essay preparation course there are more than 50 analyzed Unified State Exam expert training essays for applicants 2013-2016.

We end the essay with our own conclusion based on a paraphrase of the quote. You can give your own attitude to the author’s thoughts at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end of the essay.

I completely agree with the thought of the great philosopher. Indeed, restricting the freedom of an individual within reasonable limits is the protection of society from arbitrariness, impunity, and chaos in social life.

And this is what our view of the philosophical problem of freedom looks like, supported by knowledge of theory and philosophical concepts:

29.1 Philosophy.

“Freedom is a conscious necessity” (G. Hegel)

I see the meaning of the statement of the great German philosopher Hegel in the fact that a person cannot behave as he always considers necessary. His activities are limited by the framework of society, and he cannot go beyond them in his actions. The main idea of the statement is the dependence of human activity on the foundations of society.

What is freedom? This is an opportunity to act independently, independently, relying on your own own strength. A slave is not free, he depends on the will of his master.

What's happened necessity? This philosophical category can be understood in different ways. We cannot live (be free) without air (having it is a necessity).

These are our responsibilities, something without which there is no freedom. For example, the Constitution of the Russian Federation contains a list of not only the rights of a citizen, but also his duties. These are natural rights - to life, freedom, property, and political (to elect and be elected, to participate in government, to administer justice), and socio-economic (to work, education, medical care).

At the same time, obtaining basic general education for every citizen of the Russian Federation is a constitutional duty. And the simple need to have the knowledge necessary to live in modern society.

The concept of freedom has been found in many philosophical concepts. For example, in the theory of “social contract”, when creating a state, people consciously give up a part of their freedom in order to avoid mutual extermination. They obey the rules state law- laws, and then they become in the full sense free - from the arbitrariness of others.

But the anarchists (Bakunin, Kropotkin) believed that the state does not allow a person to be free, so it must be destroyed. People will be able to live freely based on mutual love. In 1874, the populist revolutionaries organized a “going to the people” of educated youth and students. They tried to explain to the peasants that the state, through the enslaving conditions of the peasant reform, had deprived them of their freedom. They agitated the peasants to rebel, not to pay taxes and redemption payments. But, they did not meet with sympathy, the movement failed. But it became one of the forms of struggle for “freedom” in the understanding of the intelligentsia of the 19th century.

What if a person is not limited by anything? What if he behaves completely freely? I think this is permissiveness! We see what a false understanding of freedom has led to today in Ukraine, where the country is falling apart, violence and crime reign in the streets.

Let us recall the character of Dostoevsky’s immortal “Crime and Punishment” - Raskolnikov. He posed the question for himself: “A trembling creature (not free) or do I have the right (free)?”, and answered it by killing a man. Has he become free from his conscience, hard labor, public contempt? No! He still had to eventually submit to the demands of society, repent and come to terms.

I completely agree with the thought of the great philosopher. Indeed, restricting the freedom of an individual within reasonable limits is the protection of society from arbitrariness, impunity, and chaos in social life.

Note that with the help of an essay you can work out not only philosophical problematic topics codifier. But also any topic. Understanding of the problem expressed in an essay on the topic is an indicator high level mastering the material. All that remains is to choose the right quote for training, which we are ready to help you with in the comments, as well as in our group

Diagnostics and diseases. Medicines from A to Z

About freedom as a conscious necessity.

Other materials on the topic:

Freedom is a conscious need