下载文档原格式
1958年10月31日，以赛亚•伯林在在牛津大学发表了一篇影响深远的就职演说，这就是著名的《两种自由概念》（Two Concepts of Liberty）。
该文随后被印成单行本发表。
在这篇文章中，伯林区分了两种自由的概念，即消极自由（negative liberty）与积极自由（positive liberty）。
这种区分在学界产生了热烈的讨论，成为二十世纪政治哲学的经典论题。
伯林在文章一开始便意味深长地指出，思想观念对社会有着巨大的影响力。
他说：“令人惊讶，因为在近代历史上，也许从不曾有这么多人——包括东方人和西方人——的观念以及生命，被狂热的社会与政治学说所改变，有时甚至被猛烈翻搅。
”纵观二十世纪，这句话对于风起云涌的社会运动、两次世界大战、意识形态冲突等事件，可谓真实的刻画。
经济学家凯恩斯亦有名言：“…经济学家和政治哲学家的思想，正确也罢，错误也罢，其力量之大，常人往往认识不足。
事实上可以说统治这个世界的舍如此之思想几无他也。
实干家们，自信可在相当程度上免受任何学理之影响者，往往已沦为某一个已故经济学家的思想奴隶。
掌权的狂人们，自称可从虚空里听获神音天意者，其狂悖骄妄则常常是从几年前尚存学界的某个不入流学者的思想中提炼浓缩而成。
”【邹恒甫译自《通论》第四章】一、消极自由的概念作为政治哲学家的伯林最为著名的贡献就是对“消极自由”与“积极自由”的区分，正是集中阐述了这一问题，《两种自由概念》遂名扬天下，当之无愧地被喻为当代政治哲学最具影响力的单篇论文。
不过，最早提出这两个概念的却不是伯林。
“消极自由”是古典自由主义的一贯立场。
从霍布斯以降，密尔、约翰.洛克、亚当.斯密、大卫.休谟、杰里米.边沁等英国古典政治思想家皆倡导“消极自由”的概念，即免除强权干涉或法律限制的自由（伯林称唯有霍布斯与边沁是最为纯粹的消极自由主义者）。
而“积极自由”的观念也古已有之，从卢梭、康德、费希特、黑格尔到马克思等欧陆思想家皆属于这一思想传统，最早明确提出这一概念的则是T. H. 格林【T.H.Green，1836～1882】[1]。
当代西方的两种新自由主义———政治新自由主义与新保守主义的对立张纯厚内容提要：我国政治理论界目前尚缺少对于当代西方的两种新自由主义进行分析和明确区分的文章，所以，常常造成理论上的混乱。
西方存在着New Liberalism的新自由主义和Neoliberalism的新自由主义，前者称为政治新自由主义，将后者称为经济新自由主义。
并且，阐明这两种新自由主义与新保守主义的关系，即，政治新自由主义与新保守主义直接对立，经济新自由主义则通过与新保守主义结盟，而与政治新自由主义相对立。
政治新自由主义与新保守主义的二元对立在美国有典型的表现，在其他西方国家却有错综交叉和多元分化的特点。
在美国，政治新自由主义与民主党结盟，新保守主义与共和党结盟。
关键词：政治新自由主义；经济新自由主义；新保守主义自从英国的埃德蒙·伯克（Edmund Burke，1729—1797）于1790年出版《法国革命反思》（Reflections on the Revolution in France）一书以来，西方资本主义社会分裂为自由主义和保守主义两大政治意识形态阵营。
经过二百多年的发展和演变，自由主义理念不断扩展，从政治和经济领域进入社会、文化和生活领域，但保守主义也没有丧失它的价值。
由此，在当代西方社会，出现了这两种意识形态既相互对立，又相互渗透的格局。
一方面，作为政治自由主义的传承，新自由主义（new liberalism）或现代自由主义（modern liberalism）坚持政治、文化和个人生活的多元化和自由主义原则，同时，支持限制自由竞争的福利国家经济政策；另一方面，作为政治保守主义的传承，欧洲自由保守主义（liberal conservatism）和美国新保守主义（neoconservatism）坚持政治、文化和个人生活方面的保守主义原则，但在经济上，却倾向古典自由主义的自由竞争原则，倡导经济领域的新自由主义（neoliberalism）。
英语哲学概念探讨30题1. Which of the following words represents the concept of "ethics" in English?A. MoralityB. LogicC. AestheticsD. Epistemology答案：A。
本题考查哲学概念“伦理学”在英语中的表述。
选项B“Logic”指逻辑；选项C“Aesthetics”指美学；选项D“Epistemology”指认识论。
只有选项A“Morality”与“ethics”意思相近，都表示伦理学。
2. The term "metaphysics" is closest in meaning to:A. PhysicsB. PhilosophyC. OntologyD. Epistemology答案：C。
本题考查“形而上学”这一哲学概念的相关表述。
选项A“Physics”是物理学；选项B“Philosophy”是哲学的统称；选项D“Epistemology”是认识论。
“Ontology”与“metaphysics”在意义上最为接近，都涉及对存在本质的研究。
3. Which of the following is related to the concept of "rationalism" in English?A. EmpiricismB. IdealismC. MaterialismD. Skepticism答案：B。
本题考查“理性主义”的相关表述。
选项A“Empiricism”是经验主义；选项C“Materialism”是唯物主义；选项D“Skepticism”是怀疑论。
“Idealism”与“rationalism”有一定关联，都强调理性和理念的作用。
4. The word "phenomenology" is mainly concerned with:A. Appearances and experiencesB. Inner thoughts and feelingsC. Social structures and systemsD. Historical events and processes答案：A。
两种“概念”,还是两种“自由”——解读伯林的Two
Concepts of Liberty
李小科
【期刊名称】《江苏行政学院学报》
【年(卷),期】2011()1
【摘要】伯林首先是一个思想史家。
解读他在《两种自由概念》中所使用的"消极自由"和"积极自由",主要是用以概括和考察以往政治思想史两种不同类型的思想家们对自由的理解,而不是为了直接阐发他本人对自由的理解。
"消极自由"和"积极自由"这两个字眼,在伯林这里分别代表的是对自由做不同理解的两个概念,而不是说有两种"自由",或自由有"两种"。
对于伯林来说,"消极自由"和"积极自由"是"一种"自由的两个方面。
【总页数】6页(P20-25)
【关键词】伯林;消极自由;积极自由;肯定式的自由;否定式的自由
【作者】李小科
【作者单位】中共中央党校哲学教研部
【正文语种】中文
【中图分类】B561.6
【相关文献】
1.消极自由与积极自由——读伯林之《两种自由的概念》 [J], 陈晓芸
2.消极自由与积极自由辨析——对以赛亚·伯林"两种自由概念论"的分析与批评 [J], 李石
3.消极自由与积极自由——解读伯林的两种自由概念 [J], 胡婧
4.消极自由与积极自由——评伯林的《两种自由概念》 [J], 余宜斌
5.超越积极自由与消极自由——从伯林的两种自由概念说起 [J], 王宝磊
因版权原因，仅展示原文概要，查看原文内容请购买。
参考书目之一：“自由”
1、[英]约翰〃格雷：《自由主义》，吉林人民出版社，2005年
2、[英]以塞亚〃伯林：“两种自由概念”载于：
《自由四论》，（台湾）联经出版社，1986年
或《自由论》，译林出版社，2003年
3、[美]J.范伯格：《自由、权利和社会正义——现代社会哲学》，
贵州人民出版社，1998年
4、[英]密尔：《论自由》，商务印书馆，1996年
5、李强：《自由主义》，中国社会科学出版社，1998年
6、顾肃：《自由主义基本理念》，中央编译出版社，2003年
理论框架提示：
1、自由的分类与种类
2、自由在现代生活中的意义
3、自由与道
德的关系4、自由实现的条件
附：讨论要求
1、首先需要把问题的核心对象进行介绍，如自由，首先需要介绍有关自由的基础理论，这是这些参考书的主要作用；然后以此为框架再分析自己对相关问题（政策）的观点。
2、发言重点注意理论的清晰、对现实案例解释的恰当性；不一定局限于上述理论问题提示，但不要做成考试答题，对问题一一作答。
3、讨论稿不少于8000字，发言时间不少于20分钟。
4、发言最后成稿须言之有据，符合学术规范，须注明观点出处与参考文献。
自由论文：两种自由概念【中文摘要】以赛亚·伯林是二十世纪的自由主义多元价值理论的代表人物,其对两种自由自由概念的阐释,既是对西方传统自由理论的批判和继承,又是对多元论价值观的整合与创新。
他的两种自由理论使自由主义进入多元发展新时代。
积极自由和消极自由概念是伯林自由论的灵魂和基础。
本文以两种自由概念的厘清和全面梳理为中心及线索,在说明两种自由关系的同时对价值多元自由理论予以全景展示。
本文系统深入地阐释了两种自由概念的内涵,差异,及内在关系,说明了如何保持两种自由之间的动态平衡;并进一步指出伯林自由论的困境及出路;最后,本文对伯林自由论的时代意义做了简要评析。
【英文摘要】Isaiah Berlin,the representive of Liberalism and Value Pluralism in the twentieth century, explained the two concepts of liberty ,which is not only critic and consequent to the traditional western theory of liberty but also intergration and innovative to the Value Pluralism. His theory of the two concepts of Liberty opened up the pluralistic development era of the Liberalism.Isaiah Berlin based his Liberty theory on his concepts of Positive Liberty and Negative Liberty. The author took the two concepts of Liberty as the center and clues, and clarified the Liberty theory of the Value Pluralism comprehensively. The author illustrated the content,disparity and the inner relationship of the two concepts of Liberty in a deep and systemic way, and demonstrated how to keep the dynamic balance of the two liberty, and explored the dilemma and solution of Isaiah Berlin’s Liberty theory in further. Finally, the significance of Isaiah Berlin’s Liberty theory is analyzed in the last part.【备注】索购全文在线加好友：1.3.9.9.3.8848同时提供论文写作一对一指导和论文发表委托服务【关键词】自由理性一元论价值多元论积极自由消极自由【英文关键词】Liberty Reason monism Value Pluralism Positive liberty Negative liberty 【目录】两种自由概念中文摘要3-4Abstract4绪论7-9第一章伯林自由理论形成的时代背景及思想渊源9-25第一节伯林自由理论形成的时代背景9-12一、伯林生活的特殊时代对其自由观形成的影响10-11二、伯林自身成长经历对其自由观产生的影响11-12第二节伯林自由理论的思想渊源12-17一、古希腊自由观13二、近代的自由理论13-16三、马克思主义的自由观16-17第三节伯林对多元论价值观的整合与创新17-25一、伯林对理性一元论的评判17-21二、伯林对多元论价值观的整合和创新21-25第二章伯林自由理论的主要内容：两种自由概念25-37第一节伯林消极自由思想的基本涵义及其内在独特性26-30一、伯林消极自由的基本内涵26-29二、伯林消极自由的内在独特性29-30第二节伯林积极自由思想的基本含义及其内在堕落的必然性30-37一、伯林积极自由的基本涵义30-33二、积极自由的内在堕落的必然33-37第三章两种自由之间的关系37-41第一节消极自由与积极自由之间的矛盾与差异37-38第二节积极自由与消极自由之间的动态平衡38-41一、两种自由之间要保持动态平衡的必要性38-39二、两种自由如何保持动态平衡39-41第四章对伯林自由理论的评价41-45第一节伯林自由理论的内在困境及其出路41-43一、伯林自由理论的内在困境41-43二、伯林自由理论的出路43第二节伯林自由理论的时代意义43-45结语45-46参考文献46-47致谢47。
