Interpretation Of Freedom Research Articles

Freedom and Bondage: An Interpretation of the Concept of Freedom in Middlemarch

George Eliot, a renowned female writer and philosopher of the Victorian era, significantly embodied her philosophical ideas within her novels. The characters in Middlemarch relentlessly pursue freedom amidst the constraints of human nature, legal frameworks, and personal desires. This paper posits a remarkable resonance between George Eliot’s concept of freedom in Middlemarch and Baruch de Spinoza’s interpretation of freedom in his philosophical work, Ethica. However, Eliot’s creation of Middlemarch was not intended to serve as a vehicle for Spinoza’s view of freedom. Spinoza’s concept of freedom provided solid theoretical support for Eliot’s literary creation, and based on this, Eliot deepened the concept of freedom within Middlemarch, demonstrating her profound understanding and development of Spinoza’s ideas. Furthermore, this paper also reveals the complex societal issues and sharp human contradictions highlighted in the characters’ pursuits of freedom in Middlemarch. By analyzing Eliot’s thoughts on freedom and examining the influence of Spinoza’s view of freedom on her creation, this paper aims to open up a new path to help readers gain a more comprehensive grasp of Eliot’s philosophical ideas and the implications embedded within her literary oeuvre.

Freedom and Bondage: An Interpretation of the Concept of Freedom in Middlemarch

George Eliot, a renowned female writer and philosopher of the Victorian era, significantly embodied her philosophical ideas within her novels. The characters in Middlemarch relentlessly pursue freedom amidst the constraints of human nature, legal frameworks, and personal desires. This paper posits a remarkable resonance between George Eliot’s concept of freedom in Middlemarch and Baruch de Spinoza’s interpretation of freedom in his philosophical work, Ethica. However, Eliot’s creation of Middlemarch was not intended to serve as a vehicle for Spinoza’s view of freedom. Spinoza’s concept of freedom provided solid theoretical support for Eliot’s literary creation, and based on this, Eliot deepened the concept of freedom within Middlemarch, demonstrating her profound understanding and development of Spinoza’s ideas. Furthermore, this paper also reveals the complex societal issues and sharp human contradictions highlighted in the characters’ pursuits of freedom in Middlemarch. By analyzing Eliot’s thoughts on freedom and examining the influence of Spinoza’s view of freedom on her creation, this paper aims to open up a new path to help readers gain a more comprehensive grasp of Eliot’s philosophical ideas and the implications embedded within her literary oeuvre.

A word about . . . The freedom loophole and the baptist takeover of the world: Jeremiah 34:8-22 and Galatians 5:1,13-16a

What happens when the fundamental “baptist”1 interpretation of freedom, once thought to be a radical notion, becomes largely mainstreamed and included in the constitutions of most Western democracies? What happens when, in relation to the church and the state, free-church baptist polity largely dictates the worldview of most, if not all, other Christian traditions, even if it has not yet influenced the very doctrinal and theological structures of those mainstream denominations? What happens when the four “fragile freedoms” of baptist life (soul freedom, Bible freedom, church freedom and religious freedom) are undermined by fellow-baptists and others who decry such freedom as too radical, “a figment of some infidel’s imagination,” or an ungodly paean to a “woke” culture gone mad? This article addresses those questions in the context of two “emancipation proclamations” in Scripture, that of the prophet Jeremiah (34:8-9) to King Zedekiah and of Apostle Paul’s letter to the Galatians (5:1,13-16a). Still other historical moments of the “baptist” faith-heritage underscore such biblical liberties further undoing any notion that being “woke” in the current cultural and political setting is a new concept at all. Indeed, it is this very old, already “woke,” biblical “baptist” worldview that holds out the greatest promise for Christian witness in the twenty-first century and beyond.

