to himself raquo ;, but Gegel named as the possibility to behave at own understanding. Classical presentations about freedom, formulated by the thinkers of the New time, were added by the French sociologist, politologist and philosopher R.Aron in the 20th century with the understanding as possibility to be social mobile, as the right of each to free from laquo ; hutches of life raquo ;, and to die in another role quality, different from which a person was originally born..Shopengauer One of the first paid attention to aspectual variety of liberty, having subdivided it into three subspecies raquo ;: physical, intellectual and moral [17]. E. Fromm and R.Hirau wrote about variety of freedom, specifically selecting herewith physical freedom of movement and mental freedom of human spontaneity. It is possible to speak about civil legal freedom, which frames are usually outlined by the law. There exist the notions of freedom of press, speech, worship, academic freedom and the other freedoms, which are not always saved from self-contradictions [18]. For instance, according to Z.Bzhzinskiy, the notion of freedom more often correlates with determination of the good life, and if the society maximize the principle of individual satisfaction, the civil freedom in such society changes in absolut. And, Zh.-F. Revel differentiates social, individual and intellectual freedom [19]. attention should be paid to the pointed view expressed by the Russian philosopher С. Fedoseyev concerning levels of freedom. He distinguishes to external levels physical and legal and one internal level. In his opinion restriction of freedom at legal level can be of two types - prohibition and enforcement. Unlike physical level, all restrictions are suffered by the personality more sharply as they occur not from heartless nature, but from the personality, with whom it is possible not to agree. On the other hand, obstacles on the legal level are much more serious taking into consideration the threat of withdrawal to legal responsibility. The fact is that S. Fedoseyev absolutizes freedom of a person, recognizing its restriction even the criminal-legal prohibition of murder, therefore coming to actual justification of the extreme forms of voluntarism. the second half of the 19th century the difference between freedom in public and individual spheres became more evident. Under the influence of scientific and technical revolution the person appears to be all involved in public life; herewith socialization of a person quite often occurs on account of reducing of the sphere of private life. As a result there occur revolutionary changes in the individual and public consciousness: if earlier the people from generation to generation fought to be as much as possible involved in public (and first of all - in political) life, that their private life is enough protected ( my house is my fortress ) under the new condition, with development of mass media,, TV- and radio broadcastings, computer technologies and connected with them side phenomena the person was compelled to begin the fight to be in sufficient degree secluded, barriered from the society. There has come the realization that really free it is possible to be only when you are free in the external, public, oriented on the society behaviour, as well as in internal, oriented on person world. Therefore - there have appeared the constitutional fixing of such liberties, as inviolability to private life (privacy), inviolability of premises, secret communication and etc. of multi-conceptual of freedom dialectically generates the requirement of providing of its wholeness. So, P.Berger specified that the statement of unity and wholeness of freedom is the fundamental requirement, as restriction of freedom in one part of human existence certainly influences freedom in its other sides [21]. a whole, the history of development of the idea of ??freedom is reduced to determination of the negative and positive sense (of aspect) of freedom. Both of the above mentioned aspects of freedom are clearly enough formulated by the English liberal of the 20th century I.BERLIN. In the negative sense I am free in that degree, in which not a single person or no people interfere what I do. In this sense political freedom is only the space, in which I can without hindrances subject to my own occupation [22]. The positive freedom results from desire to be a master to himself. I want that my life and my decisions would depend on me, but not on any external forces. It is necessary to consider himself thinking willing active person, having responsibility for the choice and be capable to motivate it, according to the own ideas and purposes. [23]. difference of negative and positive freedom comes from different questions. The negative freedom is defined by the question: Whether great is the space, within which space a person or a group of persons can do anything or to be such as he wants to...
