Freedom and Liberty

Freedom of expression in a conflict of rights. Freedom of expression is one of the issues that society considers important for various reasons. Its application, however, gives rise to many conflicts. This article discusses the conflicts that come from both plurality of opinions and misunderstanding of freedom of expression. It focuses on the conflicts between the individual and the totalitarian regime. Then there is a discussion of the conflict of rights which can be the result of the practicing of freedom (...) of expression. This conflict can often only be resolved by authoritarian intervention, restricting the application of certain rights. The attempt to resolve the conflict and define the necessary restrictions leads to the need to rely on a concrete justification and derivation of human rights. The paper relies on a justification of rights based on an analysis of human nature, specifically the understanding of human beings as rational and free beings, capable of acting responsibly and naturally forming human society with others. From such an analysis, a response to the conflicts of opinion will emerge in the synergy of tolerance and paresis. (shrink)

The classical liberal paradigm has always argued for strong economic freedom combined with limits on government power. But it has also been always openminded about using government programs to improve the society. These principles, if applied to today’s society, are simultaneously a criticism of “really existing” welfare state ideology – with its lack of economic freedom and its reliance on the expansive bureaucracy – but also an opportunity for reforming welfare states toward more freedom-based alternatives. There is a utopian potential (...) in classical liberalism. This book articulates how several strands of liberalism, including Austrian school liberalism and Chicago school liberalism, may support something like universal basic income (UBI). (shrink)

If there is no God everything is permitted. The phenomenology of decision tells us that permissibility and utility are intimately coordinated (Reason Internalism is effectively a thesis that erases the line between the two). Because of the difference in utility one does not find every choice equally permitted. That the instant of decision is madness means one finds facing every real decision frightening. it is not the case that there is no God. One's God is that which matters most crucially (...) for one's decision. (shrink)

The courage to use one's own reason is an invitation to take more actions---implicating excessive use of agency, even under rampant false consciousness manufactured by mass media and technological priorities. If one does nothing and gains nothing by doing nothing, one is not subject to any evaluation or interpretation. Modernity is an ongoing incessant festival of cruel hermeneutic sacrificial.

Not only is freedom a shared concern of Sartre and Schelling, which would not be anything particularly unique, but for both philosophers, freedom must be articulated out of an ontological ground, or within the confines of an ontological system. A contradiction nevertheless appears to arise regarding the “orientation” of Sartre and Schelling’s respective “ontologies of freedom”: the freedom of Sartre, reflecting a contemporary stoic-inspired doctrine, is directed toward the future, while for Schelling, with affinities to the temporal logic of psychoanalysis, (...) freedom is oriented toward the past. This article presents both Sartre and Schelling’s ontological reasoning out of which either a progressively oriented freedom (the freedom to negate the present in the name of future “possibles”) or a retrogressively oriented freedom (the freedom to determine the ground of the present out of an indefinite, a-temporal becoming), before attempting to resolve this contradiction in the temporality of freedom by examining the position and role of the negative (of negation, contradiction, or nothingness), as either secondary or primary, within the ontology of each respective philosopher. (shrink)

I provide a defence of the classical liberal tradition (from Locke and Smith to Hayek and Tomasi) as a blueprint for a 'bleeding-heart libertarian' framework of society. Such a society defends three principles: 1) Freedom from private coercion (Private Property), 2) Freedom from public coercion (Limited Government); and 3) Within these limits, the provision of a limited range of public goods and public welfare (Limited Welfare State). I show that principles can be abstracted from a reading of the classical liberal (...) tradition. Then, through an extensive analysis of Locke, I show the importance, and consequentialist justifications, of the Three Principles for any liberal welfare state. Through a critique of Nozick, I show the inadequacy of the hardcore libertarian interpretation. Then, I show that John Tomasi, Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek have all defended versions of limited welfare states. On this basis, I propose that the Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) is a good example, supported by Hayek, Buchanan and Friedman, of a welfare principle that is compatible with bleeding-heart libertarianism. I believe we can justify, on the basis of a consequentialist theory, that the limited welfare state, which combines welfare with liberty, and the free market with a social safety net, has highly beneficial effects on the society. It thus suggests itself as a viable competitor to rights-based libertarianism and more expansive social liberalism. (shrink)

