Retrospective analysis of the philosophical category "Freedom"

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL CATEGORY «FREEDOM»

OLEKSANDR, OBIEDKOV

Abstract

Problem statement. The issue of freedom is one of the central in classical and modern philosophical science. By its nature, it is a complex, heterogeneous phenomenon. Its qualitative characteristics have changed due to circumstances dictated by the conditions of a particular period of human civilization's development. This gave rise to a multitude of views that only broadened the definition of freedom.

Purpose of the study. Accordingly, the purpose of the article is a study aimed at understanding the category of «Freedom» by representatives of philosophy of different historical periods (from ancient times to modern philosophy) and to determine the place of freedom in the life of the individual.

The objectives of research: to conduct a retrospective analysis of the category «Freedom» and to demonstrate the positions of representatives of philosophical science.

The goal of the article is to determine the implementation of the following research methods: analysis, induction, dialectical, hermeneutic, as well as methods of logical and historical analysis. Thus, analyzing the views of philosophers who have studied the importance of freedom and determined its place in human life, the most important point will be that each of the researchers was able to make a unique contribution to its understanding. Undoubtedly, freedom is the basis of personal and social life, regardless of the sphere. It is multifaceted and fundamental, because, firstly, it is quite difficult to clearly define it, and secondly, freedom comprehensively expresses the complex dialectical processes of world development. Due to the cardinal globalization changes in the world, axiological orientations of man, total digitalization, which are happening in the XXI century at a very fast pace, it is difficult to imagine what will happen to freedom and what will be its real price. Predict how freedom will be understood during this century it is still almost impossible, as time will dictate its demands, and the boundaries of freedom can both expand and shrink. The main conclusion about this philosophical category will be the following: a person has, and sometimes is doomed to be free, but for each of his actions and manifestations of freedom must be responsible.

Keywords: freedom; multidimensional nature; responsibility; «recognition of necessity»; positive and negative freedom; existentialism; «Escape from freedom».

Анотація

ОБ'ЄДКОВ О. І. - аспірант кафедри філософії, соціології та політології Державного торговельно-економічного університету (Київ, Україна).

РЕТРОСПЕКТИВНИЙ АНАЛІЗ ФІЛОСОФСЬКОЇ КАТЕГОРІЇ «СВОБОДА».

Постановка проблеми. Проблематика свободи є однією з центральних у класичній та сучасній філософській науці. За своєї природою вона є складним, неоднорідним явищем. Її якісні характеристики змінювалися в силу обставин, які диктувалися умовами того чи іншого періоду розвитку людської цивілізації. У зв'язку з цим виникла множинність поглядів, які лише розширили визначення свободи.

Мета дослідження. Відповідно, метою статті є дослідження, направлене на розуміння категорії «Свобода» представниками філософії різних історичних періодів (від Античних часів до Новітньої філософії) і визначення місця власне свободи в житті індивіда. Завдання дослідження: проведення ретроспективного аналізу категорії «Свобода» та демонстрація з цього приводу позицій представників філософської науки.

Мета статті визначила застосування наступних методів дослідження: аналізу, індукції, діалектичний, герменевтичний, а також методи логічного і історичного аналізу. Таким чином, аналізуючи погляди філософів, які досліджували значення свободи та визначали її місце в житті людини, найважливіша теза буде про те, що кожен з дослідників зміг зробити свій неповторний внесок в її розуміння. Беззаперечно, свобода - це базис особистого і суспільного життя людини незалежно від сфери. Вона багатогранна й фундаментальна, оскільки, по-перше, доволі складно чітко визначити її дефініцію, а по-друге, свобода всебічно виражає складні діалектичні процеси світового розвитку. У зв'язку з кардинальними глобалізаційними змінами у світі, аксіологічними орієнтирами людини, тотальною цифровізацією, які відбуваються у ХХІ сторіччі з надшвидкими темпами, доволі складно уявити що саме буде зі свободою і якою буде її реальна ціна. Прогнозувати, як буде розумітися свобода впродовж цього століття і надалі майже неможливо, оскільки час буде диктувати свої вимоги, а кордони свободи можуть як розширюватися, так і зменшуватися.

