Almost everyone is aware of the meaning of ”freedom”, as it is a concept that we hear frequently, and we are almost certain that most of us tried to discuss this concept with other people. But if we ask different individuals what freedom is, or we want them to guess the extent to which they are free, it will be a complete expectation of one perception and a constant form of madness, it is not reasonable to confine the concept of a complex orientation into one systematic sentence, nor replace it with one alone. Perhaps the most prominent issue that comes to mind after talking about this, is the problem of this concept. Is freedom a fait accompli? Or is freedom merely an intractable theoretical end and the relativity of puberty? Between this and that, there is a raging conflict, in which both sides are human beings, and the end is: is man really free?
Before exploring the depths of this problem, we had to recognize the difficulty of dividing freedom as an absolute concept in which one definition applies to different areas, and we had to recognize that the latter is a relative idea that differs from reality, depending on the area of its conjuring. Undoubtedly, that human being, therefore, is actually a free being in a few tartes, and an object is not free in other tartes.
First of all, if we accept that freedom is the ability of man to choose and decide on different things based on many factors rooted in his knowledge or experience, we implicitly recognize that man here is free and not free at the same time. It is not free because the choice is originally among a few specific alternatives, I can never say that I am free when I am obliged to submit to one of the options available instead of making a choice outside that scope, and free because you have the right to choose one of these alternatives, i.e. I cannot say that I am restricted while I have the ability to identify one of these alternatives. From it, accepting this stereotypical definition of freedom necessarily requires recognizing that it is relative, and to be more precise, free amid restrictions and restrictions within freedom.
While we take freedom from its intellectual side, a set of contradictions and problems will emerge. This is the result of the nature of creativity, excellence and difference, there is no end to ideas and no dam in the face of their effectiveness, although the owner can be conquered through oppression, exclusion, marginalization and threat, but the thought itself is invincible because its owner enjoys a monotony obsession constantly, and the possibility of keeping it between himself and unleashing it. But there are anomalies, even if they abound, subject to other ideas, and accept them without the slightest analysis or evaluation, and this freely strikes the individual’s mind against the wall, but they do not apply to all, i.e. cannot be generalized, so man is generally free in his mind.
If we move to the freedom of the soul, here is the choice for man, either to have a free soul that is unsustainable, logical in dealing with various situations, calm in the face of what the mind accepts, and therefore the psychological freedom of man gives him comfort. It can also be an ongoing struggle with itself, carrying it with its energy and therefore being submissive, and restricting itself. From this, the extent of human freedom can never be determined psychologically only by the human being himself, and the degree to which the latter reaches reality depends primarily on each individual.
Another aspect where the complexity of the problem is the legal aspect, the human being is free in the first place, but he is forbidden to practice certain acts of crimes and misdemeanors, which may end up without his freedom, here it can be said that the latter is relative again, although the talk in this context about purely material freedom.
In conclusion, dealing only with the subject from these aspects would be a blow to the aforementioned difficulty in limiting this concept to a single systematic definition. In fact, there are countless areas in which we can discover the extent to which man is submissive or liberated. However, the most important thing that brings these different perspectives together is that freedom is relative, and subject to certain restrictions that require the human being to act according to special data provided that he is able to diversify alternatives. The human being is still looking for his purpose in absolute freedom, despite his knowledge of the impossibility of attaining such an end, but his instinctive nature constantly urges him to do so, and the more he reaches a certain amount of freedom, he looks towards greater and wider freedom, and sees his current capacity as an unjustified melody.