REDEFINING THE MEANING OF FREEDOM IN LIBERAL THEOLOGY AND LIBERATION THEOLOGY, AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION IN RELIGIOUS LIFE

The concept of freedom in historical settings is often regarded as the primary catalyst for the rise and fall of civilizations. In ancient Greece, freedom was deemed to have played a crucial role in propelling Greek civilization to its zenith. The dark ages of Europe were similarly perceived as a period of diminished freedom due to the dominance of the church. However, the emergence of the Renaissance and modern era marked a resurgence of freedom, reminiscent of the values prevalent during the ancient Greek period, characterized by secular principles. Religious values were considered incompatible with modernity. Nevertheless, in a religious society, the essence of freedom lies in the most fundamental realm, namely theology. This article aims to explore how freedom is evident in the attributes of God, the life of Jesus, and the Bible within the context of liberal and liberation theology. Both of these theological perspectives signify a profound shift in religious attitudes, moving away from dogmatism and excessive conformity to orthodoxy, towards a more critical and progressive outlook. Liberal and liberation theology present a responsive depiction of religion, advocating for and fighting alongside human freedom, thus ensuring that religion remains relevant and problem-solving. While liberal theology endeavors to vocalize freedom to bridge the gap between faith and modern sciences, liberation theology strives for human freedom from all forms of discrimination and marginalization. Despite their apparent similarities, they diverge in their interpretation of freedom, leading to distinctions in the practical realm and religious practices.

Three interpretations of freedom in Sartre’s Being and Nothingness.

Three interpretations of freedom in Sartre’s Being and Nothingness.

THE FREEDOM AND THE HAPPINESS OF MAN IN WORKS OF MYCHAIL KOTZIUBYNSKYJ

The interpretation of freedom and happiness as existential problems of personality in the works of M. Kotsyubynsky is considered. Freedom is closely linked to happiness - this is understood by the lyrical heroes of the writer’s works. Freedom is also a value for every hero of his works, because he writed about mercenaries and serfs. The works emphasize that freedom is associated with real life, and only a free life can make a person’s happiness. Lyrical heroes of M. Kotsyubynsky’s works are, first of all, strong personalities, ready to fight for freedom at the cost of their own lives. Sense of human dignity and sacrifice of the characters in the name of freedom and happiness are impressed. Real freedom and happiness associated with it are felt only in the bosom of nature, in close connection with it in the novel “Intermezzo”.

Discourse of Freedom and Contemporary Greco-Protestantism

In this article, the author provides an analysis of the “discourse of freedom” as one of the foundations for secular and ecclesiastical liberalism. The discourse of freedom receives the name of a “libertian discourse” (not to be confused with libertarianism — a specific political and ideological current). The libertian discourse is studied within its historical origins associated with the legal codes of ancient Rome and the social philosophy of the Enlightenment. The libertian discourse and the related concept of the “natural law”, hardly evolving and unchanged in the 300 years since its inception, has outlived its historical competitors in the form of historical law, Marxism, etc. This phenomenon of libertian fundamentalism refutes the liberal axiom of permanent social progress and modernization, which also applies to the sphere of knowledge. Since the concept of fundamental (generic) rights and freedoms can be neither scientifically proven nor deduced from the traditional norms and values, it should be classified as a metaphysical (in Karl Popper's sense), fundamentalist and quasi-religious doctrine. This article shows the contemporary transformations of the phenomenon of freedom, which results in the libertian discourse becoming an integral part of power practices, an exclusive right to criticize power and a “subtle discourse of power”. The contemporary function of libertianism lies in restricting the freedom of a political opponent in the name of fighting for freedom and in creating a marketable competitive field of political compensation for the restriction of freedoms (stigmatization). The author points to the struggle between two cultural-historical and religious paradigms with different understandings of freedom — the “Roman” (political, elitist) and biblical (social), emphasizing that this struggle generates two versions of the discourse of freedom in the contemporary political space. The author raises the question of the demarcation of freedom paradigms on the same grounds as the more general question of “paradigms of involvement with the transcendent” and the hybrid mixing of different paradigmatic foundations in the modern interpretation of freedom.