Головним висновком щодо даної філософської категорії буде наступне: людина має, а іноді і приречена бути вільною, проте за кожні свої дії та прояви свободи має нести відповідальність.

Ключові слова: свобода, багатоаспектність, відповідальність, «пізнана необхідність», позитивна і негативна свобода, екзистенціалізм, «втеча від свободи».

Problem statement in general and its connection with important scientific or practical tasks

The philosophical category of «Freedom» is distinguished by its fundamentally. Freedom is the driving force of world development and is one of the main postulates of harmonious human coexistence. It is the absolute to which every individual aspires throughout the history of mankind, regardless of the sphere: political, social, economic, spiritual. This category is multifaceted, including freedom of will, freedom of speech, freedom of personality, freedom of creativity, freedom of religion and more. However, all these characteristics, unfortunately, make it impossible to reduce to a single and universal concept of freedom. Based on this, the topic of this philosophical category remains open and requires a comprehensive analysis. Freedom is one of the central and most important issues, which has been debated between representatives of various scientific disciplines for millennia. Because this topic is relevant not only in philosophy but also in political science, sociology, economics, numerous branches of law and more. This is due to the fact that freedom is inherently difficult, very controversial, unstable over time. Despite the fact that the process of researching this philosophical category takes quite a long time, it is still difficult to give it a clear definition, especially given the number of researchers who have worked on this issue. In this regard, the study of freedom in retrospect is relevant and necessary. This analysis systematizes the views expressed by a number of scholars from different historical periods and will provide a clearer understanding of the path that freedom has taken from ancient times to the present.

An analysis of recent research and publications that have led to the solution of this problem and on which the authors rely.

Due to its position in philosophical science, the category of «Freedom» has been studied by many scholars of different historical periods. Thus, the ancient Greek philosophers Plato, Socrates, Aristotle and Epicurus, as well as the ancient Roman scholars and statesmen Seneca and Marcus Aurelius, played an important role in mastering what is freedom in ancient times. Among others are the scholars of the Middle Ages, Augustine Aurelius and Thomas Aquinas, the Renaissance, Niccolo Machiavelli, and the Enlightenment philosophers Charles Montesquieu and John Locke. In the modern history, Thomas Hobbes and Benedict Spinoza, as well as such representatives of German classical philosophy as Immanuel Kant, Georg Hegel, Johann Fichte, Friedrich Schelling, and Arthur Schopenhauer, addressed this philosophical category. In the days of modern philosophy, representatives of the school of existentialism Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, and the philosopher of Ukrainian origin Mykola Berdyaev expressed their vision of the concept of freedom. Also important is the opinion of another representative of the modern history of philosophy, namely Erich Fromm, who in some ways contrasted his positions on the category of «Freedom» with the views of existentialists.

Purpose and formation of the goals of the article (task setting).

The purpose of the study is research aimed at understanding the category of «Freedom» by representatives of philosophy of different historical periods (from ancient times to modern philosophy) and determining the place of freedom in the life of the individual.

Objectives of the study:

- conducting a retrospective analysis of the category «Freedom»;

- demonstrating the positions of representatives of philosophical science.

The goal of the article is to determine the implementation of the following research methods: analysis, induction, dialectical, hermeneutic, as well as methods of logical and historical analysis.

Presentation of the main material of the research with substantiation of the obtained scientific results

According to the above-mentioned statements, freedom is driving force of world development. In essence, it is a complex, multi-vector phenomenon, is one of the central categories of a number of scientific disciplines and is the basis of existence of everyone. The history of the formation and development of freedom is more than one millennium. This category was formed under the influence of norms and traditions that were typical for a particular time and country.

Thus, the first mention of what is freedom appeared in the XXIV BC. It was at this time that the Sumerian monarch established freedom for his subjects through sanctions against tax collectors. The monarch also made efforts to protect widows and orphans from the criminal actions of people in power.