I will show that there are mainly two different, mutually contradictory approaches taken by philosophers in trying to answer the question: “Who or what is to blame for the Holocaust?” The first answer, offered by radical critics of Enlightenment (Adorno/Horkheimer, Saul, Heidegger), blames one of the following: Reason, Modernity, the State, Industrial Society, Bureaucratic Management and/or Technocratic Efficiency. On the other side, we have the answer given by liberal-democratic defenders of Enlightenment (Arendt, Habermas, Rawls): It claims the Holocaust was caused (...) the upsurge of anti-rational, irrational or pre-rational forces and a deep rejection of the humanistic principles and ethical values that underpin modernity. In this study, I want to analyze these two perspectives, comparing and contrasting their respective merits. (shrink)

How is it possible to perform more than is required? And yet, isn’t that precisely what is required, in order for an interlocking society of human beings to function, develop and evolve? If human beings only did what we were told to do, we would live in complete monotony and enslavement. If human beings did only what we were permitted to do, nothing interesting would ever happen. Although performance has often been limited to the study of isolated artistic forms of (...) expressions (music, visual arts, etc.), it is equally possible to analyze culture, on the whole, as a behaviour-encoding system of rules and regulations, wherein the individual actor’s performative appropriation and reinterpretation of these said (cultural, political, artistic) rules makes possible the culture’s very survival, against all odds and obstacles, over long periods of time, as a “tradition” upheld by a community of rule-followers / rule-breakers. Rules, in a very real sense, are meant to be broken. Rule-breaking, by the same token, is, as it were, legislated within the very law code itself, as its own guarantee of immortality. After all, what law could function for any period of time without undergoing reinterpretation? This is good news both for culture and for the avant garde (the creative individual or collective), because even the strictest of rules creates its own conditions of transgression, and vice versa. The performance of culture through the creative freedom of the transgressive individual – i.e. any individual qua his or her individuality – is the sine qua non for a democratic society of peers. Creativity depends upon structure, and structure depends upon that which breaks its shackles of normativity, by rebirthing structure transgressively. The whole point of interpreters is to make things alright for the reappearance of the “father” (the law code) again. Ironically, then, anarchy is the only guarantee of the rule of law. (shrink)

Traditional institutions are often considered inadequate to govern for the long term as their politicians promote short-term thinking which can harm the future. This book proposes a novel theory of social time perception to address the short-term thinking of traditional institutions which threaten to stifle liberal democracies. The semi-future reconfigures liberal democracies’ franchises, representative instruments, deliberative practices, accountability mechanisms, and policymaking to include in the demos all citizens, regardless of age, and holders of representable objective interests in the future. The (...) result is not only a way to legitimise long-term governance but also to improve the quality of current democracies. (shrink)

This working paper combines Lukas Schmid’s article “Responding to unauthorized residence: on a dilemma between ‘firewalls’ and ‘regularisations’” with three critical responses as well as a rejoinder by the author. Schmid argues that a set of liberal-democratic commitments gives conscientious policymakers strong reason to implement both so-called ‘firewall’ and ‘regularisation’ policies, thereby protecting unauthorised immigrants’ basic needs and interests and officially incorporating many of them in society. He then explains that the background imperative of immigration control creates a dilemmatic tension (...) between these policies, as regularisation is envisaged alongside the removal of the ineligible, which is in turn hindered by the implementation of firewalls. This creates a dilemma between the pursuit of two policy goals that are both underwritten by the same value commitments. Schmid concludes that the best way to mitigate this dilemma is to design regularisation policy in a way that leaves only a small number of unauthorised immigrants subject to removal. Antje Ellermann’s response reflects critically on Schmid’s understanding of firewalls, arguing that there is good reason to think that the presence of firewalls does not hinder the implementation of removals of unauthorised immigrants who are ineligible for regularisation. She concludes that, contrary to Schmid’s argument, there is no true ethical dilemma between firewall and regularisation policy. Adam Omar Hosein’s contribution argues that the tensions Schmid discusses arise only because of his adoption of widely shared assumptions about the proper basis for regularisation policies. He suggests they can be avoided by adopting a superior justification for regularisations: the ‘autonomy argument.’ In the last response, Cecilia Menjívar reflects on some constraints conscientious policymakers may face when dealing with ethically dilemmatic choices, such as a policy landscape of government agencies with conflicting goals as well as foreign policy and international obligations, all of which are rooted in anti-immigrant backlash and racism around the globe. The working paper concludes with a rejoinder, in which Schmid discusses the contributors’ key points, outlines agreements and disagreements, and explores the bigger picture sketched by the working paper’s discussions. (shrink)

