be? Laquo; The positive freedom is defined by another question: Where is the source of pressure or interference, that will make someone do what he wants? Laquo; The individual is positively free if controls himself; is negatively free if other persons do not interfere his affairs. The negative freedom of a person is as more, as less he is disturbed by other people and acts without interference of others. the same time, not all scientists agree with difference of negative and positive freedoms. For instance, John Mac Coll qualifies freedom as the attitude, consisting of three elements instead of two: If the question is freedom of a subject (subjects), it always is necessary to take into account freedom of certain requirements, restrictions, interference and barriers, allowing doing (not to do) this or that, to become (not to become) this or that. Freedom is always freedom of the subject (subjects) from this or that, for the purpose of these or those actions (inactions), for becoming (not becoming) this or that. Any saying about freedom must possess the form: X is free (or not free) from Y for the sake of realization (not realization) of C raquo ;, in which variable X means subjects, Y - requirements, restrictions, interference, barriers , but C - actions, characteristics of nature, circumstances [24]. In other words, freedom includes three elements. On this ground John Mac Coll rejects the difference of freedom from and freedom for laquo ;, applied by I. Berlin. Any saying about freedom is thinking about freedom of X from Y for the sake of achievements С. AL Anisin agrees with position of John Mac Coll. In his opinion, freedom is realized within the framework of empirical living, but herewith it is the certain degree of freedom from the given world and freedom for realization of himself in this world [25]. response of critic of his positionsI. Berlin has recognized the insignificance of logical distance between the terms negative freedom and positive freedom. The fact is that actually it is difficult to make strict difference between the questions Who is the master to himself? Laquo; and In what volume he is the master? Some authors agree with trinomial notion of freedom, others confirm: Formula of John Mac Coll does not take into account the whole contents of the notion of freedom [26]. The disputable question is whether I. Berlin has made distinction of notions or identified two types of concepts of freedom. As a whole it is possible to state that the problem of one, two or three notions of freedom still remains to be open for modern philosophy. the same time there is no doubt that the specified difference of two aspects of freedom reflects the difference, contrast of chances (the negative freedom) and abilities (facilities) of the individual to use them (the positive freedom): A person is positively free if does what he wants, and is negatively free if nobody interferes his affairs [27]. D. Rolz distinguishes the negative freedom and value of the freedom: Inability to enjoy their own rights and possibilities as a result of poverty and ignorance, as well as general defect of facilities, is sometimes included in the number of restrictions, determining freedom. I, however, won t confirm it; instead I shall consider that these things influence upon value of the freedom [28]. In the opinion of R. Gudin, the consent with the concept of D. Rolz leads to the conclusion: chances (types of the negative freedom) and facilities (types of the positive freedom) should be recognized simultaneously specific, but equally important measurements of the freedom [29]. British philosopher Ch.Taylor emphasizes the conflict of the negative and positive freedom. The negative freedom is reduced to chances, the positive is reduced to their realization: Existence of freedom is the question whether a person can do, what he wants, regardless of his actions for realization of the choice. Such understanding is inherent to the negative concepts of freedom of T. Gobbs and I. Bentam. The doctrine of the positive freedom is identical to the notion of realization since expresses the presentation: essence of the freedom is control and self-control. A person is free only in that measure, in which he successfully manages the form of his life [30]. Ch.Taylor proves the difference of negative and positive freedom as follows: When using notions of chances hindrance of freedom are considered external barriers of the human action. Understanding the freedom as realization, we mean internal spiritual barriers. They also influence freedom since human motives, self-control and ability of determination of moral differences [31]. negative freedom is limited by external (physical and legal) and internal (when a person acts under influence of alcohol, drugs, Fraud, manipulates) barrier. The internal barriers are false beliefs of the individual, which are introduced in him by the ...