Later, already in the period of ancient times, the above-mentioned ancient Greek philosophers understood the category of «Freedom» differently. For example, Plato saw in freedom the responsibility of man for his own behavior and the interests of the state. That is, according to Plato, a person should be responsible to the state in which he lives, and should strive for a harmonious combination of their own interests and society (Ярунів, 2018).

In the writings of Socrates, freedom was interpreted as a free choice of universal reason. Under freedom, the philosopher understood that the human will must be subject to the general mind, so that the individual can achieve true knowledge. freedom philosophical science historical

Another famous ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, understood freedom as «the ability to alternately participate in power with others, to influence the formation of state will». Undoubtedly, in his opinion, influenced the then system of government and social structure, namely slavery. Also, the scientist stressed that freedom should be limited in some way and based on conscious choice. This confirms that Aristotle continued the teachings of Plato and Socrates on freedom.

No less significant contribution to the study of the category «Freedom» was made by Epicurus. Exploring man as the main value, he used another category to explain freedom, namely «chance». Epicurus noted that man is a microcosm that through its actions and decisions is able to bring harmony into their lives.

The Stoics held a completely polar opinion, among which are the positions of Seneca and Marcus Aurelius. They did not recognize freedom as a human value, and also tried to deny its existence. Their doctrine of freedom was based on necessity. In this regard, a quote from the thesis research of O. I. Shchadylo will be apt: «... man is not free in anything but his attitude to the laws and forces that determine it» (Щадило, 2018).

The Austro-American economist and philosopher Ludwig von Mises very aptly noted the freedom of the period of ancient times: «The idea of freedom, of course, originated in the cities of ancient Greece. From the works of Greek philosophers and historians, it passed to the Romans, and then - to Europeans and Americans. Freedom became the main point of all ideas of the people of the West about a just society, it gave birth to the philosophy of free initiative» (Осядла, 2016).

Thus, scholars of the ancient period laid the foundations for the further development and study of the philosophical category of «Freedom». Given the period of those studies, philosophers used different tools to study freedom and used different terminology, but this once again confirms the importance of their student.

The vector of research in the philosophical category of «Freedom» changed significantly during the Middle Ages, when it was considered by Catholic theologians, and in the late Middle Ages by Protestant theologians. Medieval philosophy was mainly based on the development of Christianity, which is due to the emergence of divine law, as well as the establishment of the ideas of the New Testament and the leaders of the churches. These ideas require the respect and freedom of all individuals, because they are all equal, created by God and endowed with a soul. Among the positions of figures of that period are Augustine Aurelius (a.k.a Hipponensis) and Thomas Aquinas (Занфірова, 2016).

In this way, Augustine sees in the individual not merely a «servant of God», but a «person connected with God». Regarding the freedom of the individual, Augustine believes that there is an interdependence of human freedom of will and God's grace. There is opposition between them, and in the end freedom must rise. Also, Augustine Aurelius was convinced that man is vulnerable because of original sin. He recognized man as free, but it is through freedom that man is sinful.

The opinion of another philosopher and theologian, Thomas Aquinas, was more pragmatic and was based on the fact that each person has the intellectual abilities by which he chooses one or another variant of his own behavior. And the basis of such behavior is a willful decision. To make such decisions, the individual has a certain intellectual process, because in the first place a person must be responsible for their actions through the possession of their own freedom (Ярунів М. І., 2018).

Based on this, the philosophical doctrine of freedom in the Middle Ages is based on the idea of unity of God and personality, in which man in turn finds the embodiment of his thoughts, life positions, desires, and God completes his work only by combining it with a living being.

It should also be noted that human existence in the Middle Ages was limited not only by the above connection with God, his influence on the fate of the individual, but also by the peculiarities of the feudal system, which was based on the monarch. Rights and freedoms were considered certain privileges granted to people with appropriate status and significant influence. Because of these dependencies, it was difficult to talk about human freedom. Rather, it concerned a certain stratum of the population (Щадило, 2018).