The paper argues that the concept of a civilizationally transformed state envisions a new governance paradigm that emphasizes moral values, collective responsibility, and compassion over traditional ideas of sovereignty and legality. This model emerges from the failure of conventional states to address global crises like climate change, economic instability, and democratic erosion. It proposes a state that prioritizes human dignity, justice, and the common good. Drawing from philosophical traditions such as Ubuntu, it seeks to foster mutual accountability and elevate compassion (...) as a guiding principle of governance to ensure care for the vulnerable. The 2024 Bangladeshi student-public uprising reflects this vision by rejecting repressive governance and demanding moral accountability. Realizing this transformation requires a cultural and ethical shift where the state serves as a moral authority inspiring pluralism, collective growth, and humanity's highest aspirations. (shrink)

While it is clear what those attracted to fascism today are against, it is less clear what they are for. Not in the sense of how they want to remake society—this is usually clear enough. What is less clear is the fundamental values that are driving their desire to create a different kind of order. Compounding this difficulty, too many liberals are stubbornly sticking to some conventional beliefs: that human nature is as liberals think it is, not something that is (...) fundamentally disputed; that facts are what liberals think they are, even if some people choose to ignore them; and that everybody is pursuing basically the same conception of the good, even if some of them are deluded as to where we are now and how to get where we want to go. -/- But this move to the right is not being driven simply by mistakes; it is a principled move, backed by a coherent, consistent, and historically well-sourced value system, even if this value system is perverse. Fascism has its own conception of the moral subject; of the need for a rigid social hierarchy of men; of the nature of individual rights; and of the importance of purity in blood, soil, and ideology. It believes in the unity of the people, the leader, and the state; it embraces very different and (to liberals) often disturbing moral ends; and it employs starkly different rules of social interaction. And it believes, in the end, that this all leads to the greatest expression of democracy ever invented. (shrink)

From the perspective of digital ethics, this book chapter outlines a model for dealing with the challenges posed by digital media environments in a responsible and appropriate manner. This concept is based on preliminary considerations of “digital citizenship”. At a time when digital technologies - the “data-sphere” - are being increasingly implemented and intensified, the question of humans' roles and skills in using these digital technologies in a sensible and meaningful way is becoming more and more urgent. In the age (...) of European Enlightenment, Western societies had already assigned a central role to people's maturity, which was to be achieved fundamentally through literacy and education in order to create free individuals and, ultimately, citizens capable of making decisions. In contrast, in the current age of digitality, characterized by networking and immersion that has prevailed since the 1990s, many people experience and participate in such life-worlds primarily as consumers. In this role, they increasingly appear as economic objects that are constantly encouraged to produce data sets. Social networking sites and applications of generative artificial intelligence in particular exert a certain pull, the functioning of which many people are at best instrumentally proficient in, but not reflexively. Against this background, Zöllner's article outlines the contours of the concept of "digital citizenship" from an ethical perspective. This form of citizenship should enable people to lead a free life in digital and networked environments in which they are not merely subject to the exploitation interests of digital corporations. (shrink)

Many political and moral philosophers try to reconcile freedom and equality. One such theory is left-libertarianism, which establishes exclusive property rights over one’s own body and egalitarian property rights over natural resources. These rights are realized through the policy of unconditional basic income. Recently, left-libertarianism has come under fire from another similar approach, reciprocal libertarianism. This concept combines exclusive rights over one’s own body with the requirement for an egalitarian distribution of the fruits of social cooperation among those who make (...) a fair contribution to its system. On the face of it, reciprocal libertarians reject basic income because it doesn’t satisfy the fair contribution condition. This article explores the case for a basic income from a reciprocal libertarian perspective. In particular, two institutional regimes will be examined: reciprocal left-libertarianism and libertarian socialism. Each is compatible with a basic income coupled with broader redistribution according to the principle of reciprocity. (shrink)

As a new praxis emerges, in Access to Information in Africa for the first time African scholars and practitioners reflect on recent advances on the continent, as well as the obstacles that must still be overcome if greater public access to information is to make a distinctive contribution to Africa's democratic and socio-economic future.