自由与规则二元思辨作文英文回答：Freedom and rules are two concepts that often seem to be in conflict with each other. On one hand, freedom represents the ability to make choices, express oneself, and live without restrictions. On the other hand, rules are put in place to maintain order, ensure fairness, and protect the well-being of individuals and society as a whole.In my opinion, both freedom and rules are necessary in our lives. Without freedom, we would feel oppressed and restricted in our actions and thoughts. We would not be able to pursue our passions, express our opinions, or make decisions that align with our values. However, without rules, chaos would ensue. There would be no structure or order, and people would be free to do whatever they please, regardless of the consequences.To illustrate this point, let's consider the example of driving. In most countries, there are rules and regulations in place to ensure the safety of drivers and pedestrians on the road. These rules include speed limits, traffic signals, and right-of-way guidelines. While some may argue thatthese rules limit our freedom to drive as fast as we wantor take shortcuts, they are necessary to prevent accidents and maintain order on the roads. Without these rules,driving would be a dangerous and chaotic experience.However, it is also important to strike a balance between freedom and rules. Too many rules can stifle creativity, innovation, and personal growth. For example,if a school has strict rules on how students should dress, speak, and behave, it may hinder their ability to express themselves and develop their individuality. On the other hand, too much freedom can lead to anarchy and disregardfor the well-being of others.In conclusion, freedom and rules are not mutually exclusive. They are both essential for a functioning society. We need freedom to live authentic lives and pursueour goals, but we also need rules to maintain order,protect individuals, and ensure fairness. Striking abalance between the two is crucial for a harmonious and thriving society.中文回答：自由与规则是两个常常似乎相互冲突的概念。
两种自由概念伯林如果人们未曾争议过有关“人生目的”的问题，如果我们的老祖宗至今安居无扰于伊甸园中，那么，很难想象这个“齐契利社会与政治理论讲座”(the Chichele Chairof Social and PoticalTheory)要研究些什么。
因为社会与政治理论的研究，本就发源于人类意见之分歧，而且因为意见分歧，相关的研究才会不断滋生繁茂。
有人可能会以下面这个理由，来质疑我的说法：即使在一个由圣徒般的无政府主义者组成、对终极目的不可能有冲突看法的社会里，政治问题，诸如宪法或立法的问题，也仍然会出现。
但是，这项反对意见的理由是错误的。
人们对于“目的”的看法，一旦趋于一致，剩下来的，就是“手段”的问题，而手段问题只是技术性（technical）的问题，不是政治性的问题。
换句话说，这些问题可以由专家或机器来解决，就像是工程师或医生之间的争论一样。
这就是何以若有人信仰某种巨大无比、旋乾转坤的现象，例如“理性的最后胜利”、或“无产阶级革命的最后胜利”等，便也必然相信一切政治或道德问题，都可以转变为技术上的问题。
圣西蒙的名言：“用‘管理事情’来代替‘治理人们’”，以及马克思预言：国家的凋萎，就是真正人类历史的开始，所指的都是这个意思。
有人认为，这种有关社会和谐的完美状态之类的玄想，只是一种无聊的幻想，于是称之为“乌托邦式”的看法。
不过，若有一个从火星来的访客，参观了当今英国或美国的任何大学之后，如果产生一种印象，认为虽仍有专业哲学家，严肃地关注于根本的政治问题，但一般大学成员还是生活在很像这种纯真而具田园风味的美好状态中，则他之所以具有这种印象，也许倒是可以谅解的。
然而，这种情况不但令人惊讶，而且相当危险。
令人惊讶，因为在近代历史上，也许从不曾有这么多人——包括东方人和西方人——的观念以及生命，被狂热的社会与政治学说所改变，有时甚至被猛烈翻搅。
相当危险，因为如果应该注意观念的人，也就是说，训练有素、能对观念作批判性思考的人，忽视观念的话，观念有时候就会形成一股不受拘制的动力，对广大人群产生无可抗拒的影响力，这些力量会变得极为暴烈，不是理性批判所能左右。
论自由英文版Freedom is a fundamental concept that has played a significant role in shaping our modern society. It encompasses the idea of being able to act, think, and speak without restraint or interference. The concept of freedom has been debated by philosophers, scholars, and activists throughout history, as it touches upon various aspects of human life. One essential aspect of freedom is political freedom, which refers to the ability of individuals to participate in the political process and make decisions that impact their lives. This includes the right to vote, the freedom of speech, and the right to peacefully assemble. Political freedom allows citizens to have a say in the governance of their country and ensures that their voices are heard.Another crucial component of freedom is economic freedom, which refers to the ability of individuals to pursue economic activities without undue government intervention. It includes the freedom to choose one's occupation, own property, and engage in trade. Economic freedom promotes innovation, entrepreneurship, and competition, leading to economic growth and improved living standards.Furthermore, freedom also encompasses personal freedom,which refers to the autonomy and liberty of individuals to make choices about their personal lives. This includes the freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and the right to privacy. Personal freedom ensures that individuals can express themselves, practice their beliefs, and live according to their own values without fear of oppression or discrimination.However, it is important to note that freedom does not mean an absence of responsibility. With freedom comes the duty to exercise it responsibly and respect the rights and freedoms of others. The principle of freedom should be balanced with the need for social order and the general welfare of society.In conclusion, freedom is a fundamental concept that encompasses political, economic, and personal aspects of human life. It is a cornerstone of modern society, enabling individuals to participate in the decision-making process, pursue economic opportunities, and live according to their own values. However, freedom also comes with responsibility and the need to respect the rights of others. It is a delicate balance that requires continuous dialogue, debate, and vigilance to ensure that freedom is upheld and protected for all.。