After the Middle Ages, revolutionary steps were taken in understanding the philosophical category of «Freedom» and many definitions were proposed in the era of the next historical period, namely the modern history. It should be noted that it was preceded by the Renaissance and it was at this time that positive conditions were formed for a deep understanding of freedom (Занфірова, 2016).

Thus, in the Renaissance, freedom was understood as the disclosure of an individual's own abilities, regardless of obstacles and areas of activity. A prominent representative of the above period is Niccolo Machiavelli, who criticized the Catholicism of the time for forming a free man. Man of that time was understood as the creator of himself, his destiny, the world around him. That is, a person was responsible in a certain way for his own life, and there wasn't responsible of God (Герман, 2015).

The post-Renaissance period is known as the Enlightenment, which further strengthened the position of the previous historical period on the knowledge of the category of «Freedom» and moved more into the legal plane. For example, Charles Montesquieu generally divided between natural and political freedom. The first type he attributed to the pre-social state of human existence, which was based solely on customs. One way or another, a person wants to live in a team, but in society, individuals cease to be equal and lose their natural freedom. Because of which wars began - for power, for influence, for territory. In order to curb this situation, it was necessary to make the laws that could regulate the relations of people within states. For their part, the laws restore freedom and ensure equality between citizens, but the latter receive the characteristics of the second type of freedom - legal and political (Терзі, 2012). The main point in this regard will be the following: «Freedom is the human right to do everything that is allowed by law» (Щадило, 2018).

The views of another Enlightenment scholar, John Locke, once again complement the previous proponent of the concept of natural and political freedom. Locke noted that man is born with the right to complete freedom, has the right to freely enjoy all the rights and privileges of the law of nature, just like others (Коваленко О. В., 2012). But it is worth noting the following. Accordingly, the scientist defends the maximum freedom of the individual and reduces government intervention in the field of civil society to a minimum. However, human freedom should be realized through his personal desires only in such a way as not to break the law (Осядла М. В., 2016).

The next historical period, known in history as the modern history, was marked by a large number of events aimed at establishing human freedom. It is worth noting The French Revolution (1789-1799) and the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783). Undoubtedly, these events, along with cultural ones, marked a new attitude towards man and, accordingly, the emphasis was shifted towards the assertion of his autonomy. The citation in the thesis research of M. I. Yaruniv is very successful in this regard: «Man was recognized as free from birth. The existence of freedom... philosophers of the modern history interpreted through the category of human responsibility primarily to himself (by personal approval or disapproval of the consequences of their actions)» (Ярунів, 2018).

Thus, among the philosophers of the modern history, concepts were developed regarding freedom, which in some ways became similar to the views of scholars of the Enlightenment. A prominent representative of modern philosophy is Thomas Hobbes. He is just like D. Locke and S. Montesquieu saw freedom from two points of view, namely natural and legal. In the natural state, freedom is the ability of man to use his own strength to save his life. In his view, freedom is «an inalienable characteristic of human existence, a quality of the human spirit». Accordingly, natural law absolutizes freedom, and laws (legal freedom) restrict it in some way, but only in order to prevent a state where human actions can harm another (Осядла, 2016).

Another representative of modern philosophy, Benedict Spinoza, saw freedom as a «recognition of necessity». That is, the philosopher understands freedom as a «conscious, recognition of necessity, the condition of which is the knowledge of the laws of existence of the living world to reconcile human actions with the objective laws of nature and society» (Щадило, 2018).

Representatives of the German classical school, which is considered the pinnacle of philosophical development, made a significant contribution to the consideration of the philosophical category «Freedom». It is a new approach to defining the phenomenon of human freedom begins with the philosophy of Kant. He made an interesting analysis of freedom through the opposition of the world of phenomena and the world of «things in themselves». The first is directly the experience of man and is observed by him, while the second world goes beyond his cognitive ability, is directly related to the essence of man.