Open Government gilt vielfach als die universale Staatsdoktrin für das 21. Jahrhundert, ohne dass schon klar wäre, was sich im Einzelnen hinter diesem Schlagwort verbirgt und was daraus für die Praxis des Regierens und Verwaltens folgt. In diesem Band untersucht der Autor alle Bauteile dieser Konstruktion kritisch: das Paradigma der Offenheit, dem sich alles unterordnen soll, die drei Säulen Transparenz, Partizipation und Kollaboration, die das Ganze tragen sollen, aber auch die technischen und ideologischen Fundamente, auf denen das Modell ruht. Im (...) Zentrum steht dabei stets die Frage, was Open Government für Staat und Demokratie hierzulande bedeuten würde. Im Ergebnis zeigt sich, dass dieses Konstrukt technokratische Züge trägt und aus einer »kalifornischen Ideologie« hervorgeht, die es erst noch politisch zu bewerten gilt. Wenn sowohl die Giganten des Internets als auch emphatische Aktivisten Open Government massiv propagieren, darf kritische Reflexion nicht auf der Strecke bleiben. Wewer bezweifelt, dass Open Government als Leitbild für das digitale Zeitalter taugt, dem im Prinzip alle Länder dieser Welt nacheifern könnten. Auch für die Erneuerung von Staat und Demokratie in Deutschland wirft es mehr Fragen auf, als es Antworten bietet. (shrink)

Managers of public organizations face strong, and increasing, demands to open up their internal processes to public scrutiny. A more active and critical role in society, advances in communications technology, the 24-hour media cycle and growing numbers of independent regulators all add to the pressure on governments to become more accountable and transparent. This book analyses these pressures by examining the key concepts of accountability and transparency and the main institutional mechanisms of open government. It also discusses the problems of (...) accountability and transparency that arise for public managers sharing responsibilities across jurisdictional boundaries and in public-private partnerships. Drawing on examples from around the world, this engaging and accessible text provides a balanced account of open government which emerges as both a challenge and an aid to more effective public management. (shrink)

Perhaps nothing has become more evident in the months and years since 9/11 than the tension that exists between the publics access to information and concerns about protecting national security. This tension raises fundamental questions regarding how and to what extent national security secrecy is consistent with American notions of democracy; how institutions governing determinations about secrecy and disclosure should be designed; and the proper role of Congress, the courts, the public, and the media when it comes to government assertions (...) of secrecy. The materials in this book will provide the interested reader a window into the current shape of the eternal push-and-pull between secrecy and access to information in a democracy. (shrink)

Today, the demand for transparency is omnipresent. In particular, transparency is considered a prerequisite for good governance, for political participation and democracy. On closer inspection, however, transparency proves to be ambivalent. For complete transparency has not yet been achieved anywhere. Moreover, measures to increase transparency can have the opposite effect and stir up mis-trust. Historians are just beginning to discover this topic. The volume aims at elucidating the opportunities and the restrictions of transparency in historical research. It assembles contributions covering (...) European history since the 19th century. The contributors focus on political and cultural history, but include also economic and media history as well as the history of ideas. They analyse publicly debated demands and efforts for transparency, conceived as the access to information or its disclosure. (shrink)

The article overviews all known approaches to formalization of a problem of Liberty / Freedom (« Liberty from », « Liberty for », « being for her/his own sake, not a other's », « absence of sovereign other », individual freeing in a context of the Master-Slave Dialectics, Social Freedom) and problems of emancipation (« restricting privileges of upper class minorities », « giving privileges to marginalized minorities – affirmative actions »). Then, the article discusses a version of formalization of (...) level of social freedom through comparison of what is allowed for an individuals in the society with what is allowed for «a sheep in herd »: each additional degree of freedom gives unit in plus, each additional restriction gives unit in minus. The proposed model was tested for a case of the post-Soviet transit, when the level of freedom evolved from minus two for the USSR up to plus two for the contemporary Russian Federation. It also shows the ways for further emancipation of people in Russia in « politically easy version » - i.e. without essential change of its political system. (shrink)

This review of Elizabeth Anderson’s Hijacked: How Neoliberalism Turned the Work Ethic against Workers and How Workers Can Take It Back (Cambridge University Press, 2023), sets out Anderson’s main claim, that the original Protestant work ethic split into two different work ethics, the conservative (anti-worker) and the progressive (pro-worker) work ethics, and that the conservative work ethic “hijacked” the work ethic, turning it into a tool for the rich to dominate and harm workers and the poor. Conservative thinkers have, Anderson (...) argues, managed to discredit, erase, or deceptively coöpt proponents of the progressive work ethic; her book accordingly aims to re-introduce readers to the suppressed, centuries-long progressive work ethic tradition, and to offer it as a tool for critiquing and counteracting the most recent incarnation of the conservative work ethic, neoliberalism. In the course of doing so, Anderson also re-categorizes a number of supposed heroes of the conservative work ethic, such as John Locke and Adam Smith, as in fact proponents of the progressive work ethic. The review gives attention to each chapter of Anderson’s book. (shrink)

The book explores the origin story of the Open Government Partnership and place the open government reform movement in the context of the long history of public sector reform.