解释的冲突与承认的政治查尔斯.泰勒政治哲学述要作者：应奇作者前言：这篇报道性的文字是1998年暑期写毕的。
原是我为台湾一家出版公司所撰的《社群主义》一书的第五章和结语部分，后经整理发表于《学人》第十五辑（最后一辑）。
无论前书还是后文都少有人知。
现借思与文网站重新公之于众，主要目的是为泰勒哲学真正的爱好者提供某些思想材料（这也是本文的主要工作），同时也为了纪念五年前那个暑假挥汗疾书的难忘场景，那种巨大的热情和心神以赴的投入感真是久违了。
（2003.12.13夜记）在多伦多大学马西学院（Massey College）和加拿大广播公司（Canadia Broadcasting Corporation）合办的"马西讲座"（Massey Lectures）上发表的名为《现代性的隐忧》（The Malaise of Modernity）的演讲中，查尔斯·泰勒形象地把现代社会刻划为碎片化（fragmentatian）的社会。
在这部由哈佛大学出版社出版时更名为《本真性伦理学》（The Ethics of Authenticity）的通俗性作品中，泰勒以他对自我和语言的一贯性思考为基础，入木三分地揭露了现代性的三种隐忧。
第一种隐忧是个人主义。
在这里，泰勒注意到人们在两种意义上使用"个人主义"一词，即作为一种道德理想的个人主义和作为非道德现象的利己主义意义上使用的个人主义。
泰勒在给予前一种意义上的个人主义以积极评价（挑战旧的等级制度，促进新的政治形式和经济模式）的同时，指出后一种个人主义实质是当赋予我们的生活世界以意义的"传统的视界"（traditional horizon）消失后的一种衰退现象。
[1] 特别是弥漫于现代社会的个人主义，更多地表现为一种可以分别称为政治原子主义、自恋主义文化、道德主观主义和相对主义的无所依归的消极现象。
"人们失去了宽广的目标，因为他们只关注他们的个人生活。
READING1‘T wo C on ce pts o f Libe rty’I s aiah Be rl i nI s aiah Be r li n’s e ss a y‘T wo C on ce pts o f Libe rty’*i s on e o f t he m ostim port a nt p iece s o f post-w a r po li t ical p hil osop h y.I t w a s or igi n all y gi v e na s a lec tur e i n O x f or d i n1958a n d ha s bee n m u ch di s c uss ed s i n ce t he n.I nt hi s e xtr ac t f ro m t he lec tur e Be r li n ide nt ifie s t he two diffe r e nt c on ce ptso f f r eed o m–n ega t i v e a n d pos i t i v e–w hich prov ide t he f r ame wor k f or hi sw ide-r a n gi n g di s c uss i on.Nega t i v e f r eed o m i s,rou ghl y,a ma tt e r o f w hichd oors lie op e n to you,i t i s c on ce rn ed e x cl us i v el y w i t h opportun i t ie s;pos i t i v e f r eed o m i s a qu e st i on o f w he t he r or not you ca n g o t h rou gh t hed oors,w he t he r you a r e ma st e r of your life.Be r li n po i nts out t ha thi stor icall y t he c on ce pt o f pos i t i v e f r eed o m ha s bee n us ed to c ontro l a n dr e pr e ss i n di v id u al s i n t he n ame o f libe rty.IT o c o e r ce a m a n i s to de pr i v e hi m o f f r eed om–f r eed om f rom w ha t?A lmoste v e ry mor a l i st i n h um a n hi story ha s pr ai s edf r eed om.Like ha pp i n e ss a n dg oo d n e ss,l ike n a tur e a n d r ea l i ty,t he m ea n i n g o f t hi s t e rm i s so porous t ha tt he r e i s l i ttl e i nt e rpr e t a t i on t ha t i t s ee ms ab l e to r e s i st.I d o not propos e todi s c uss ei t he r t he hi story or t he mor e t ha n two h un d r ed s e ns e s o f t hi s prot ea nwor d,r ec or ded b y hi stor ia ns o f idea s.I propos e to e x a m i n e no mor e t ha n twoo f t he s e s e ns e s–b ut t h os e ce ntr a l on e s,w i t h a g r ea t dea l o f h um a n hi storybehi n d t he m,a n d,I da r e s a y,st i ll to c om e.The fi rst o f t he s e pol i t ica l s e ns e s o ff r eed om or l ibe rty(I s ha ll us e b ot h wor d s to m ea n t he s a m e),w hich(f ollow i n gmu ch pr ecede nt)I s ha ll ca ll t he‘n ega t i v e’s e ns e,i s i nvolv ed i n t he a nsw e r to t hequ e st i on‘Wha t i s t he a r ea w i t hi n w hich t he su bjec t–a p e rson or g roup o fp e rsons–i s or s h oul d be l ef t to d o or be w ha t he i s ab l e to d o or be,w i t h outi nt e r fe r e n ce b y ot he r p e rsons?’The s ec on d,w hich I s ha ll ca ll t he pos i t i v es e ns e,i s i nvolv ed i n t he a nsw e r to t he qu e st i on‘Wha t,or w h o,i s t he sour ce o fc ontrol or i nt e r fe r e n ce,t ha t ca n de t e rm i n e som e on e tod o,or be,one t hi n gr a t he r t ha n a not he r?’The two qu e st i ons a r e c l ea rly diffe r e nt,e v e n t h ou gh t hea nsw e rs to t he m m a y ov e rl a p.155ARGUMENTS FOR FREEDOMThe not i on o f‘n ega t i v e’f r eed omI a m norm a lly s aid to be f r ee to t he deg r ee to w hich no h um a n bei n g i nt e r fe r e sw i t h my ac t i v i ty.P ol i t ica l l ibe rty i n t hi s s e ns e i s s i mply t he a r ea w i t hi n w hich am a n ca n ac t uno b stru c t ed b y ot he rs.If I a m pr e v e nt ed b y ot he r p e rsons f romd o i n g w ha t I c oul d ot he rw i s e d o,I a m to t ha t deg r ee unf r ee;a n d if t hi s a r ea i sc ontr ac t ed b y ot he r m e n be yon d a ce rt ai n m i n i mum,I ca n be de s c r ibed a sbei n g c o e r ced,or,i t m a y be,e nsl a v ed.C o e r ci on i s not,h ow e v e r,a t e rm t ha tc ov e rs e v e ry f orm o f i n abi l i ty.If I s a y t ha t I a m un ab l e to j ump mor e t ha n t e nfee t i n t he ai r,or ca nnot r ead beca us e I a m b l i n d,or ca nnot un de rst a n d t heda r ke r p age s o f Hege l,i t woul d be ecce ntr ic to s a y t ha t I a m to t ha t deg r eee nsl a v ed or c o e r ced.C o e r ci on i mpl ie s t he de l ibe r a t e i nt e r fe r e n ce of ot he rh um a n bei n g s w i t hi n t he a r ea i n w hich I c oul d ot he rw i s e ac t.Y ou l ack pol i t ica ll ibe rty or f r eed om only if you a r e pr e v e nt ed f rom a tt ai n i n g a g o a l b y h um a nbei n g s.1Me r e i n ca p aci ty to a tt ai