Freedom and Religious Worldview

The article, written in the form of a dialogue/discussion, examines the problem of freedom in the context of its interpretation in religious and philosophical thought. The starting point for considering freedom is the thesis that the concept of freedom, as it is presented in the metaphysical and spiritual traditions, hinders both the philosophical understanding of freedom and its implementation in practice since the status of the concept requires the identification of freedom with the knowledge of freedom. However, the knowledge, as it always implies being universal, excludes the possibility of a different understanding of freedom, which leads to the confusion of freedom and necessity. While criticizing this thesis, Mikhail Sergeev insists that the adoption of a particular system of beliefs, including religious faith, does not necessarily make other people understand freedom the same way, which leads to the elimination of freedom in real life and to the substitution of freedom by necessity on theoretical level: as the history of philosophy and religion shows, there have always been many different concepts of freedom, even within the same school or tradition. From the point of view of Aleksandr Rybas, the variety of interpretations of freedom is such only formally since each of these interpretations is aimed at formulating the only one, “true” concept of freedom, resulting from the chosen point of view and therefore making it necessary to characterize alternative views as false: the very idea of “true” freedom is rooted in the specifics of metaphysical thinking, which should be seen the reason for the rejection of freedom. As a result of the discussion, however, some common views on freedom were developed. In particular, freedom was defined as the inherent ability of man to consciously initiate his own changes and determine the parameters of his own existence. Moreover, it was argued that there could not be the only valid or universal form of human life.

A Harmonized Interpretation of Freedom of Transit in the Fragmented International Legal System: Applying Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to the Russia – Traffic in Transit Dispute

The article applies Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to examining the relevance of accords that bear on freedom of transit. Taking the WTO dispute of Russia – Traffic In Transit as an example, the article experiments with a harmonized interpretation, in quest of consistent meanings, of norms on freedom of transit in the fragmented international legal system. freedom of transit, fragmentation of international law, harmonized interpretation of norms, Russia, Ukraine, WTO dispute, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), landlocked developing countries (LLDCs)

ОСОБЕННОСТИ ИНТЕРПРЕТАЦИИ СВОБОДЫ В КОНСТИТУЦИИ КАК ЯДЕРНОМ ЖАНРЕ ДИСКУРСА ПРАВОВОГО ДОКУМЕНТА

ОСОБЕННОСТИ ИНТЕРПРЕТАЦИИ СВОБОДЫ В КОНСТИТУЦИИ КАК ЯДЕРНОМ ЖАНРЕ ДИСКУРСА ПРАВОВОГО ДОКУМЕНТА

ПРОТИВОПОЛОЖНЫЕ ТИПЫ ФИЛОСОФСТВОВАНИЯ И ПОНИМАНИЯ СВОБОДЫ

The paper criticizes unilateral interpretations of interrelation of philosophy and freedom as unambiguously stable (natural). To achieve deeper understanding of interrelation of philosophy and freedom, the author proposes an approach presupposing separation of philosophy into contrasting types - absolutist and non-absolutist ones - that suggest entirely different interpretations of freedom. Absolutist philosophizing absolutizes freedom identifying it with “true rationality” (spirituality, etc.). Non-absolutist philosophizing considers freedom as a relative characteristic of human life restricted by other relative characteristics (justice, etc.).

Prawo do swobodnego przemieszczania się w przypadkach bezdomności migrantów wewnątrzunijnych

The article examines interpretations of freedom of movement and access to social assistance within the EU Directive 2004/38. Examples of EU migrants’ homelessness are shown to demonstrate the confusing circularity in the regulations. The paper goes on to the development of local governments’ and voluntary organizations’ practice of limiting support to EU migrants in homelessness. Narrower interpretations of the right to reside are a basis for refusing access to benefits or even shelter. Repressive public space practices lead sometimes even to deportations. These interpretations, practices and public discourse are shown on the examples of the Netherlands, the UK and Sweden. Interpretations of the European law, practices and public debate are tools that limit exercising the right to free movement by socially defining and categorising homeless EU migrants as persons whose rights are dependent on their position on the labour market.

