Let us now take a look at how this antinomy is resolved in Marx and Engels. problem necessity and freedom(hence free will and sanity) Engels poses and acknowledges in his Anti-Dühring. He realizes that on this basic opposition rests the opposite kingdoms of natural necessity(“animal kingdom”) - and kingdoms of freedom, as the kingdom of human culture and civilization (Anti-Dühring, 1932, pp. 80-81) 59*, Marx also clearly formulates this basic dialectical opposition: kingdom of necessity(which even includes material production) and kingdom of freedom(which includes human development as an end in itself) (Cap[ital], vol. III, pp. 591, 592) 60*.

It is clear that they took this entire opposition entirely from German idealism, from Kant, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel. It was justified by the antinomy of freedom and necessity in Kant and constituted main topic German philosophy in general.

How do Marx and Engels resolve this famous antinomy? With extraordinary ease and frivolity. All the dialectics of the great philosophers devoted to this problem went unnoticed for them. Here you can use your favorite term diamat: vulgarization.

The solution supposedly comes from Hegel. It's quite simple: freedom is the knowledge of necessity(unknown necessity, “blind necessity” is the absence of freedom).

First of all, no reference to Hegel here invalid:“necessity” has a completely different meaning for him than in the materialism of Marx and Engels. We have already talked about the ambiguity of the term “necessity”: it can mean moral necessity and physical necessity. "Freedom" means for Hegel autonomy objective historical spirit, autonomy mind; the autonomy of reason is not arbitrariness, but “its own law”, own necessity, directed towards one's own freedom. Cognition is like this spiritual, and not natural necessity is true liberation.

On the contrary, natural necessity is for Hegel the lowest level, which in this highest level autonomous spirit (“idea”, reason) is contained and “sublated”. Hegel gives this solution to the antinomy of freedom and necessity, completely in the spirit of all German idealism.

Such a solution is completely unacceptable for Marxism, because it forces us to accept Hegel’s entire philosophy of spirit.

The “necessity” that Marxism speaks of is not at all the autonomy of the spirit, a necessity addressed to freedom; it is a natural, causal necessity. And then the aphorism about “recognized necessity” turns into nonsense.

First of all cognition is not action at all: cognition is opposed to action (theoretical reason is opposed to practical), and while we let's know mathematical laws, physical laws, we are not yet we act. But “free will” speaks specifically of action and asks whether the possibility of free action exists.

Further, knowledge of the laws of natural necessity does not at all give freedom and power over them. “Once we have recognized this law, which operates (as Marx repeated thousands of times) independently of our will and our consciousness, we are masters of nature” ( Lenin.“Ma[terialism] and empir[icriticism]”, 155-156) 61*. A complete lie and unacceptable boasting! We know many laws with perfect accuracy, which give us no dominion and no freedom; such, for example, are all astronomical laws, such is the law of entropy, the law of aging and dying.

It is precisely the theory of “reflection” that especially clearly shows us the absurdity of the aphorism. Lenin says: “domination over nature is the result of an objectively true reflections in the human head of natural phenomena and processes” (ibid.). But does a mirror “dominate” over the objects it reflects? Reflection is passive perception, which prohibits any change in the reflected objects. So that the mirror not only

Because it reflected, but also dominated over the reflected objects, it must be endowed with one more ability, namely ability of freedom(these are Leibniz’s monads, these “mirrors of the universe”).

For a person to dominate natural necessities, knowledge of these necessities is not enough; he must also be endowed with ability of free action.

Thus, no freedom came from “recognized necessity.”

Dialectical helplessness here reaches its limit. The nonsense of the aphorism becomes obvious; to return it to any meaning, it must be corrected like this: knowledge of necessity is one of the conditions for the possibility of freedom(ignorance of necessity hinders freedom).

Here Diamat can rejoice; he will say: “of course, that’s exactly what we meant, that’s You They attributed nonsense to us.” However, the joy will be premature. The acceptance of this innocent correction destroys the solution of Marx and Engels.

In fact, we have established that the knowledge of necessity in itself is not freedom. It must be accompanied by a free action, which uses knowledge as a means to its own ends. In other words, we must go to freedom with all its categories (goal and means; a subject who sets a goal and freely chooses means, evaluates the goal, etc.).

But it is precisely this transition that remains unclear; It is this that constitutes the antinomy of freedom and necessity, which is in no way resolved by the aphorism about “recognized necessity.” The solution was illusory. It consisted in “reducing” freedom to cognized necessity, but this reduction failed.

“FREEDOM IS A CONSCIOUS NECESSITY” - where did this strange slogan come from? Who was the first to think of identifying freedom with necessity, even “conscious”?