n a g o a l i s not l ack o f pol i t ica l f r eed om.2Thi si s b rou gh t out b y t he us e o f su ch mo de rn e xpr e ss i ons a s‘ec onom ic f r eed om’a n d i ts c ount e rp a rt,‘ec onom ic sl a v e ry’.I t i s a r g u ed,v e ry pl a us ib ly,t ha t if am a n i s too poor to aff or d som e t hi n g on w hich t he r e i s no l ega l ba n–a lo af o fb r ead,a j ourn e y roun d t he worl d,r ec ours e to t he l a w c ourts–he i s a s l i ttl e f r eeto ha v e i t a s he woul d be if i t w e r e f or bidde n hi m b y La w.If my pov e rty w e r e aki n d o f di s ea s e,w hich pr e v e nt ed m e f rom b uy i n g b r ead or p a y i n g f or t hej ourn e y roun d t he worl d,or ge tt i n g my ca s e hea r d,a s l a m e n e ss pr e v e nts m ef rom runn i n g,t hi s i n abi l i ty woul d not n a tur a lly be de s c r ibed a s a l ack o ff r eed om,l ea st o f a ll pol i t ica l f r eed om.I t i s only beca us e I be l ie v e t ha t myi n abi l i ty to ge t a gi v e n t hi n g i s d u e to t he fac t t ha t ot he r h um a n bei n g s ha v em ade a rr a n ge m e nts w he r eb y I a m,w he r ea s ot he rs a r e not,pr e v e nt ed f romha v i n g e nou gh mon e y w i t h w hich to p a y f or i t,t ha t I t hi n k mys e l f a v ic t i m o fc o e r ci on or sl a v e ry.I n ot he r word s,t hi s use of t he t e rm de p e n d s on a p a rt ic ul a rso cia l a n d ec onom ic t he ory ab out t he ca us e s o f my pov e rty or w eak n e ss.If myl ack o f m a t e r ia l m ea ns i s d u e to my l ack o f m e nt a l or p h ys ica l ca p aci ty,t he n Ibegi n to sp eak o f bei n g de pr i v ed o f f r eed om(a n d not s i mply o f pov e rty)only ifI acce pt t he t he ory.3If,i n addi t i on,I be l ie v e t ha t I a m bei n g ke pt i n w a nt b y asp ecific a rr a n ge m e nt w hich I c ons ide r un j ust or un fai r,I sp eak o f ec onom icsl a v e ry or oppr e ss i on.‘The n a tur e o f t hi n g s d o e s not m adde n us,only i ll w i lld oe s’,s aid R ouss ea u.The c r i t e r i on of oppr e ss i on i s t he p a rt t ha t I be l ie v e to bepl a y ed b y ot he r h um a n bei n g s,di r ec tly or i n di r ec tly,w i t h or w i t h out t hei nt e nt i on o f d o i n g so,i n f rustr a t i n g my w i s he s.B y bei n g f r ee i n t hi s s e ns e Im ea n not bei n g i nt e r fe r ed w i t h b y ot he rs.The w ide r t he a r ea o f non-i nt e r fe r e n ce t he w ide r my f r eed om.Thi s i s w ha t t he c l a ss ica l E n g l i s h pol i t ica l p hi losop he rs m ea nt w he n t he yus ed t hi s wor d.4The y di s ag r eed ab out h ow w ide t he a r ea c oul d or s h oul d be. 156READING1‘TWO CONCEPTS OF LIBERTY’The y suppos ed t ha t i t c oul d not,a s t hi n g s w e r e,be unl i m i t ed,beca us e if i tw e r e,i t woul d e nt ai l a st a t e i n w hich a ll m e n c oul d b oun d l e ssly i nt e r fe r e w i t ha ll ot he r m e n;a n d t hi s ki n d o f‘n a tur a l’f r eed om woul d l ead to so cia l cha os i nw hich m e n’s m i n i mum n eed s woul d not be s a t i s fied;or e ls e t he l ibe rt ie s o f t hew eak woul d be suppr e ss ed b y t he stron g.Beca us e t he y p e r cei v ed t ha t h um a npurpos e s a n d ac t i v i t ie s d o not a utom a t ica lly ha rmon i z e w i t h on e a not he r;a n d,beca us e(w ha t e v e r t hei r o fficia l d o c tr i n e s)t he y put high v a lu e on ot he r g o a ls,su ch a s j ust ice,or ha pp i n e ss,or c ultur e,or s ec ur i ty,or v a ry i n g deg r ee s o fe qu a l i ty,t he y w e r e pr e p a r ed to c urt ai lf r eed om i n t he i nt e r e sts o f ot he r v a lu e sa n d,i n deed,o f f r eed om i ts e l f.F or,w i t h out t hi s,i t w a s i mposs ib l e toc r ea t e t heki n d o f a sso cia t i on t ha t t he y t h ou gh t de s i r ab l e.C ons e qu e ntly,i t i s a ssum ed b yt he s e t hi n ke rs t ha t t he a r ea o f m e n’s f r ee ac t i on must be l i m i t ed b y l a w.B ute qu a lly i t i s a ssum ed,e sp ecia lly b y su ch l ibe rt a r ia ns a s L o cke a n d Mi ll i nE n g l a n d,a n d C onst a nt a n d T o c qu e v i ll e i nF r a n ce,t ha t t he r e ou gh t to e x i st ace rt ai n m i n i mum a r ea o f p e rson a l f r eed om w hich must on no acc ount bev i ol a t ed;f or if i t i s ov e rst e pp ed,t he i n di v id u a l w i ll fi n d hi ms e l f i n a n a r ea toon a rrow f or e v e n t ha t m i n i mum de v e lopm e nt o f hi s n a tur a l fac ult ie s w hicha lon e m ake s i t poss ib l e to pursu e,a n d e v e n toc on cei v e,t he v a r i ous e nd s w hichm e n h ol d g oo d or r igh t or s ac r ed.I t f ollows t ha t a f ront ie r must be d r a wnbe tw ee n t he a r ea o f pr i v a t e l ife a n d t ha t o f pu b l ic a ut h or i ty.Whe r e i t i s to bed r a wn i s a m a tte r of a rg um e nt,i n deed o f hagg l i n g.Me n a r e l a r ge lyi nt e r de p e n de nt,a n d no m a n’s ac t i v i ty i s so c ompl e t e ly pr i v a t e a s n e v e r too b stru c t t he l i v e s o f ot he rs i n a ny w a y.