Does the meaning of "freedom" need clarification? In fact, the word freedom seems simple, just leave me alone. In the United States, children learn to use one word very early in kindergarten, that is, no, children know to say, leave me alone. This is the original meaning of freedom.
But when the children grow up a little, they will find that it is not that simple. For example, parents want to send him to an interest class, and the child says, no, I don't want to go, I want to stay at home freely. The parents won't agree, but the child will go anyway. But he may go to a football interest class. He found it really good to run and play football on the court, as if he had experienced real freedom.
So, is the freedom to run on the court the same as the freedom of my parents to leave me alone? Is the meaning of freedom that simple?
Berlin found a way to clarify, that is, to cut open the concept of freedom and divide it into two types. When talking about freedom, we must first make clear what kind of freedom we are talking about. Since then, people's understanding of the concept of freedom has taken a big step forward. Talking about freedom again, if we don't mention the work in Berlin, it seems that we haven't started yet.
So, how does Berlin analyze the concept of freedom, and what is the difference between the two freedoms? What's the point of distinguishing these two freedoms?
"Freedom to get rid of obstacles" and "Freedom to achieve goals"
Berlin said that in the history of thought, there may be more than 200 definitions of freedom, but there are two core concepts of freedom that run through the whole human history. Berlin called these two kinds of freedom "negative freedom" and "positive freedom", which actually means "negative, negative" and "positive, positive".
What is negative freedom? Simply put, I don't want anything. Being active and free means doing whatever I want. In other words, one is the freedom to get rid of obstacles and the other is the freedom to achieve goals.
Maybe we will feel that getting rid of obstacles is to achieve our goals. Isn't this the same thing? What is the difference?
For a simple example, just because you don't want to be robbed doesn't mean you have decided where to spend your money. You don't need to have a clear goal to get rid of an external interference.
Negative freedom emphasizes maintaining an undisturbed field. In this sense, negative freedom is more like an opportunity. As long as you keep this opportunity, you will keep your negative freedom even if you do nothing.
But positive freedom is different. It is the freedom to "reach a certain goal". If you do nothing, you will be in trouble. Maybe you will say, my goal is to "do nothing", can't you?
This brings us a feature of positive freedom. First of all, we must know that freedom must have a subject of action. But in the concept of positive freedom, the subject is often divided internally: one is the true, advanced and rational self, and the other is the false, low and irrational self. The goal of positive freedom often means that the rational self can dominate itself and achieve advanced goals.
For example, you are determined to go to the gym to exercise, but you are always lazy after work and don't want to move. Anyway, no one urged me to play mobile phone for 20 minutes before going to exercise. I played for two hours and didn't go to the gym at last. In this case, you have abused your negative freedom and failed to realize your positive freedom.
Now there is a very popular saying "self-discipline gives me freedom". The freedom mentioned here is to overcome my irrational side and realize positive freedom.
So if your goal is to "do nothing", it is necessary to check. Is doing nothing because of laziness? Is it because of self-abandonment? If so, you are surrendering to your irrational self and giving up positive freedom.
Dangerous "concept magic"
Now it is clear that we are actually talking about two kinds of freedom. One is negative freedom, that is, freedom from external interference and obstruction, and the other is positive freedom, that is, freedom can be controlled and realized by reason.
Is it meaningful to understand the difference between the two freedoms? Whether the significance is significant.
For example, if you drive to work, you will be late soon, but then you suddenly get addicted to cigarettes and want to buy a pack of cigarettes first. But at this moment, your good friend sitting in the co-pilot spoke, and he advised you not to do this. You tell him to leave me alone. This is my freedom.
Your friend lost his temper. He said that this is not true freedom. He forced you out of the car and put you in the back seat. Then he drives you to the company. You're a little upset, but he says it's for your own good. You thought about it and thought he was right.
A month later, you are tired of this 996 job and want to quit. Your friend appears again, and he convinces you that this job is in your long-term interest. You are too young to understand now, so you must listen to him. He even comes in person every morning to tie you to the car and take you to the company. He said that this job is what you really want, although you still understand it. So now, on the surface, he forced you, but in essence, he made you realize what you didn't understand at the moment, but what you really wanted, giving you a higher degree of freedom.
In fact, this "friend" is a metaphor and can represent any kind of authority. He turned "compulsion" into "real freedom" with the theory of positive freedom.
Berlin said that this is a dangerous "concept magic". But you may ask Berlin why? Isn't that why parents send their children to school? Coercion is sometimes necessary, how can it be said to be dangerous? Is negative freedom necessarily higher than positive freedom? Didn't Berlin himself say that multiple values make no difference?
This question is very sharp. How will Berlin respond?
Why is positive freedom easy to be abused?
Berlin made it clear that both negative freedom and positive freedom are legitimate ultimate values, and there is no difference in principle. But both freedoms may be abused and distorted. What Berlin wants to emphasize is that the distortion and abuse of positive freedom are more deceptive and worthy of vigilance.
Berlin admitted that coercion may be necessary in some cases, and negative freedom may require concessions or even sacrifices to other values.
However, sacrifice is sacrifice. When we have to sacrifice freedom, we should say "this is sacrificing freedom" in exchange for security, order or something else. Instead of playing "concept magic", it is better to turn sacrifice into "higher freedom"
If a person is naive and ignorant ... to force him not to suffer, then it should be said that it is for his own benefit. However, the appropriate coercion is still coercion, which cannot be misinterpreted as "in line with his true wishes."
Positive freedom itself is an important value, but it is too easy to be distorted and manipulated. Berlin warned that many practices of enslaving others often use "positive freedom" to excuse themselves, but this is often an abuse.
Why is positive freedom more easily abused? Berlin said, because compared with negative freedom, positive freedom is farther away from daily life and experience world.
Back to the experience world, we will find that the pursuit of freedom is because we can experience the opposite of freedom. We have a universal, profound, intense and simple experience, which is coercion, and the extreme of coercion is slavery. The suffering experience of "being coerced" has the most fundamental, closest and direct connection with freedom. The most direct source of our desire for freedom is dissatisfaction with coercion and resistance to slavery, so we will shout "Don't force me!" " .
This is a negative desire, accompanied by coercion and slavery. It spans culture and history and is one of the most common human experiences.
So Berlin said:
"The fundamental meaning of freedom is the freedom to get rid of the shackles, imprisonment and slavery of others. The rest are extensions of this meaning or some kind of metaphor. "
The word freedom is too widely used, but if this word can only be used to describe a state, then the person who is most qualified to be called freedom is "not forced". Therefore, of the two freedoms, negative freedom is closer to the original meaning of the word.
In this sense, you can say that Berlin is more inclined to negative freedom. Because he believes that understanding freedom with the concept of negative freedom can help us remember the original meaning of freedom, avoid getting lost in the dazzling concept magic, and help us distinguish the disguise and deception of "doing false freedom in the name of anti-freedom".
Generally speaking, Berlin reveals the difference between negative freedom and positive freedom, but unlike many people's impressions, Berlin does not deny the value of positive freedom. He emphasized that both freedoms may be distorted and abused, but in contrast, the abuse of positive freedom is more deceptive and needs our vigilance.
After all, in Berlin's view, the most shocking scene in the political history of the 20th century was coercion in the name of freedom, and declared that the result of coercion was "the realization of true freedom". This is the most hateful "concept magic" in Berlin.
The significance of Berlin's analysis of the concept of freedom lies in exposing the magic of this concept, reminding people to be vigilant and preventing the tragedy from repeating itself.