Contested Perspectives on the Social Impacts of a Residential Field Trip

Background: Research into outdoor learning reveals social benefits for trip participants, both individually and collectively. However, this is not universal, and individual participants can experience increased isolation from the wider group. Purpose: This research investigated the underexplored negative experiences of an individual trip participant, in the context of a program promoting collectivist beliefs. Methodology/Approach: An ethnographic methodology was adopted to include full immersion into all aspects of the week-long trip. Data were collected by observation and interviews and analyzed using a conceptual framework around individualism and collectivism. Findings/Conclusions: The teachers perceived the trip as successful, in meeting their collectivist goal of enhancing group cohesion, and data revealed the building of community feelings among the majority of participants, alongside feelings of belonging, togetherness, and mutual support. However, one participant exhibited contrasting individualist perceptions and experiences around interpretations of freedom, privacy, adversity, and cohesion. Implications: Trip leaders need to be mindful of participants as individuals, taking care to neither seek nor project a blanket group identity over all. Within the confines of health and safety and duty of care boundaries, and commensurate with the age range of trip participants, accompanying teachers should understand and respect individual needs within collectivist group socialization agendas.

PERFORMATIVE HATE SPEECH ACTS. PERLOCUTIONARY AND ILLOCUTIONARY UNDERSTANDINGS IN INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

The first part of this work analyses the concept of hate speech and its legal-philosophical foundations linked to freedom of speech, through the use of tools provided by current trends in the theory of performativity. The second part, in turn, aims to suggest two possible perspectives on the translation of these philosophical demands into positive legislation within human rights law: the first one based on a liberal conception of freedom as non-interference and a perlocutionary understanding of performative speech acts; the second one adopting a neo-republican interpretation of freedom as non-domination and an illocutionary understanding of speech acts. Finally, the work aims to critically sift through the application of the theory of performativity to the legal definitions that hate speech has acquired within this context.

Against State Censorship of Thought and Speech: The “Mandate of Philosophy” contra Islamist Ideology

Contemporary Islam presents Europe in particular with a political and moral challenge: Moderate-progressive Muslims and radical fundamentalist Muslims present differing visions of the relation of politics and religion and, consequently, differing interpretations of freedom of expression. There is evident public concern about Western “political correctness,” when law or policy accommodates censorship of speech allegedly violating religious sensibilities. Referring to the thought of philosopher Baruch Spinoza, and accounting for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights, and various empirical studies on the religious convictions of Muslims, it is argued here that: (1) sovereign European state powers should be especially cautious of legal censorship of speech allegedly violating Muslim religious sensibilities; and (2) instead of legal moves to censorship, European states should defer to the principle of separation of religion and state (political authority). Further, a reasonable interpretation of Islamic jurisprudence allows that matters of religious difference may be engaged and resolved by appeal to private conscience and ethical judgment, rather than by appeal to public law per se.1 In so far as they are representative of contemporary scholarship, the interpretative positions of Ziad Elmarsafy, Jacques Derrida, and Nasr Abū Zayd are presented in illustration of this latter point.

The happy slave isn't free: Relational autonomy and freedom in theZhuangzi

AbstractThis paper challenges the view that contentment leads to personal freedom and autonomy and argues for a relational and exercise concept of de facto freedom in theZhuangzi莊子. I first review influential interpretations of freedom in theZhuangzithat equate freedom with contentment and nonfrustration, starting with Guo Xiang's 郭象 (d. 312 CE). By putting these interpretations in dialog with contemporary social philosophy (Christman, Meyers, Pettit, Elster, and Khader), I reflect on the two seminal problems of the psychologizing causal and procedural approaches that allow the interpretation of freedom as contentment: the “happy slave” problem and the “sour grapes” problem. Proving this account of freedom inadequate, I argue for a different interpretation of freedom in theZhuangzithat resembles a weakly substantive and constitutive account of freedom and autonomy in modern‐day social philosophy terms, such as Marina Oshana's. The theory of freedom that I analyze in theZhuangzi, however, helps us correct the risk of material determinism of the constitutive account, offering a description of relational freedom and autonomy as constituted by socio‐material conditions but not determined by them.