‘F r eed om f or t he p ike i s dea t h f or t hem i nnows’;t he l ibe rty o f som e must de p e n d on t he r e str ai nt o f ot he rs.5S t i ll,apr ac t ica l c omprom i s e ha s to be f oun d.Phi losop he rs w i t h a n opt i m i st ic v ie w o f h um a n n a tur e,a n d a be l ief i n t heposs ibi l i ty o f ha rmon i z i n g h um a n i nt e r e st,su ch a s L o cke or Ada m S m i t h a n d,i n som e moo d s,Mi ll,be l ie v ed t ha t so cia l ha rmony a n d pro g r e ss w e r ec omp a t ib l e w i t h r e s e rv i n g a l a r ge a r ea f or pr i v a t e l ife ov e r w hich n ei t he r t hest a t e nor a ny ot he r a ut h or i ty must be a llow ed to tr e sp a ss.H o bbe s,a n d t h os ew h o ag r eed w i t h hi m,e sp ecia lly c ons e rv a t i v e or r eac t i on a ry t hi n ke rs,a r g u edt ha t if m e n w e r e to be pr e v e nt ed f rom de stroy i n g on e a not he r,a n d m aki n gso cia l l ife a j un g l e or a w i l de rn e ss,g r ea t e r s afeg u a r d s must be i nst i tut ed tokee p t he m i n t hei r pl ace s,a n d w i s hed c orr e spon di n g ly to i n c r ea s e t he a r ea o fce ntr a l i z ed c ontrol,a n d dec r ea s e t ha t o f t he i n di v id u a l.B ut b ot h s ide s ag r eedt ha t som e port i on o f h um a n e x i st e n ce must r e m ai n i n de p e n de nt o f t he sp he r eo f so cia l c ontrol.T o i nv ade t ha t pr e s e rv e,h ow e v e r sm a ll,woul d be de spot i sm.The most e loqu e nt o f a ll defe n de rs o ff r eed om a n d pr i v ac y,Be n ja m i n C onst a nt,w h o had not f or g ott e n t he Jac o bi n dic t a tors hi p,dec l a r ed t ha t a t t he v e ry l ea stt he l ibe rty o f r e l igi on,op i n i on,e xpr e ss i on,prop e rty,must be g u a r a nt eed157ARGUMENTS FOR FREEDOMagai nst a r bi tr a ry i nv a s i on.Jeffe rson,B ur ke,Pai n e,Mi ll,c omp i l ed diffe r e ntca t a lo g u e s o f i n di v id u a l l ibe rt ie s,b ut t he a r g um e nt f or kee p i n g a ut h or i ty a tba y i s a lw a ys su b st a nt ia lly t he s a m e.We must pr e s e rv e a m i n i mum a r ea o fp e rson a l f r eed om if w e a r e not to‘deg r ade or de ny our n a tur e’.We ca nnotr e m ai n ab solut e ly f r ee,a n d must gi v e up som e o f our l ibe rty to pr e s e rv e t her e st.B ut tot a l s e l f-surr e n de r i s s e l f-defea t i n g.Wha t t he n must t he m i n i mumbe?Tha t w hich a m a n ca nnot gi v e up w i t h out o ffe n di n g agai nst t he e ss e n ce o fhi s h um a n n a tur e.Wha t i s t hi s e ss e n ce?Wha t a r e t he st a n da r d s w hich i te nt ai ls?Thi s ha s bee n,a n d p e r ha ps a lw a ys w i ll be,a m a tt e r of i n fi n i t e deba t e.B ut w ha t e v e r t he pr i n ci pl e i n t e rms o f w hich t he a r ea o f non-i nt e r fe r e n ce i s tobe d r a wn,w he t he r i t i s t ha t o f n a tur a l l a w or n a tur a l r igh ts,or o f ut i l i ty or t hepronoun ce m e nts o f a ca t eg or ica l i mp e r a t i v e,or t he s a n c t i ty o f t he so cia lc ontr ac t,or a ny ot he r c on ce pt w i t h w hich m e n ha v e sou gh t to c l a r if y a n dj ust if y t hei r c onv ic t i ons,l ibe rty i n t hi s s e ns e m ea ns l ibe rty f rom:ab s e n ce o fi nt e r fe r e n ce be yon d t he s hif t i n g,b ut a lw a ys r ec o g n i z ab l e,f ront ie r.‘The onlyf r eed om w hich de s e rv e s t he n a m e i s t ha t o f pursu i ng our own g oo d i n our ownw a y’,s aid t he most ce l eb r a t ed o f i ts cha mp i ons.If t hi s i s so,i s c ompuls i on e v e rj ust ified?Mi ll had no d ou b t t ha t i t w a s.Si n ce j ust ice de m a n d s t ha t a lli n di v id u a ls be e nt i tl ed to a m i n i mum o f f r eed om,a ll ot he r i n di v id u a ls w e r e o fn ece ss i ty to be r e str ai n ed,if n eed be b y f or ce,f rom de pr i v i n g a nyon e o f i t.I n deed,t he w h ol e f un c t i on o f l a w w a s t he pr e v e nt i on o f j ust su ch c oll i s i ons:t hest a t e w a s r ed u ced to w ha t La ss a ll e c ont e mptuously de s c r ibed a s t he f un c t i onso f a n igh t-w a t ch m a n or tr affic pol ice m a n.Wha t m ade t he prot ec t i on o f i n di v id u a l l ibe rty so s ac r ed to Mi ll?I n hi sfa mous e ss a y he dec l a r e s t ha t unl e ss m e n a r e l ef t to l i v e a s t he y w i s h‘i n t hep a t h w hich m e r e ly c on ce rns t he ms e lv e s’,ci v i l i z a t i on ca nnot ad v a n ce;t hetrut h w i ll not,f or l ack o f a f r ee m a r ke t i n idea s,c om e to l igh t;t he r e w i ll be nos c op e f or spont a n ei ty,or igi n a l i ty,ge n i us,f or m e nt a l e n e r g y,f or mor a l c our age.S o cie ty w i ll be c rus hed b y t he w eigh t o f‘c oll ec t i v e m edi o c r i ty’.Wha t e v e r i sr ich a n d di v e rs ified w i ll be c rus hed b y t he w eigh t o f c ustom,b y m e n’s c onst a ntt e n de n c y to c on f orm i ty,w hich b r eed s only‘w i t he r ed ca p aci t ie s’,‘p i n ched a n dhideb oun d’,‘c r a mp ed a n d w a rp ed’h um a n bei n g s.‘Paga n s e l f-a ss e rt i on i s a swort h y a s Ch r i st ia n s e l f-de n ia l.’