User talk:1175
1. INTRODUCTION
To be free, is it not to be slave? Here is a sentence which appears paradoxical, but when we look closer, it could be correct. Freedom is a state in which we can act without constraint nor obstacle, and which enables us to determine in all autonomy the ends of our action as well as the means of reaching that point. It’s the possibility of acting, of thinking and of being expressed according to its own choices. The man can thus control himself according to his reason, in the absence of any determinism. There are two principal types of freedom: the ‘philosophic one’ or ‘intern one’, which is defined in the possibility of choosing, and ‘the politic freedom’ or ‘extern one’, which indicates the civil rights within a society. Freedom is an important concept in our society, indeed, it is it first article of the Universal Declaration of the Humans Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html ). To be slave, it is the dependence and/or the tender with a third thing, which can be positive in the direction where we don’t have to make any choice, one can be let guide, but that can be negative when we are subjected to a tyrannical capacity. On the contrary, the free man must deal with itself, that implies responsibilities, it must set its own limits and can thus become slave of itself. The man is free when it can carry out his desires. Freedom as absence of constraints leads to a contradiction. Without constraints, we could do all that we can desire to do, we would be subjected to our desires. And it is thus to be slave of its passions: what is well the opposite of freedom. This can give you a first impression of the ambiguity of the subject and an idea on the debates which it brought within the group. In order to - as well as possible - be able to philosophize on the subject, we took note in the manner of thinking of some large philosophers. For Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in fact refinements of civilization are at the origin of all the evils from which the humanity suffer. To cure the social evil, he wrote, in Social Contract, that only the establishment of laws can guarantee the freedom of each one. The legality and the equality, government guaranteed right, thus constitute the conditions of freedom: the men must be equal in front of the law so that there is freedom; there is freedom only if there is freedom of everybody, by all and for all. While obeying the law, which is the expression of the general will, the citizen obeys only itself. Spinoza is a rationalist philosopher and Dutch religious thinker, his thought found his most complete expression in ‘the Ethics’ demonstrate as a geometrical method. According to this treaty, the universe is identical to God, who is the 'substance' of all things. Spinoza rejected the idea of providence and the free will, and its concept of impersonal God caused much hostility at its contemporaries. If its system did not give rise to a true movement, its influence can be compared only with that of the philosophy of Emmanuel Kant. Emmanuel Kant is a German philosopher, founder of critical philosophy. He was the first large philosopher to give a regular university education. The philosophy of Kant is a philosophy of freedom, it defends intellectual autonomy and tears off the man with the determinism of his past and nature to make it reach intellectual and moral autonomy. Freedom was created by the intelligence. Freedom thus concerns the understandable side and not the sensitive one . Jean-Paul Sartre, French philosopher, playwright, novelist and political journalist who was a major personality of the French intellectual life of second half of the 20th century. It will publish “the existentialism is a humanism” in which one we find the way of existentialism is a reflection to render comprehensible to us the role and the place of freedom in the human existence. The existentialism is a humanism, a philosophy of freedom, and a philosophy of the responsibility. Here are which encloses this short description. It will enable us to give relevant opinions for our argumentation, by supporting us on one or the other thought.
2. INTERVIEW
At the time of the interview, reporter provided a list of questions, thoughts to the expert. she delivered her opinion on various points in connection with the questions, without answering it directly. When the reporter wanted to know more about one or other point of the expert, he asked her more precisely questions. The expert did not follow the thought of the authors that we analyzed. She has a thought on the subject suitable for it and with which it is completely in agreement. We are not slave of our freedom. It is necessary to fight to keep our interior freedom but freedom is not a supreme Master to which it is necessary to be subjected to continue to be free. We have multitudes of choice for each action, event of our life and it is the fact of having these choices that make us free. That goes against all the thoughts of all the authors analyzed even if the influence of certain authors is sometimes visible in her answers.