In addition, Kant divided freedom into positive and negative, where the first one was the freedom of good, based on a moral categorical imperative. Negative freedom is based on arbitrariness, it is dangerous for man and society. That is why it must be limited by laws for the sake of positive freedom. I. Kant saw freedom as the basis of human existence, the source of ideas and creativity. In a way, in his opinion, this is the source of its development (Осядла, 2016).

The next representative of the German classical school is G. Hegel, who saw freedom primarily as a social category. He stressed that a person should have the right to self-determination. According to the philosopher, freedom is not a choice in favor of something or between something or someone, it is a conscious necessity (Ярунів, 2018). In turn, necessity becomes freedom not because it disappears, but only because its inner identity reveals itself. Hegel defines this identity by freedom (Остапець, 2014). Thanks to freedom, a person creates himself, develops and improves.

J. Fichte's position on the philosophical category of «Freedom» is based on the views of the previously mentioned B. Spinoza. That is, freedom is an action based on the knowledge of necessity. Also, Fichte introduced the concept of the degree of freedom, access to which for people depends on the level of historical development of society in which they are, and not on personal wisdom. It is also worth noting that Fichte saw freedom as the voluntary consent of the individual to the laws and goals of human development. And this agreement is based on the recognition of necessity (Налуцишин, 2017).

With regard to F. Schelling's position, it should be noted that freedom in his understanding was viewed through the prism of the categories of «good» and «evil». The philosopher wrote about freedom as follows: «One commits a negative act, the other in the same situation does good one. And each of them is personally responsible for their behavior. Can man, respectively, freely choose both good and evil? Yes and no». This state of affairs prevents a person from fully comprehending his own freedom and it pushes him to internal contradictions (Ярунів, 2018).

Another representative of the above philosophical school is A. Schopenhauer, according to whose teachings there are three types of philosophy, namely physical, moral and intellectual, where physical implies the absence of material obstacles to human life, moral freedom is the ability to act freely, and intellectual means human ability to think freely. These types of freedoms cover all spheres of an individual's life and make him responsible for his actions (Ярунів, 2018).

Turning to the latest period of philosophy from the XX century to present, the issue of the philosophical category of «Freedom» has not lost its relevance, which has given rise to many new views and concepts. Despite the growth of political, economic, and social freedom, the philosophical literature of the time was imbued with a description of the phenomena of «abandonment» and «escape from freedom». Also, there is a certain lack of internal freedom, which led to irresponsibility and permissiveness. The main achievements that have been developed during the study of the category «Freedom» are the positions of philosophers of the school of existentialism (philosophy of existence), which will be discussed below.

Thus, among the existentialists should be noted French figures J.-P. Sartre and A. Camus, whose positions are somewhat similar. They were convinced that it was wrong to view freedom through the prism of social reality. Sartre believed that man is free, and his actions are not defined by anything, because freedom is a way of being human consciousness. Thus, based on the position of Camus and Sartre, everyone must shape his personality and fill his life with meaning. And that is why she must be endowed with freedom and responsibility to others. The above-mentioned philosophers noted that freedom is associated with the necessity of human existence and the individual is a slave to the necessary freedom (Щадило О. І., 2018). In addition, Sartre's position in «Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology» is very apt. «Man is doomed to be free, he owns his being, and it only depends on him that he will do with himself. «My freedom (...) is not an additional quality or property of my nature. It is in the exact sense of the word the meaning of my being» (Смілик, 2016).

Among other existentialists should be mentioned the philosopher M. Berdyaev, who viewed freedom from the standpoint of humanism. In his opinion, a person is sacred, should be independent of the state, society and the environment, and his personality is the highest value.

In his work «Slavery and Human Freedom» Berdyaev showed different types of enslavement of the individual, which are opposed to different interpretations of freedom. Thus, he said that man cannot be free from society, nature, God, his own «I», money. The philosopher gave a broad definition of slavery as the lack of freedom of the individual, which can occur both forcibly and voluntarily.