‘A ll t he e rrors w hich a m a n i s l ike ly to c omm i tagai nst ad v ice a n d w a rn i n g a r e fa r outw eighed b y t he e v i l o f a llow i n g ot he rsto c onstr ai n hi m to w ha t t he y dee m i s g oo d.’The defe n ce o f l ibe rty c ons i sts i nt he‘n ega t i v e’g o a l o f w a r di n g o ff i nt e r fe r e n ce.T o t h r ea t e n a m a n w i t hp e rs ec ut i on unl e ss he su b m i ts to a l ife i n w hich he e x e r ci s e s no ch o ice s o f hi sg o a ls;to b lo ck bef or e hi m e v e ry d oor b ut on e,no m a tt e r h ow no b l e t heprosp ec t upon w hich i t op e ns,or h ow be n e vol e nt t he mot i v e s o f t h os e w h oa rr a n ge t hi s,i s to s i n agai nst t he trut h t ha t he i s a m a n,a bei n g w i t h a l ife o f hi s 158READING1‘TWO CONCEPTS OF LIBERTY’own to l i v e.Thi s i s l ibe rty a s i t ha s bee n c on cei v ed b y l ibe r a ls i n t he mo de rnworl d f rom t he da ys o f E r a smus(som e woul d s a y o f Occa m)to our own.E v e rypl ea f or ci v i l l ibe rt ie s a n d i n di v id u a l r igh ts,e v e ry prot e st agai nst e xplo i t a t i ona n d h um i l ia t i on,agai nst t he e n c ro ach m e nt o f pub l ic a ut h or i ty,or t he m a ssh ypnos i s o f c ustom or or ga n i z ed prop aga n da,spr i n g s f rom t hi s i n di v id u a l-i st ic,a n d mu ch di sput ed,c on ce pt i on o f m a n.Th r ee fac ts ab out t hi s pos i t i on m a y be not ed.I n t he fi rst pl ace Mi ll c on f us e stwo di st i n c t not i ons.O n e i s t ha t a ll c o e r ci on i s,i n so fa r a s i t f rustr a t e s h um a nde s i r e s,bad a s su ch,a lt h ou gh i t m a y ha v e to be a ppl ied to pr e v e nt ot he r,g r ea t e r e v i ls;w hi l e non-i nt e r fe r e n ce,w hich i s t he oppos i t e o f c o e r ci on,i s g oo da s su ch,a lt h ou gh i t i s not t he only g oo d.Thi s i s t he‘n ega t i v e’c on ce pt i on o fl ibe rty i n i ts c l a ss ica l f orm.The ot he r i s t ha t m e n s h oul d s eek to di s c ov e r t hetrut h,or to de v e lop a ce rt ai n typ e o f cha r ac t e r o f w hich Mi ll a pprov ed–fea rl e ss,or igi n a l,i m agi n a t i v e,i n de p e n de nt,non-c on f orm i n g to t he po i nt o fecce ntr ici ty,a n d so on–a n d t ha t trut h ca n be f oun d,a n d su ch cha r ac t e r ca n beb r ed,only i nc on di t i ons o f f r eed om.B ot h t he s e a r e l ibe r a l v ie ws,b ut t he y a r enot ide nt ica l,a n d t he c onn ec t i on be tw ee n t he m i s,a t be st,e mp i r ica l.N o on ewoul d a r g u e t ha t trut h or f r eed om o f s e l f-e xpr e ss i on c oul d f lour i s h w he r ed o g m a c rus he s a ll t h ou gh t.B ut t he e v ide n ce of hi story t e n d s to s h ow(a s,i n deed,w a s a r g u ed b y Ja m e s S t e p he n i n hi s f orm idab l e a tt ack on Mi ll i n hi sLibe rty,E qu a l i ty,F r a t e rn i ty)t ha t i nt eg r i ty,lov e o f trut h a n d fie ry i n di v id u-a l i sm g row a t l ea st a s o f t e n i n s e v e r e ly di s ci pl i n ed c ommun i t ie s a mon g,f ore x a mpl e,t he pur i t a n Ca lv i n i sts of Sc otl a n d or Ne w E ng l a n d,or un de r m i l i t a rydi s ci pl i n e,a s i n mor e tol e r a nt or i n diffe r e nt so cie t ie s;a n d if t hi s i s so acce pt ed,Mi ll’s a r g um e nt f or l ibe rty a s a n ece ss a ry c on di t i on f or t he g rowt h o f h um a nge n i us fa lls to t he g roun d.If hi s two g o a ls prov ed i n c omp a t ib l e,Mi ll woul d befaced w i t h a c ru e l di l e mm a,qu i t e a p a rt f rom t he f urt he r diffic ult ie s c r ea t ed b yt he i n c ons i st e n c y o f hi s d o c tr i n e s w i t h str ic t ut i l i t a r ia n i sm,e v e n i n hi s ownh um a n e v e rs i on o f i t.6I n t he s ec on d pl ace,t he d o c tr i n e i s c omp a r a t i v e ly mo de rn.The r e s ee ms tobe s ca r ce ly a ny di s c uss i on o f i n di v id u a l l ibe rty a s a c ons ci ous pol i t ica l idea l(a s oppos ed to i ts ac tu a l e x i st e n ce)i n t he a n cie nt worl d.C on d or ce t ha s a lr ead yr e m a r ked t ha t t he not i on o f i n di v id u a l r igh ts i s ab s e nt f rom t he l ega lc on ce pt i ons o f t he R om a ns a nd G r eek s;t hi s s ee ms to h ol d e qu a lly of t heJe w i s h,Chi n e s e,a n d a ll ot he r a n cie nt ci v i l i z a t i ons t ha t ha v e s i n ce c om e tol igh t.7The d om i n a t i on o f t hi s idea l ha s bee n t he e x ce pt i on r a t he r t ha n t herul e,e v e n i n t he r ece nt hi story o f t he We st.N or ha s l ibe rty i n t hi s s e ns e o f t e nf orm ed a r a lly i ng c ry f or t he g r ea t m a ss e s o f m a n ki n d.The de s i r e not to bei mp i n ged upon,to be l ef t to on e s e l f,ha s bee n a m a r k o f high ci v i l i z a t i on b ot hon t he p a rt o f i n di v id u a ls a n d c ommun i t ie s.The s e ns e o f pr i v ac y i ts e l f,o f t he159ARGUMENTS FOR FREEDOMa r ea o f p e rson a l r e l a t i ons hi ps a s som e t hi n g s ac r ed i n i ts own r igh t,de r i v e sf rom a c on ce pt i on o f f r eed om w hich,f or a ll i ts r e l igi ous roots,i s s ca r ce ly ol de r,i n i ts de v e lop ed st a t e,t ha n t he Re n ai ss a n ce or t he Ref orm a t i on.8Ye t i tsdec l i n e woul d m a r k t he dea t h o f a ci v i l i z a t i on,o f a n e nt i r e mor a l outloo k.The t hi r d cha r ac t e r i st ic o f t hi s not i on o f l ibe rty i s o f g r ea t e r i mport a n ce.I t i st ha t l ibe rty i n t hi s s e ns e i s not i n c omp a t ib l e w i t h som e ki n d s o f a uto c r ac y,or a ta ny r a t e w i t h t he ab s e n ce o f s e l f-g ov e rnm e nt.Libe rty i n t hi s s e ns e i spr i n ci p a lly c on ce rn ed w i t h t he a r ea o f c ontrol,not w i t h i ts sour ce.J ust a s ade mo c r ac y m a y,i n fac t,de pr i v e t he i n di v id u a l ci t i z e n o f a g r ea t m a ny l ibe rt ie sw hich he m igh t ha v e i n som e ot he r f orm o f so cie ty,so i t i s p e r fec tly c on cei v ab l et ha t a l ibe r a l-m i n ded de spot woul d a llow hi s su bjec ts a l a r ge m ea sur e o fp e rson a l f r eed om.The de spot w h o l ea v e s hi s su bjec ts a w