3. ARGUMENTATION AND AGAINST-ARGUMENTATION
"To be free, is it not to be slave?" Within the framework of our research, we took into account the points of view of various authors: Spinoza, Rousseau, Sartre and Kant. Spinoza has a very deterministic design of the life. He thinks that we are free but are not guided by the natural laws. A human being can fight to conquer a freedom which delivers him external pressures, but it will never enjoy a "free will”. In this direction, it is opposed to the existentialism of Sartre. Indeed, one of the great thoughts of the existentialism is "the existence precedes the essence". By there, Sartre means that the man exists initially, then by making choices he is defined and he chose what he becomes. Sartre also adds that "the man is condemned to be free". As it is obliged to make choices, it is thus obliged to be free. For Sartre, each choice that a man made does not engage only the man who makes the choice but also whole humanity. "The man, such as the existentialism conceives him, if it is not definable, he is initially nothing". The man exists initially, meets, emerges in the world, and he is defined afterwards. The man is fully responsible for what he is. He has a responsibility which beyond to the fact that we are free, the responsibility for my choices and my future. Moreover, there are a certain collective dimension, that engages the others. My choices, I do them according to my values. Thus beyond my values, there is an image of the man who takes shape. My choices engage more than me: "By choosing me, I choose the man." The philosophy of Kant, like that of Sartre, is a philosophy of freedom. Freedom was created by the intelligence. It is impossible to refer to some experiment that is. Freedom thus concerns understandable and not the sensitive one. The man does not need knowledge to be free. According to Kant, very reached with external freedom is an attack with internal freedom. We cannot remove with the man freedom to think but that to communicate well. That if we are private of our freedom of expression, we will lost in the same occasion our freedom to think. As regards knowledge the man should not be closed again on oneself but on the contrary to put his judgement to the test. To consult the judgement of the others does not mean therefore adhering to it but perhaps taking a step in the research of the truth. That’s in freedom of expression that the truth will born. In opposition with Spinoza, Rousseau considers that we are born men and free. Freedom belongs to us, we do not have the right to change it. Freedom is not single but it is present in various forms and on various levels: from the point of view of the family, the State... To give up our freedom is to give up our quality of man, the rights of humanity and even our duties. We have to remove all moralities because these blocks. For Spinoza, we only become slaves when we are working only for the interest of a man who orders us. But he also sees a second definition of slavery, he estimates that the individual pulled by a personal concupiscence at the point more nothing to see nor making of what its authentic interest requires is subjected in the worst case to slavery. There is thus a great difference between a slave, a son, a subject, and we will formulate the following definitions: - the slave is obliged to subject itself to orders based on the only interest of his Master - the son achieves on the order of his parents actions which are in its own interest - the subject finally achieves on the order of sovereign Puissance of the actions aiming to the general interest and which are consequently also in its particular interest. Spinoza him is declared in favor of the democracy, which corresponds at the same time, and better than any other mode, with the reality of the policy and its function. "is not to hold the man by fear and to make that it belongs to another that the State is instituted; on the contrary is to release the individual of fear, so that it lives as much as possible in safety, i.e. preserves, as well as it could be, without damage for others, his right natural to exist and act... ". "the finality of the State is thus actually freedom": a freedom of course limited in a completely given order of the things.
4. THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE GROUP
Freedom was one of only the topics for which each member of the group wanted to discuss and thus it should well be said that we spent a few hours to confront our points of view. We have divergent opinions what made possible to open our spirits on what is the important thing represented freedom. Initially, one of the only point on which we agreed all is that one cannot give a single direction to freedom. We agree on the fact of saying that there is a civil freedom and a moral. We even notice by us as by forming part of a company, one yields obligatorily a part of his freedom. As soon as the unimportant system of service between a small group of people is organized, each person depends on the others and is indebted. Moral freedom as for it was harder to be essential in our spirit. It is a concept which is rather differently approached according to authors. A second point is that freedom is never total. For us total freedom cannot be reached, the only case where would be possible it is if a being were alone in his universe, he could then decide on all what he wants including his life or his death. And still since it cannot decide events of nature, its freedom is still debatable. We thought of our situation and with our company and we concluded from it that we live in a company or freedom with a direction extremely stereotyped and where one is more aware of his true value. One should not too much move away from the subject, we read the point of view of the various authors on this subject and we then decided to analyze freedom and slavery one after the other. We spoke already a little from our point of view with regard to freedom but we are going to precise again the things. One is free if one to decide little on all that concerns us, one can decide on his destiny, one has any constraint then. But it is clear that it will be never completely possible since one cannot have control on all. However one can nevertheless regard oneself as free as from the moment or one is not under the influence of others. In addition, in the current world it is impossible to a person to be free since one belongs in a manner or another to a jurisdiction which obliges us to comply with certain rules. It is impossible to live in autarchy or living without any rule, the authorities of the territory where would stop us at this time were seen as soon as somebody violates their rules whereas one does not form part of their company. Is that normal? But we are not there to discuss in connection with that. In short we can find a freedom partial when we comply with certain rules, that resembles the word strangely that the prisoners one in the event of good control. It thus appears that finally we all are in release on probation! It would thus seem that we all are slave of a higher authority. The man always wanted to find a way of better life, he tries to find a life style which tends towards the ideal that it was determined, to improve his environment he set up a certain number of rules. Unfortunately the man understood, too late, whom each time that he set up a new law, he withdrew a little its natural freedom. We thus concluded from it that the man tends towards a freedom but that this one finally only makes be imprisoned more and more.
5. RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TRADE OF THE ENGINEER
A debate on freedom and its opposite, slavery, is particularly welcome! Indeed, which trade other than this last correspond as well as possible to the cruel combat between the good and the evil, the free man and the slave. The engineer, as an expert, is in fact made up of two facets, a scientist and a technician. The technician is a tool with the service of the superior, it is for this reason a slave, it doubles of the scientist, the man of reason, for which all must be justified, thought, reflected. Certain tasks which will be requested from the engineer, will call upon questions of a philosophical nature. Philosophy then becomes a tool for the engineer who can make use of it. Spots such as the evaluation of the relevance of a project, the staff management... are examples very speaking, they show well the human aspect. In addition to that, the engineer is very often a decision maker. That means that it must be able to give an orientation to the action when science does not make it possible to slice between several options. That supposes knowledge and the catch in consideration of parameters political, psychological, economic and social and the philosophical acceptance of impossibility of knowing what it is with certainty. Still philosophy forms integral part of the process of reflection. Lastly, it should be recalled that the engineer is not only one professional but also a person: a citizen, a father or a mother... and that for this reason, he aspires, like everybody, to reflect on the direction of his existence, to call in question the choices which it made, to direct its life like a free man. We can thus conclude from it that the engineer is unceasingly pulled about between the duty of obedience to quite strict rules, to yield with the reason to explain quantitative phenomena as much as possible. Other side, it aspires to its freedom, as a man, and as an unbounded creator. It is very important to keep this subtle balance between the two antagonistic and yet complementary tendencies.
6. CONCLUSION
Total freedom does not exist because we are limited by our biological body. The man is born free; he only decides its acts but those are influenced by the education which it received, its religion, its principles... We are slave of the laws of our countries, the acts and the desires around the men. Total freedom would exist only if we live on a deserted island. In theory, free being means "not to be slave", but since freedom with the direction first does not exist and will not never exist in our world as long as there will be several people. Because every day life shows us that one cannot be completely free because we depend on the others, of the laws, our country, and good of other things. The free man is slave of the other free men. It is for that that I am in agreement with the sentence "Being free is it not to be slave?". We met very few problems during this work because we had a very good participation and organization of the group. The forum was our principal tool which was very well used. Our principal difficulties lay in the fact of targeting our work. We thought so what was a free man and the constraints to which it was to yield.
7. PERSONS WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE ELABORATION OF THE RAPPORT
bdalleme@student.fsa.ucl.ac.be, dcardon@student.fsa.ucl.ac.be, cathdufour@hotmail.com, vgoublom@student.fsa.ucl.ac.be, vgodin@student.fsa.ucl.ac.be, xhallet@student.fsa.ucl.ac.be, mleroy@student.fsa.ucl.ac.be, rslinckx@student.fsa.ucl.ac.be, gspreute@student.fsa.ucl.ac.be, valerie.vaneyll@yucom.be.