Hannah Ardent Freedom Definition
The notion of freedom is inherently abstract, “Freedom” and what it means to be a free individual has been debated by many academic scholars for decades; because what it means to be free changes with time. It’s not a definition that stays constant but rather malleable, and open to a variety of opinions. What does freedom encompass? What does it mean to be free? Isiah Berlin’s Two Concepts of Liberty and Hannah Ardent’s Freedom and Politics both attempt to give a definition to freedom and what it means to be free. Isaiah Berlin’s Two Concepts of Liberty gives an answer to these question, by dividing freedom into “negative” and “positive” freedom. (Berlin, 1958) This segregation of freedom is meant to be representative of the different ways
…show more content…
freedom can be exercised. He starts by defining freedom as a complex topic that cannot have a singular clear definition because if a definition of such existed it would allow one group to usurp power. (Berlin, 1958) He states that freedom is rational self-direction; to be free is to be able to direct oneself.( Berlin, 1958) The concept of liberation is mentioned a lot in this definition, individuals need to be liberated in order to be free ( Berlin, 1958); without proper liberation, an individual cannot achieve freedom; whether it be positive or negative.( Sonie, Class Notes) The distinction between the different types of freedoms is not a question of “what am if free to do?” but rather “who am I ruled ” (Sonie, Class Notes) Negative Freedom is defined as “What is the area within which the subject — a person or group of persons — is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons” (Berlin, 1958, pg.2) With this definition freedom can only be exercised without influence or outer coercion, and limitations on freedom is restrictive because the nature of freedom in it of itself is individualistic. Isiah Berlin also introduces the concept of obstacles. If an individual is free than he/she is free to get rid of obstacles but if obstacles is another human being, then we try to make individuals follow are will. (Berlin, 1958) The fewer obstacles we have the more freedom since autonomy has elements of such attitudes. (Sonie, Class Notes). In conclusion, Berlin summarizes negative freedom as freedom from regulations, constraints, and government; an individual is not free until he is unbounded and unrestrained. (Berlin, 1958)
Positive Freedom asks the question of "What or who is the source of control or interference that can determine someone to do or be this rather than that?". (Berlin, 1958, pg.2) With this definition, freedom is a question of power; who has the power to assert freedom? It is important to have freedom but not boundless freedom (Berlin, 1958). Freedom has to exist with regulation or limitation. (Berlin, 1958) It is primarily concerned with the concept of being one’s own master. Isaiah Berlin introduces the work of Plato and his 3 souls to further explain this concept. Plato notion of passion explains that freedom is exercised when an individual is not a slave to passion or uncontrollable desire. (Berlin, 1958) By becoming free from passion and individual is in control of themselves and are thus able to act as their own person. (Sonie, Class Notes) Overall, Berlin summarizes positive freedom to be freedom to make choices on who you want to be ruled by and if you want to be ruled at all. (Berlin, 1958) Hannah Ardent “Freedom and Politics” gives a contradictory definition of freedom that stands to refute Isiah Berlin.
Ardent defines freedom as political action. (Ardent,1960) In her definition the only way to be free is to be politically active; since no freedom can be exercised if action is not a criterion. (Ardent,1960) She states that political freedom appears when we interact with each other, which in turn generated a political environment and results in the discussion of politics. (Sonie, Class Notes) To be free is to be active and to not be free is a form of individual isolation. (Ardent,1960) Freedom is something we can observe and act upon therefore freedom cannot exist on its own, it needs to be called into being as an act of creation. (Ardent,1960) She introduces the concept of the “public realm” and the “private realm”. The public realm is the area that political freedom can be exercised much like the Athenian did in ecclesia (Ardent,1960), she states that there has to be a public realm or "freedom lacks the worldly space to make its appearance" (Ardent,1960, pg. 30). The private realm is private life and political freedom cannot exist in the private realm because freedom needs to be public. Overall, Ardent summarizes freedom as a public political action and political action puts into motion something that didn’t exist prior to it being called upon.