ide a r ea o f l ibe rtym a y be un j ust,or e n c our age t he w i l de st i n e qu a l i t ie s,ca r e l i ttl e f or or de r,orv i rtu e,or k nowl edge,b ut prov ided he d o e s not c ur b t hei r l ibe rty,or a t l ea stc ur b s i t l e ss t ha n m a ny ot he r r egi m e s,he m ee ts w i t h Mi ll’s sp ecifica t i on.9F r eed om i n t hi s s e ns e i s not,a t a ny r a t e lo gica lly,c onn ec t ed w i t h de mo c r ac y ors e l f-g ov e rnm e nt.Se l f-g ov e rnm e nt m a y,on t he w h ol e,prov ide a be tt e rg u a r a nt ee o f t he pr e s e rv a t i on o f ci v i l l ibe rt ie s t ha n ot he r r egi m e s,a n d ha sbee n defe n ded a s su ch b y l ibe rt a r ia ns.B ut t he r e i s no n ece ss a ry c onn ec t i onbe tw ee n i n di v id u a l l ibe rty a n d de mo c r a t ic rul e.The a nsw e r to t he qu e st i on‘Wh o g ov e rns m e?’i s lo gica lly di st i n c t f rom t he qu e st i on‘H ow fa r d o e sg ov e rnm e nt i nt e r fe r e w i t h m e?’I t i s i n t hi s diffe r e n ce t ha t t he g r ea t c ontr a stbe tw ee n t he two c on ce pts o f n ega t i v e a n d pos i t i v e l ibe rty,i n t he e n d,c ons i sts.10F or t he‘pos i t i v e’s e ns e o f l ibe rty c om e s to l igh t if w e try to a nsw e rt he qu e st i on,not‘Wha t a m I f r ee to d o or be?’,b ut‘B y w h om a m I rul ed?’or‘Wh o i s to s a y w ha t I a m,a n d w ha t I a m not,to be or d o?’The c onn ec t i onbe tw ee n de mo c r ac y a n d i n di v id u a l l ibe rty i s a g oo d dea l mor e t e nuous t ha n i ts ee m ed to m a ny ad vo ca t e s o f b ot h.The de s i r e to be g ov e rn ed b y mys e l f,or a ta ny r a t e to p a rt ici p a t e i n t he pro ce ssb y w hich my l ife i s to be ac ontroll ed,m a ybe a s dee p a w i s h a s t ha t o f a f r ee a r ea f or ac t i on,a n d p e r ha ps hi stor ica llyol de r.B ut i t i s not a de s i r e f or t he s a m e t hi n g.S o diffe r e nt i s i t,i n deed,a s toha v e l ed i n t he e n d to t he g r ea t c l a s h o f ide olo gie s t ha t d om i n a t e s our worl d.F or i t i s t hi s–t he‘pos i t i v e’c on ce pt i on o f l ibe rty:not f r eed om f rom,b utf r eed om to–w hich t he adhe r e nts o f t he‘n ega t i v e’not i on r e pr e s e nt a s bei n g,a tt i m e s,no be tt e r t ha n a sp eci ous di s g u i s e f or b rut a l tyr a nny.The not i on o f pos i t i v e f r eed omThe‘pos i t i v e’s e ns e o f t he wor d‘l ibe rty’de r i v e s f rom t he w i s h on t he p a rt o f t hei n di v id u a l to be hi s own m a st e r.I w i s h my l ife a n d deci s i ons to de p e n d onmys e l f,not on e xt e rn a l f or ce s o f w ha t e v e r ki n d.I w i s h to be t he i nstrum e nt o f 160READING1‘TWO CONCEPTS OF LIBERTY’my own,not o f ot he r m e n’s ac ts o f w i ll.I w i s h to be a su bjec t,not a n o bjec t;to bemov ed b y r ea sons,b y c ons ci ous purpos e s w hich a r e my own,not b y ca us e sw hich affec t m e,a s i t w e r e,f rom outs ide.I w i s h to be som eb o d y,not no b o d y;ad oe r–decidi n g,not bei n g decidedf or,s e l f-di r ec t ed a n d not ac t ed upon b ye xt e rn a l n a tur e or b y ot he r m e n a s if I w e r e a t hi n g,or a n a n i m a l,or a sl a v ei n ca p ab l e o f pl a y i n g a h um a n rol e,t ha t i s,o f c on cei v i n g g o a ls a n d pol icie s o fmy own a n d r ea l i z i n g t he m.Thi s i s a t l ea st p a rt o f w ha t I m ea n w he n I s a y t ha tI a m r a t i on a l,a n d t ha t i t i s my r ea son t ha t di st i n g u i s he s m e a s a h um a n bei n gf rom t he r e st o f t he worl d.I w i s h,ab ov e a ll,to be c ons ci ous o f mys e l f a s at hi n ki n g,w i ll i n g,ac t i v e bei n g,bea r i n g r e spons ibi l i ty f or hi s ch o ice s a n d ab l eto e xpl ai n t he m b y r efe r e n ce to hi s own idea s a n d purpos e s.I fee l f r ee to t hedeg r ee t ha t I be l ie v e t hi s to be tru e,a n d e nsl a v ed to t he deg r ee t ha t I a m m adeto r ea l i z e t ha t i t i s not.The f r eed om w hich c ons i sts i n bei n g on e’s own m a st e r,a n d t he f r eed omw hich c ons i sts i n not bei n g pr e v e nt ed f rom ch oos i n g a s I d o b y ot he r m e n,m a y,on t he face o f i t,s ee m c on ce pts a t no g r ea t lo gica l di st a n ce f rom each ot he r–nomor e t ha n n ega t i v e a n d pos i t i v e w a ys o f s a y i n g t he s a m e t hi n g.Ye t t he‘pos i t i v e’a n d‘n ega t i v e’not i ons o f f r eed om hi stor ica lly de v e lop ed i n di v e r ge ntdi r ec t i ons not a lw a ys b y lo gica lly r e put ab l e st e ps,unt i l,i n t he e n d,t he y ca m ei nto di r ec t c on f l ic t w i t h each ot he r.O n e w a y o f m aki n g t hi s c l ea r i s i n t e rms o f t he i n de p e n de nt mom e ntumw hich t he,i n i t ia lly p e r ha ps qu i t e ha rml e ss,m e t a p h or o f s e l f-m a st e ryac qu i r ed.