Freedom In The Brothers Karamazov

“Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor: it must be demanded by the oppressed.” Freedom is the power or right to act, speak or think as one wants. All people have freedom from birth or even from the beginning of some type government power. On the contrary, people have been demanding for freedom on account of the higher power or government taking it away from them for their specific reasons. In Collection texts, “I have a Dream”, by Martin Luther King Jr, Reading Lolita in Tehran by Azar Nafisi, and “The Censors” by Luisa Valenzuela all demonstrate that freedom must be demanded.

Totalitarianism diminishes the idea of individuality and destroys all chances of self-improvement, and human’s natural hunger for knowledge. In George Orwell’s famous novel, “1984”, totalitarianism is clearly seen in the exaggerated control of the state over every single citizen, everyday, everywhere. Totalitarianism can also be seen in the book “Brave New World” by Aldous Huxley, in which humans are synthetically made and conditioned for their predestinated purpose on earth. The lack of individualism will lead a community towards a dystopia in which freedom is vanished by the uncontrolled power of the state.

Society has found a way to control the minds and bodies of mankind. Society has done this through stripping individuality, restricting knowledge, forbidding emotions, constricting mankind’s values, choosing everything for mankind, and not allowing any man to be

In Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground, the Underground Man proposes a radically different conception of free action from that of Kant. While Kant thinks that an agent is not acting freely unless he acts for some reason, the Underground Man seems to take the opposite stance: the only way to be truly autonomous is to reject this notion of freedom, and to affirm one's right to act for no reason. I will argue that the Underground Man's notion of freedom builds on Kant's, in that it requires self-consciousness in decision-making. But he breaks from Kant when he makes the claim that acting for a reason is not enough, and only provides an illusion of freedom. When faced with the two options of

Authority cannot exist without obedience. Society is built on this small, but important concept. Without authority and its required obedience, there would only be anarchy and chaos. But how much is too much, or too little? There is a fine line between following blindly and irrational refusal to obey those in a meaningful position of authority. Obedience to authority is a real and powerful force that should be understood and respected in order to handle each situation in the best possible manner.

Throughout the course of history it is evident that the values of society have dramatically changed over the years. The values that people posses change depending on what’s occurring around the world at the time, whether a fierce, bloody war resulting from a calamity or a time of peace and renaissance. The choices people make can either help change society for the better or they can help bring society down. Many different factors lead to the events that can change entire societies such as education or discrimination, both of which can have negative repercussions.

No human social organization can function without some degree of obedience to authority, as the alternative would be anarchy leading to total chaos. Hence we find some sort of a hierarchy in both the most underdeveloped and the most civilized societies where certain individuals exercise authority over others. Almost everyone will agree that some degree of authority in certain individuals or groups (and their obedience by other groups) is desirable for the proper functioning of a society. The problem arises when the obedience to authority is taken to extremes. Unfortunately, history has shown that this happens time and again, usually with undesirable results. It is this blind obedience to authority that

In conclusion, it is safe to say that Huxley 's utopia went about achieving its status in the wrong way. Mankind has lost its free will to the controlling powers of a system. This system cannot be called government, as it is more akin in characteristics to slavery. Man no longer has freewill and order is kept not through respect and intellect, but via degeneration and conduct. The former sections of this essay present strategies and techniques used to maintain order in a society of individuals. Finally, it may be argued that the Brave New World protects society by locking them in a cage of ignorance; however, this is at the cost of freedom, and this is unacceptable. Mankind needs be free in order to progress as has been explained. Protection is all well and good but not at the cost of

Freedom is the ultimate goal—this intrinsic desire has been manifested within human civilization since the beginning of time. Although, humans crave the idea of complete freedom, they do not understand what complete freedom entails. I believe freedom is a social construct that is conceptualized. The definition of freedom almost always varies from person to person; my interpretation of freedom is being given the ability to act, reason and believe with the condition of minimal constraint. Moreover, the terms freedom and free-will must be differentiated between, they cannot be defined within the same realm. Free-will is a psychological capacity, directing ones behavior in a way responsive to reason, while freedom is constrained by rules that govern us through social order. Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor proclaims that it is not freedom that brings man happiness, but security. On the contrary, Socrates a famous Greek philosopher, places much emphasis on freedom that he accepts death over living a slave.

The article, “The Authoritarian Personality,” written by Erich Fromm discusses the common and different characteristics between the two forms of an authoritarian personality. He starts to explain how one becomes a mature person. He states that to become a mature person, said person needs to have developed love and reason. He then states that an authoritarian character has not reached maturity, and therefore, has not developed love or reason. Erich Fromm continues to explain that the difference between the ruler and the ruled is how they start to feel “greater.” The way the ruled feels “greater” is by depending on their ruler for guidance and by following the ruler to become a part of the larger group. The way the ruler feels “greater” is by depending on the ruled to continue to look at them as strong and powerful. He then points out that one person can hold both the ruler and the ruled characteristics. Erich Fromm continues to explain the differences between rational and irrational authority and where these two forms of authority are found. He ends by saying that the understanding of love and reason, and developing said characteristics is the foundation to a person’s own authority and political democracy. While reading this article, it brought me back to all the times I have dealt with people who have authoritative personalities and how it affected me. As stated by Erich Fromm, all people with authority personalities contain components of both the ruler and the ruled.

“Nothing has ever been more insupportable for a man and a human society than freedom.” –The Grand Inquisitor” “Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love.” - Father Zosima. These two quotes voice the polarized philosophies that impregnate the book, The Brothers Karamazov. Ivan, the second of the three sons, and Zosima, the old monk, are huge commentators on the question, “Is the burden of free will to much for a human to bear?”

Aldous Huxley wrote, in his novel Brave New World, of a society whose quixotic ambitions created a skeletal civilization that functioned in the absence of freedom. Now, almost a century later, the issues of that fictional society are significantly more relevant to contemporary society as we see the crusade for social stability trample over the notion of individual freedoms modern political discourse and conduct.

set the human race on the path to thinking on their own, but obedience to authority in the

Whether one acknowledges it or not we all obey authority in one way or another. It is something that is embedded into us from the day that we are born. We begin to become obedient to our parents, elders, our teachers, law enforcement, the list goes and on. Authority has a major impact on human behavior. This is especially evident in the case of the concentration camps in Germany. There were hundreds if not thousands of people following Hitlers unethical orders, and clearly they outnumbered the one person controlling it all. However, they did not go against him but they simply followed his orders. For a person to obey authority, one has to accept that it is legal, and right for the order to be made of them. It also involves somebody of a higher power or status to be involved in making the commands.

First and foremost, I am a proponent of Negative Liberty. Not only does this mean that individuals should be free from external impediments to action by other people, but also that a government should primarily remove obstructions to our freedom, which is in contrast to Positive Liberty, for the purpose of preserving individual liberties. The lack of hindrance to human action will limit government activities and create a free, tolerant society. In addition, Negative Liberty supports the individual freedom of choice and movement. With this in mind, I cannot help but emphasize the significance of the degree to which individuals encounter interferences from others. Some may argue that a government should actively create conditions necessary for self-determination and freedom to act in the presence of internal capacities; however, I interpret that as a sense of entitlement that requires a redistribution of wealth and ultimately violates the human right of private property. For this reason, I find Positive Liberty to be an infringement of others’ liberty. Throughout mankind’s history, there have been many types of oppression that illustrate my support for Negative Liberty, such as the exploitative authoritarian regimes, economic hardships, and racial oppression.