In addition, M. Berdyaev said that freedom exists in three forms: irrational, which is based on feelings and experiences; rational, where the basis is the mind; and transcendental, which is expressed through the spirituality of the individual. Berdyaev emphasized that freedom is the freedom of the spirit, independence of the individual and his creative power (Щадило, 2018).

Another philosopher of the modern history of philosophy is a certain opposition of existentialists, namely E. Fromm, who saw freedom as a choice and criticized traditional views on freedom. Fromm noted that not all representatives of the school of existentialism in considering the philosophical category of «Freedom» considered the unconscious motivation. It was more about freedom of opinion than freedom of the individual. Fromm saw freedom in resolving the contradictions of human existence, where he is in two worlds: natural and human. Freedom is realized through human activity, in the process of which free choice is made. On the other hand, E. Fromm determines that making a choice causes discomfort to a person and requires spiritual and physical effort. It is not superfluous to mention one of Fromm's works «Escape from freedom», i.e., a person tries to «escape from freedom», although he is always forced to make decisions and «doomed to freedom» (Осядла, 2016).

Finally, it should be noted that in the XXI century, the issue of freedom will not lose its relevance. Due to the emergence and active use of the global Internet, continuous digitalization, cultural and social change, freedom and attitudes towards it can change dramatically. Its new qualities and limits may also appear. However, it is almost impossible to predict exactly how this will happen (Nikitenko, 2019).

Conclusions from the study and prospects for further exploratin in this direction

Therefore, analyzing the views of philosophers who have studied the importance of freedom and determined its place in human life, the most important thesis will be that each of the researchers was able to make a unique contribution to its understanding. Undoubtedly, freedom is the basis of personal and social life, regardless of the sphere. It is multifaceted and fundamental, because, firstly, it is quite difficult to clearly define its definition, and secondly, freedom comprehensively expresses the complex dialectical processes of world development. Due to the cardinal globalization changes in the world, axiological orientations of man, total digitalization, which are happening in the XXI century at a very fast pace, it is difficult to imagine what will happen to freedom and what will be its real price. Predict how freedom will be understood during this century it is still almost impossible, as time will dictate its demands, and the boundaries of freedom can both expand and shrink. The main conclusion about this philosophical category will be the following: man has, and sometimes is doomed to be free, but for each of his actions and manifestations of freedom must be responsible.

Список використаних джерел

1. Герман К. Ю. Розвиток ідеї свободи в філософських та правових дослідженнях. Право та інновації. 2015. № 3. С. 115-123. URL: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/apir_2015_3_18

2. Занфірова Т А. Сутність феномена свободи через історико-правовий аналіз. Часопис Київського університету права. 2016. № 3. С. 19-22. URL: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/Chkup_2016_3_5

3. Коваленко О. В. Свобода людини: природний і державний аспекти (Т. Гоббс, Дж. Локк). Держава і право. 2012. Вип. 56. С. 101-103. URL: http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/bitstream/handle/123456789/64317/18-Kovalenko. pdf?sequence=1

4. Налуцишин В. В. Уявлення про соціальний контроль та правовий порядок у філософсько-правових поглядах І. Канта, І. Фіхте, Ф. Шеллінга, Г Гегеля та Л. Фейербаха. Юридичний науковий електронний журнал. 2017. № 4. С. 183-187. URL: http://lsej.org.ua/4_2017/49.pdf

5. Nikitenko, Vitalina. The impact of digitalization on value orientations changes in the modern digital society. Humanities Studies. 2019. Випуск 2(79). С. 80-94.

6. Остапець І. Особливості формування поняття «свободи» у філософії нового часу (логіко гносеологічний аспект). Вісник Львівського університету. Серія: Філософсько-політологічні студії. 2014. Вип. 4. С. 36-43. URL: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/Vlu_fps_2014_4_6

7. Осядла М. В. Свобода як цінність права (теоретико-правовий аспект): дис. ... кандидата юридичних наук: 12.00.01/ Осядла Марія Володимирівна. Київ, 2016. 202 с.