‘I a m my own m a st e r’;‘I a m sl a v e to no m a n’;b ut m a y I not(a s,f or i nst a n ce,T.H.G r ee n i s a lw a ys s a y i n g)be a sl a v e to n a tur e?O r to my own‘un b r id l ed’p a ss i ons?A r e t he s e not so m a ny sp ecie s o f t he ide nt ica l ge nus‘sl a v e’–som e pol i t ica l or l ega l,ot he rs mor a l or sp i r i tu a l?Ha v e not m e n had t hee xp e r ie n ce of l ibe r a t i ng t he ms e lv e s f rom sp i r i tu a l sl a v e ry,or sl a v e ry to n a tur e,a n d d o t he y not i n t he c ours e o f i t bec om e a w a r e,on t he on e ha n d,o f a s e l fw hich d om i n a t e s,a n d,on t he ot he r,o f som e t hi n g i n t he m w hich i s b rou gh t tohee l?Thi s d om i n a nt s e l f i s t he n v a r i ously ide nt ified w i t h r ea son,w i t h my‘highe r n a tur e’,w i t h t he s e l f w hich ca l c ul a t e s a n d ai ms a t w ha t w i ll s a t i s f y i t i nt he lon g run,w i t h my‘r ea l’,or‘idea l’,or‘a utonomous’s e l f,or w i t h my s e l f‘a ti ts be st’;w hich i s t he n c ontr a st ed w i t h i rr a t i on a l i mpuls e,un c ontroll ed de s i r e s,my‘low e r’n a tur e,t he pursu i t o f i mm edia t e pl ea sur e s,my‘e mp i r ica l’or‘he t e ronomous’s e l f,sw e pt b y e v e ry g ust o f de s i r e a n d p a ss i on,n eedi n g to ber igid ly di s ci pl i n ed if i t i s e v e r to r i s e to t he f ull heigh t o f i ts‘r ea l’n a tur e.P r e s e ntly t he two s e lv e s m a y be r e pr e s e nt ed a s di v ided b y a n e v e n l a r ge r ga p:t he r ea l s e l f m a y be c on cei v ed a s som e t hi n g w ide r t ha n t he i n di v id u a l(a s t het e rm i s norm a lly un de rstoo d),a s a so cia l‘w h ol e’o f w hich t he i n di v id u a l i s a ne l e m e nt or a sp ec t:a tr ibe,a r ace,a ch ur ch,a st a t e,t he g r ea t so cie ty of t he l i v i n g161ARGUMENTS FOR FREEDOMa n d t he dead a n d t he y e t unb orn.Thi s e nt i ty i s t he n ide nt ified a s bei n g t he‘tru e’s e l f w hich,b y i mpos i n g i ts c oll ec t i v e,or‘or ga n ic’,s i n g l e w i ll upon i tsr eca l ci tr a nt‘m e m be rs’,achie v e s i ts own,a n d,t he r ef or e,t hei r,‘highe r’f r eed om.The p e r i ls o f us i n g or ga n ic m e t a p h ors to j ust if y t he c o e r ci on o f som e m e n b yot he rs i n or de r to r ai s e t he m to a‘highe r’l e v e l o f f r eed om ha v e o f t e n bee npo i nt ed out.B ut w ha t gi v e s su ch pl a us ibi l i ty a s i t ha s to t hi s ki n d o f l a n g u agei s t ha t w e r ec o g n i z e t ha t i t i s poss ib l e,a n d a t t i m e s j ust ifiab l e,to c o e r ce m e n i nt he n a m e o f som e g o a l(l e t us s a y,j ust ice or pu b l ic hea lt h)w hich t he y woul d,ift he y w e r e mor e e nl igh t e n ed,t he ms e lv e s pursu e,b ut d o not,beca us e t he y a r eb l i n d or ig nor a nt orc orrupt.Thi s r e n de rs i t ea sy f or m e to c on cei v e o f mys e l fa s c o e r ci n g ot he rs f or t hei r own s ake,i n t hei r,not my,i nt e r e st.I a m t he nc l ai m i n g t ha t I k now w ha t t he y truly n eed be tt e r t ha n t he y k now i t t he ms e lv e s.Wha t,a t most,t hi s e nt ai ls i s t ha t t he y woul d not r e s i st m e if t he y w e r e r a t i on a l,a n d a s w i s e a s I,a n d un de rstoo d t hei r i nt e r e sts a s I d o.B ut I m a y g o on to c l ai ma g oo d dea l mor e t ha n t hi s.I m a y dec l a r e t ha t t he y a r e ac tu a lly ai m i n g a t w ha ti n t hei r be n igh t ed st a t e t he y c ons ci ously r e s i st,beca us e t he r e e x i sts w i t hi nt he m a n o cc ult e nt i ty–t hei r l a t e nt r a t i on a l w i ll,or t hei r‘tru e’purpos e–a n dt ha t t hi s e nt i ty,a lt h ou gh i t i s be l ied b y a ll t ha t t he y ov e rtly fee l a n d d o a n d s a y,i s t hei r‘r ea l’s e l f,o f w hich t he poor e mp i r ica l s e l f i n sp ace a n d t i m e m a y k nownot hi n g or l i ttl e;a n d t ha t t hi s i nn e r sp i r i t i s t he only s e l f t ha t de s e rv e s to ha v ei ts w i s he s t ake n i nto acc ount.11O n ce I t ake t hi s v ie w,I a m i n a pos i t i on toig nor e t he ac tu a l w i s he s o f m e n or so cie t ie s,to b ully,oppr e ss,tortur e t he m i nt he n a m e,a n d on beha l f,o f t hei r‘r ea l’s e lv e s,i n t he s ec ur e k nowl edge t ha tw ha t e v e r i s t he tru e g o a l o f m a n(ha pp i n e ss,f ul fi lm e nt o f d uty,w i s d om,a j ustso cie ty,s e l f-f ul fi lm e nt)must be ide nt ica l w i t h hi s f r eed om–t he f r ee ch o ice o fhi s‘tru e’,a l bei t su b m e r ged a n d i n a rt ic ul a t e,s e l f.Thi s p a r ad ox ha s bee n o f t e n e xpos ed.I t i s on e t hi n g to s a y t ha t I k now w ha ti s g oo d f or X,w hi l e he hi ms e l f d o e s not a n d e v e n to ig nor e hi s w i s he s f or i ts–a n d hi s–s ake;a n d a v e ry diffe r e nt on e to s a y t ha t he ha s e o i pso ch os e n i t,noti n deed c ons ci ously,not a s he s ee ms i n e v e ry da yl ife,b ut i n hi s rol e a s a r a t i on a ls e l f w hich hi s e mp i r ica l s e l f m a y not k now–t he‘r ea l’s e l f w hich di s ce rns t heg oo d,a n d ca nnot he lp ch oos i n g i t on ce i t i s r e v ea l ed.Thi s monstrousi mp e rson a t i on,w hich c ons i sts i n e qu a t i n g w ha t X woul d ch oos e if he w e r esom e t hi n g he i s not,or a t l ea st not y e t,w i t h w ha t X ac tu a lly s eek s a n d ch oos e s,i s a t t he hea rt o f a ll pol i t ica l t he or ie s o f s e l f-r ea l i z a t i on.I t i s on e t hi n g to s a yt ha t I m a y be c o e r ced f or my own g oo d w hich I a m too b l i n d to s ee:t hi s m a y,ono cca s i on,be f or my be n efi t;i n deed i t m a y e nl a r ge t he s c op e o f my l ibe rty;i t i sa not he r to s a y t ha t if i t i s my g oo d,t he n I a m not bei n g c o e r ced,f or I ha v e w i ll edi t,w he t he r I k now t hi s or not,a n d a m f r ee–or‘truly’f r ee–e v e n w hi l e my poor 162。