(Ardent,1960)
In defining freedom, I stand to agree with Isiah Berlin and his two concepts of freedom, particular that of negative freedom. To be free is to be free of external coercion and limitations; any censorship of any aspect of freedom is not really freedom. I disagree with Hannah Ardent notion that freedom can only be exercised through political action because of that a narrow focus and a singular definition. I do not believe that freedom can be given a singular defining factor because of the abstract nature of the word. What it means to be free is a constantly changing concept and by nailing a definition to it she is not allowing for the word to be expressed differently. Hannah Ardent by defining freedom as political action eliminate the freedom to not be free. Freedom is a choice and if an individual chose to not be politically active they are still free as long as they are liberated, have rational self-direction, are free from limitations and coercion and are their own master.
freedom can be exercised. He starts by defining freedom as a complex topic that cannot have a singular clear definition because if a definition of such existed it would allow one group to usurp power. (Berlin, 1958) He states that freedom is rational self-direction; to be free is to be able to direct oneself.( Berlin, 1958) The concept of liberation is mentioned a lot in this definition, individuals need to be liberated in order to be free ( Berlin, 1958); without proper liberation, an individual cannot achieve freedom; whether it be positive or negative.( Sonie, Class Notes) The distinction between the different types of freedoms is not a question of “what am if free to do?” but rather “who am I ruled ” (Sonie, Class Notes) Negative Freedom is defined as “What is the area within which the subject — a person or group of persons — is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons” (Berlin, 1958, pg.2) With this definition freedom can only be exercised without influence or outer coercion, and limitations on freedom is restrictive because the nature of freedom in it of itself is individualistic. Isiah Berlin also introduces the concept of obstacles. If an individual is free than he/she is free to get rid of obstacles but if obstacles is another human being, then we try to make individuals follow are will. (Berlin, 1958) The fewer obstacles we have the more freedom since autonomy has elements of such attitudes. (Sonie, Class Notes). In conclusion, Berlin summarizes negative freedom as freedom from regulations, constraints, and government; an individual is not free until he is unbounded and unrestrained. (Berlin, 1958)
Positive Freedom asks the question of "What or who is the source of control or interference that can determine someone to do or be this rather than that?". (Berlin, 1958, pg.2) With this definition, freedom is a question of power; who has the power to assert freedom? It is important to have freedom but not boundless freedom (Berlin, 1958). Freedom has to exist with regulation or limitation. (Berlin, 1958) It is primarily concerned with the concept of being one’s own master. Isaiah Berlin introduces the work of Plato and his 3 souls to further explain this concept. Plato notion of passion explains that freedom is exercised when an individual is not a slave to passion or uncontrollable desire. (Berlin, 1958) By becoming free from passion and individual is in control of themselves and are thus able to act as their own person. (Sonie, Class Notes) Overall, Berlin summarizes positive freedom to be freedom to make choices on who you want to be ruled by and if you want to be ruled at all. (Berlin, 1958) Hannah Ardent “Freedom and Politics” gives a contradictory definition of freedom that stands to refute Isiah Berlin.
Ardent defines freedom as political action. (Ardent,1960) In her definition the only way to be free is to be politically active; since no freedom can be exercised if action is not a criterion. (Ardent,1960) She states that political freedom appears when we interact with each other, which in turn generated a political environment and results in the discussion of politics. (Sonie, Class Notes) To be free is to be active and to not be free is a form of individual isolation. (Ardent,1960) Freedom is something we can observe and act upon therefore freedom cannot exist on its own, it needs to be called into being as an act of creation. (Ardent,1960) She introduces the concept of the “public realm” and the “private realm”. The public realm is the area that political freedom can be exercised much like the Athenian did in ecclesia (Ardent,1960), she states that there has to be a public realm or "freedom lacks the worldly space to make its appearance" (Ardent,1960, pg. 30). The private realm is private life and political freedom cannot exist in the private realm because freedom needs to be public. Overall, Ardent summarizes freedom as a public political action and political action puts into motion something that didn’t exist prior to it being called upon.
(Ardent,1960)
In defining freedom, I stand to agree with Isiah Berlin and his two concepts of freedom, particular that of negative freedom. To be free is to be free of external coercion and limitations; any censorship of any aspect of freedom is not really freedom. I disagree with Hannah Ardent notion that freedom can only be exercised through political action because of that a narrow focus and a singular definition. I do not believe that freedom can be given a singular defining factor because of the abstract nature of the word. What it means to be free is a constantly changing concept and by nailing a definition to it she is not allowing for the word to be expressed differently. Hannah Ardent by defining freedom as political action eliminate the freedom to not be free. Freedom is a choice and if an individual chose to not be politically active they are still free as long as they are liberated, have rational self-direction, are free from limitations and coercion and are their own master.