8. Смілик, Андрій. Проблема свободи й відповідальності у філософії екзистенціалізму.

9. In: Jurnalul juridic national: teorie §i practica. 2016, nr. 2/2(18), pp. 30-34. URL: %20ekzistentsIalIzmu.pdf

10. Терзі О. С. Політико-правові погляди Ш. Монтеск'е / О. С. Терзі, Л. Ю. Заставська. Наука. Релігія. Суспільство. 2012. № 4. С. 110-113.

11. Щадило О. І. Аксіологія феномена свободи у трансформаційних суспільствах: дис. . кандидата юридичних наук: 12.00.12 Л., 2018. 204 с. URL: https://ena.lpnu.ua/handle/ntb/55973

12. Ярунів М. І. Аксіологічно-нормативна парадигма свободи волі людини: дис. ... кандидата юридичних наук: 12.00.12. Л., 2018. 191 с. URL: http://dspace.lvduvs.edu.ua/handle/1234567890/461

References

1. Herman K. Yu. (2015). Rozvytok ideyi svobody v filosofs'kykh ta pravovykh doslidzhennyakh. Herman. Pravo ta innovatsiyi. 3. 115-123. URL: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/apir_2015_3_18

2. Zanfirova T A. (2016).Sutnist' fenomena svobody cherez istoryko-pravovyy analiz [Elektronnyy resurs]. Chasopys Kyyivs'koho universytetuprava. 3. 19-22. URL: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/Chkup_2016_3_5

3. Kovalenko O. V. (2012). Svoboda lyudyny: pryrodnyy i derzhavnyy aspekty (T Hobbs, Dzh. Lokk) Derzhava ipravo. 56. 101-103.

4. Nalutsyshyn V. V.(2017). Uyavlennya pro sotsial'nyy kontrol' ta pravovyy poryadok u filosofs'ko-pravovykh pohlyadakh I. Kanta, I. Fikhte, F. Shellinha, H. Hehelya ta L. Feyyerbakha. Yurydychnyy naukovyy elektronnyy zhurnal. 4. 183-187.

5. Nikitenko, Vitalina. (2019). The impact of digitalization on value orientations changes in the modern digital society. Humanities Studies. 2 (79). 80-94.

6. Ostapets' I. (2014). Osoblyvosti formuvannya ponyattya «svobody» u filosofiyi novoho chasu (lohiko hnoseolohichnyy aspekt). Visnyk L'vivs'koho universytetu. Seriya filosofs'ko-politolohichni studiyi, 4. 36-43. URL: http://nbuv.gov.ua/ UJRN/Vlu_fps_2014_4_6

7. Osyadla M. V(2016). Svoboda yak tsinnist' prava (teoretyko-pravovyy aspekt): dys. ... kandydata yurydychnykh nauk: 12.00.01. K., 202.

8. Smilyk, Andriy (2016). Problema svobody y vidpovidal'nosti u filosofiyi ekzystentsializmu. In: Jurnalul juridic national: teorie $i practica. 2/2(18). 30-34.

9. Terzi O. S. (2012). Polityko-pravovi pohlyady SH. Monteskye. Nauka. Relihiya. Suspil'stvo, 4. 110-113. URL: http:// nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/Nrs_2012_4_21

10. Shchadylo O. I. (2018). Aksiolohiya fenomena svobody u transformatsiynykh suspil'stvakh: dys. ... kandydata yurydychnykh nauk: 12.00.12 Shchadylo Oleh Ihorovych. L. 204.

11. Yaruniv M. I. (2018). Aksiolohichno-normatyvna paradyhma svobody voli lyudyny: dys. ... kandydata yurydychnykh nauk: 12.00.12. Yaruniv Mykhaylo Ivanovych. L., 191. URL: http://dspace.lvduvs.edu.ua/handle/1234567890/461

Размещено на Allbest.ru