Scholars of international law have been increasingly troubled by states’ vast powers and practices of migrant exclusion. There is no doubt that much of this uneasiness is catalyzed by a keen sense of the demands of a basic liberalism at the international legal order's core. Indeed, the increased construction of border walls,1 the continuously widespread use of deportation as a migration control tool,2 and new digital bordering technologies3 have all come under scrutiny precisely because of the challenges they pose to (...) the notion of supposedly universal entitlements, both substantive and procedural, that often appear disabled or overridden when it comes to the treatment of different sorts of migrants. My goal in this contribution is not to add to such legal critiques, but rather to provide the contours of a broader normative argument to rebuke—or at least complicate—what is often called the state's “right to exclude” all or most would-be immigrants. This right is not just standardly assumed in legal and political practice—indeed, standardly viewed as the linchpin of sovereignty—but has also enjoyed sophisticated defense by liberal political theorists.4 The main goal of my argument is to suggest that anyone with basic liberal inclinations—including political theorists, lawyers, and practitioners of politics—should be able to agree that, under current circumstances, granting states a potent “right to exclude” entails deep tensions with basic moral standards of legitimate authority. This is because the deeply entrenched characteristics and historical background conditions of immigration control today tend structurally to push states to violate the appropriate moral conditions of their legitimate authority to enforce immigration restrictions.5 While moving above and beyond legal argumentation, my hope is that the argument may underscore and give further analytical expression to some of the animating concerns of contemporary legal contestations of states’ exclusive powers and practices. (shrink)

The piece delves into the political and philosophical complexities surrounding the Bangladesh Awami League's future following the 2024 student-public uprising. It explores the challenge of reconciling the party's foundational philosophies of Bengali nationalism and secularism with the movement's collective calls for democracy and pluralism, and considers whether redemption is possible through ideological transformation or a pragmatic focus on regime change.

Egalitarianism, Rothbard wrote, is a revolt against nature. Yet such was precisely the creed of the analytical Marxist and socialist Gerald Cohen. Cohen's basic morality was twisted by his communist upbringing but not _completely_ which makes uncovering his errors interesting. Which is what this book does. Cohen believes that justice consists in equality. Though he is brilliant and lucid, his attitude can be summed up as follows: "Humans are my toy soldiers. I happen to like all my soldiers equally, and (...) so will give all of them the same stuff and make sure they are equally well maintained. I will then play with these toy soldiers, and all shall be well." Negatively, his case is dismantled; positively, a view is advanced, building on the author's book on John Rawls, Distribute This, that justice is a social order that fosters harmony and progress among men, and that it is libertarian capitalism that realizes this virtue. By drawing attention to this key thinker, this book fills an important gap in the refutation of egalitarianism, a task that is still unfinished and that desperately needs doing today. (shrink)

En este artículo sostengo que los tres filósofos/pedagogos cubanos del siglo XIX, Félix Varela y Morales, José de la Luz y Caballero y Enrique José Varona, fueron responsables de superar la enseñanza de la escolástica tardía en la Real y Pontificia Universidad de San Jerónimo de La Habana. Contra los filósofos y pedagogos escolásticos tardíos que preferían la lógica silogística y la autoridad de la tradición sobre la inducción, argumentaron a favor de esta última sobre la primera. Puesto que defendían (...) las ideas liberales y republicanas, también argumentaban en contra de aquellos que apelan a la autoridad de la tradición en lugar de a nuestras experiencias cotidianas. Su espíritu liberal desafió no sólo al régimen tiránico impuesto por España, sino a cualquier otro régimen cuya autoridad dependiera de la fuerza más que de la libre voluntad del pueblo a escoger sus gobernantes. (shrink)

The chapter "Confucian Approaches" as part of the Digital Ethics handbook (Nomos Handbuch series) is an introduction to Confucian thought models applied to phenomena of digitality that are critically viewed from the perspective of digital ethics. After a general introduction of the relevance of non-European thought models for grasping the modern world, the book chapter looks at political, cultural and technological disruptions in antiquity that may serve as a blueprint for understanding contemporary changes and ruptures. This critical assessment is followed (...) by an outline of Confucianism's concept of virtues and humans' position in society. Subsequently, Confucianist principles in online and offline contexts and their related practices are discussed and linked to current political debates such as the People's Republic of China's recent rediscovery, and instrumentalization, of Confucianism as a tool of power both domestically and in the international arena. (shrink)

