Free, not free: because freedom cannot be a clockwork concession
And what if today's crisis of freedom could be traced back, in a certain way, to questions of an etymological nature? Let's explain ourselves better, avoiding logical bottlenecks in a dead end. Etymology, as is well known, is a linguistic discipline that deals with the history of words, investigating their origin and roots, of sense and meaning. It also tries to follow its development and evolution over the centuries. It is therefore a profoundly historical branch of knowledge. Language is an arena for confrontation between words and expressions, in constant competition with each other.
The word "liberty" derives from the Latin libertas and from the even older word liber , that is "legally free man " , in evident contrast to the term servus , that is slave. In ancient times people were born free or slaves, but the events of existence could change this condition. War and debts could deprive you of your freedom, while the generosity of a master, on the other hand, could open the doors to a progressive, but still limited, personal emancipation.
The concept of freedom has considerably expanded over the ages, identifying itself with a state of autonomy and choice, guaranteed by law, regarding the legitimate will of the subject to achieve full self-determination, in the moral, cultural, economic and social spheres. Freedom, therefore, has increasingly become a state, a condition concerning the being of the person, leaving in the background, at least in the West, the instance of possessing specific freedoms.
Wanting to make a synthesis: freedom inhabits man, vivifies him and makes him so, in thought and action, even before identifying with a sort of license or permission. The authorization, the possession of the Green Pass on duty, is not enough to be free. In this case, at most, this condition could be defined as a specific and temporary license. A freedom in a negative way, heterodirected from the outside, a not being able to be fully present to oneself, as limited by something or someone. Let me be clear, this too is necessary, and how, otherwise it would fall into anarchy and the war of Hobbesian memory. Limits, prohibitions, laws and customs themselves are indispensable, especially in a democracy. But all this is not sufficient to guarantee the birth and construction of a truly free, safe and responsible society.
Man must be placed in the position of being able to choose between different options, exercise the right of criticism, systematic and curative doubt, in all fields of knowledge. Otherwise, the risk is that of fueling a growing and dangerous disaffection, and disdain, towards science and politics, generating fanaticism, widespread irrationality and frustration. The risk is that the Spartacus of the new millennium could arm himself against the old and new masters.
Being free, not just "freedmen", this is the challenge that stands out on the horizon. A challenge that cannot ignore the study of the language, its historical evolution and, ultimately, the courage to fully embrace one's own thought and acted experience. Being free is much more than having some clockwork freedoms.
The post Free, not free: because freedom cannot be a clockwork concession appeared first on Atlantico Quotidiano .
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Atlantico Quotidiano at the URL http://www.atlanticoquotidiano.it/quotidiano/liberi-non-liberti-perche-la-liberta-non-puo-essere-una-concessione-ad-orologeria/ on Sat, 06 Nov 2021 03:40:00 +0000.