A LENDA E A LEI: A ancestralidade afro-brasileira como fonte epistemológica e como conceito ético-jurídico normativo

Nossas motivações e leituras de mundo sustentam-se no pressuposto de que as moralidades geram eticidades e as eticidades geram juridicidades. Tal correspondência une o destino a um modo ancestre de decidir sobre as situações do presente. Pensar ou exercitar uma epistemologia a partir da ancestralidade significa adotar uma postura ética frente a uma camada questionável de pensamentos e saberes identificáveis como africanos e diaspóricos. Isso implica numa mudança na carga teórico-epistemológica em que são construídos estes conceitos. A ancestralidade pode ser lida como uma categoria de alteridade. Mais que isso, uma categoria de trans-alteridade, posto que se referência no local de relação, ou seja, do encontro da diferença. Uma ancestralidade como referência e fundamento de uma nova utopia em nome de uma ética da sobrevivência e do equilíbrio com a natureza. Esta é uma das dimensões da experiência afrodiaspórica no Brasil. Uma experiência que deve ser vista também no campo da justiça política. Esta ancestralidade pode ser lida também numa perspectiva normativa não religiosa. O instituto da morte aparece como fator decisivo para a objetivação dos conceitos definidores do ancestral. Assim como, o estado de união vital dos elementos naturais e sociais constitutivos do homem caracteriza sua manifestação no mundo terrestre. A dissolução dessa união estabelece um novo estado existencial. A morte, portanto, permite a última transfiguração do homem. Neste caso, a ancestralidade influencia um universo mais amplo da existência e das forças físicas e metafísicas possuindo um poder normativo maior. O controle do mundo visível e invisível confere à ancestralidade um status de fenômeno jurídico. Os mandamentos ancestrais referenciam-se como fontes axiológicas sobre um conceito de justiça construído coletivamente. Tratar os princípios ancestrais como parte dos estudos da hermenêutica jurídica nos leva ao diálogo dos métodos e procedimentos para alcançar esta possibilidade. A valorização dos nossos próprios mitos e caráter identitário é uma sugestão poderosa para retomarmos o fio da história e das interpretações possíveis de liberdade e justiça para a realidade jurídica brasileira. 
 Palavras chaves: Ancestralidade, Epistemologia, Moralidade, Ético, Normativo.

Defining Responsibility: Printers, Politics, and the Law in Early Republican Mexico City

Abstract This article explores how printers and their collaborators shaped the implementation and interpretation of freedom of the press laws in early republican Mexico City. Far from passive reproducers of texts written by elites, printers and other behind-the-scenes actors facilitated republican politics by navigating legal categories such as responsibility and authorship that were defined by liberal law yet under debate and unevenly enforced. Focusing on the production, dissemination, and fallout over a controversial 1840 promonarchist pamphlet written by the Yucatecan senator José María Gutiérrez Estrada, the article uncovers a trio of collaborators, especially the young “printer citizen” Ignacio Cumplido, who undermined official efforts to consolidate state authority over political speech and deployed high-minded liberal principles as political strategy. By shifting focus from the pamphlet's well-reasoned arguments to its places of production, reception, and regulation, the article provides insight into how freedom of the press was implemented, manipulated, and debated on the ground.

“Not to Disclose Information Sources”: Journalistic Privilege Under Article 19 of ICCPR

International law took a significant step in recent years toward protection of journalists' sources and newsgathering processes. The international law journalistic privilege previously had been upheld by international tribunals, but it was not until 2011 that the United Nations Human Rights Committee adopted an interpretation of freedom of expression that included journalistic privilege. The presence of the privilege within freedom of expression, as recognized in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is important for several reasons. As part of freedom of expression, the privilege may not be overcome without a showing of necessity and proportionality, is not subject to a margin of appreciation, and is entitled to full realization by the 168 nations that have signed and ratified ICCPR.

Analysis of Conflict in the Interpretation of Freedom in the Late 1950s - Focusing on the Review and Commentary of Sasangye -

Analysis of Conflict in the Interpretation of Freedom in the Late 1950s - Focusing on the Review and Commentary of Sasangye -