In this essay we explore a variety of instrumental and intrinsic values associated with teaching philosophy in wartime Ukraine. Duclos, an American, argues that teaching philosophy in Ukraine can cultivate habits of thought and action that promote democratic citizenship while opposing authoritarian dogmatism. Duclos further argues that the intrinsic joy associated with philosophical activity should not be overlooked, even in times of crisis. Conscious of Ukraine’s Soviet past, Bila, a Ukrainian, cautions against using philosophers and philosophy departments as an ideological (...) arm of any political party. She then argues that philosophy has value as a distinct form of thinking with the power to provide consolation. Finally, she identifies philosophical activity as agent of creative change. To teach philosophy in wartime Ukraine is to advance these instrumental and intrinsic values with an eye towards influencing the Ukrainian society that will emerge after the war. (shrink)

The income gap between women and men expands with age, culminating in a gender pension gap in old age that is much larger than pay gaps earlier in life. In this article, I question two attempts to justify gender pension gaps. One insists that lower financial contribution justifies women's lower overall pensions. The second states that women must receive less monthly because they live longer. I argue that neither of these reasons is fair in a gender‐unjust world. Rather than justifying (...) pension gaps, female longevity is an opportunity to promote gender justice: by subsidizing longer lives, old‐age redistribution attenuates lifetime gender inequality. In the case of retirement pensions, the use of age to promote gender equality may be preferable to explicit gender differentiation. There is, then, a feminist case for old‐age redistribution. (shrink)

The boundaries of democracy are typically defined by the boundaries of formal status citizenship. Such state-centered theories of democracy leave many migrants without a voice in political decision-making in the areas where they live and work, giving rise to a problem of democratic legitimacy. Drawing on two democratic principles of inclusion, the all affected interests and coercion principles, this article elaborates this problem and examines two responses offered by scholars of citizenship for what receiving states might do. The first approach (...) involves expanding the circle of citizenship to include resident noncitizens. A second approach involves disaggregating the rights conventionally associated with citizenship from the legal status of citizenship and extending some of those rights, including voting rights, to resident noncitizens. This article argues that both approaches fall short of satisfying the democratic principles of inclusion, which call for enfranchising individuals not only beyond the boundaries of citizenship but also beyond territorial boundaries. (shrink)

El presente artículo analiza los principales argumentos de la reacción comunitarista frente al liberalismo, debido a su enfoque individualista y su defensa del modelo contractual. Se destaca la presencia de una triple raíz que se hunde hasta la filosofía política de Aristóteles, Hegel y Marx. Finalmente, se analizarán los l ́ımites dela frontera entre ambas comprensiones de la política, as ́ı como los riesgos en que incurren las democracias modernas al omitir la presencia del libertarismo como ideología depositaria de principios (...) tanto liberales como comunitaristas. (shrink)

Preguntarse por la libertad es hacerlo a la razón y al corazón de nuestra vida. Reconocer el valor de ser, sentirse y vivir libre es reconocerse como humano y por ello aceptar el compromiso feliz e inexcusable del esfuerzo continuado. Una tarea para toda la vida. Es el tema de este libro. Para empezar, ingenuamente, puede plantearse así: ¿En qué consiste la libertad? ¿Existe realmente la libertad, ¿es algo que tengo antes de saberlo, algo que sólo adquiero al saber que (...) lo tengo o algo que para tenerlo debo renunciar a saber con precisión qué es? ¿Soy capaz de libertad o soy libertad y por ello capaz de ser humano? Y tantas, tantas: demasiadas preguntas.. En la primera parte se intenta una antropología a partir de la libertad, es decir considerando la libertad como diferencia específica del género humano. Cuestiones sobre la elección, lo voluntario e involuntario, la intención, el azar,?ayudarán a comprender qué es. En la segunda parte se presenta un breve repertorio de opciones libres argumentadas, destinadas a comprometer las abstracciones de la primera con la peripecia actual que vivimos y en la que somos. Se ofrecen algo así como unos "ejercicios de libertad". ". Es una incitación a continuar pensando y repensando. La filosofía nunca es para mí la cancelación definitiva que nos permite salir de dudas sino el acicate que nos arroja a ellas, permitiéndonos vivir con dignidad inteligente en la ausencia de certidumbres absolutas" (F.Savater). (shrink)