Two Conceptions of Freedom or Two Appearances of a single Conception?

In his article "Two Free Concepts", Isaiah Berlin distinguishes the concept of two freedoms, the concept of negative freedom and positive freedom. Basically he defines negative freedom as not obligation. He said: "Forcing people is to deprive him of his freedom" (121). According to him, compulsion is an intention to hinder individual freedom. Therefore, there is no compulsion or intentional compulsion. For him, negative freedom requires immune territory away from the sudden behavior of others.

Let's look back about half a century. Early in the mid-20th century, the philosopher Erich Flåm had an interesting view on the concept of freedom. He divided it into two subordinate concepts called "Freedom of Freedom" and "Freedom of Freedom". He explained that "freedom" is a kind of "freedom" freedom, release from restriction and repression, freedom to remove restraint. As we are all looking for freedom from lock-in, this is what we can see in our town today. "Freedom" is important and necessary, and continuing all activities that the Sydney Open Campaign and their (and other groups) do will build a better future, important to the formation of political power that represents all of us It helps to play a role.

Two ancient concepts of freedom of speech shape the modern concept of our liberal democracy in an attractive and forgotten way. But more importantly, there are no understanding, two concepts of freedom of speech, and unless they are completely inconsistent, these concepts are often in tension and explain the frustration of contemporary discussions in the United States and Europe It helps to - and why it is often that we are talking about each other as it becomes the most important thing. In two ancient concepts of freedom of speech, Isgoria is older. History dates back to the 5th century BC, but historians opposed them when they acknowledged the democratic practices of citizens who wanted to solve the Congressional problem.

The two aspects identified by Berlin are contrary to which of the two different concepts is worthy to be called "freedom". Does this fact mean that there is a more basic agreement between the parties? After all, if they do not think that they are talking about the same thing in a sense, how can we see their differences in the definition of freedom? In an influential article, the American legal philosopher Gerald MacCallum (1967) came up with the following answer. In fact there is only one basic concept of freedom, both sides of the discussion are in this concept. Convergence The so - called negative and positive theorists do not agree on how this single freedom concept is to be explained. Indeed, in MacCallum's view there are many possible explanations for freedom, but only by Berlin's artificial dichotomy, we can think of two aspects.