Some say it was Spinoza. For example, the anonymous author of the article “Freedom and Necessity” in the Philosophical Dictionary of 1963 confidently states: “ Scientific explanation S. and n. based on the recognition of their organic relationship. The first attempt to substantiate this view. belongs to Spinoza, who defined S. as a conscious N." However, in order to make such statements, one must, at a minimum, not read Spinoza. For Spinoza, "TRUE FREEDOM CONSISTS ONLY IN THE FACT THAT THE FIRST CAUSE [ACTION] IS NOT INCURRED AND IS NOT FORCED BY ANYTHING ELSE and only through its perfection is the cause of all perfection." Such freedom, according to Spinoza, is available only to God. He defines human freedom as follows: "it is a STRONG EXISTENCE, WHICH OUR MIND RECEIVES THANKS TO DIRECT CONNECTION WITH GOD , in order to evoke within himself ideas, and without himself actions, consistent with His nature; Moreover, His actions should not be subordinated to any external reasons that could change or transform them" (“About God, Man and His Happiness”, trans. A.I. Rubin). Well, where is the “conscious N.” ?

Some attribute the “conscious necessity” to Engels. For example, Joseph Stalin in his conversation about the textbook " Political Economy" (1941) speaks of this as a matter of course: "Engels wrote in Anti-Dühring about the transition from necessity to freedom, wrote about freedom as a CONSCIOUS NECESSITY." He must not have read Engels, since the mentioned work says literally the following:

“Hegel was the first to correctly present the relationship between freedom and necessity. For him, FREEDOM IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF NECESSITY. “Necessity is blind only insofar as it is not understood.” Freedom does not lie in imaginary independence from the laws of nature, but in the knowledge of these laws and in the possibility based on this knowledge systematically force the laws of nature to act for certain purposes."

("Hegel war der erste, der das Verhältnis von Freiheit und Notwendigkeit richtig darstellte. Für ihn ist die FREIHEIT DIE EINSICHT IN DIE NOTWENDIGKEIT. "Blind ist die Notwendigkeit nur, insofern dieselbe nicht begriffen wird." Nicht in der geträumten Unabhängigkeit von den Naturgesetzen liegt die Freiheit, sondern in der Erkenntnis dieser Gesetze, und in der damit gegebnen Möglichkeit, sie planmäßig zu bestimmten Zwecken wirken zu lassen.")

HEGEL, however, never once called freedom “KNOWLEDGE OF NECESSITY.” He wrote that “freedom, embodied in the reality of a certain world, takes the form of necessity” (die Freiheit, zur Wirklichkeit einer Welt gestaltet, erhält die Form von Notwendigkeit), and more than once called freedom “die Wahrheit der Notwendigkeit” (“THE TRUTH”) NECESSITY"), whatever that means. And in his works there are at least a dozen different definitions of freedom - but Engels’s formulation is not there.

Here, perhaps, it would be necessary to explain what “necessity” Hegel had in mind. It has nothing to do with “essential necessities”. The Notwendigkeit he talks about is when subsequent facts “necessarily” follow from previous ones. Simply put, “inevitability” or “conditionality.” Or even "karma" as some put it. Well, Freiheit in this context is not “the absence of obstacles to movement,” but free will. In other words, Hegel is trying to prove that man's conscious will makes the possible inevitable - or something like that. It is not easy to understand him even in German, and any conclusions can be drawn from his vague speeches.

Engels, as we have already seen, understood in his own way. He turned the abstract “truth” into a more concrete “understanding”, tied it to the scientific worldview, signed it with the name of Hegel and passed it on. And then there were the Russian Marxists with their specific understanding of everything in the world.

To LENIN's credit, it should be noted that it was not he who misrepresented Engels. The corresponding passage from “Anti-Dühring” in his work “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism” is translated quite correctly:

“In particular, we should note Marx’s view on the relationship of freedom to necessity: “Necessity is blind until it is recognized. Freedom is CONSCIOUSNESS OF NECESSITY" (Engels in Anti-Dühring) = recognition of the objective laws of nature and the dialectical transformation of necessity into freedom (along with the transformation of an unknown, but knowable, "thing in itself" into a "thing for us", "the essence of things" into "phenomena")".

Einsicht, in principle, can be translated as “cognition”, and as “awareness”, and even as “acquaintance” - there are many options. But there are nuances. “Consciousness” in Russian is not just “acquaintance with something,” but also “subjective experience of events in the external world.” In other words, by “knowing” a need, we only receive information about it; and being “aware” of the need, we also experience it subjectively. WE usually KNOW the world, ourselves and other interesting things, but we KNOW our debt, our guilt and other negativity - this is how Russian word usage works.

Was Vladimir Ilyich aware of this? I don’t dare to guess, but one thing is certain: it was not he, not Marx, not Engels or Hegel who identified freedom with necessity, and certainly not Spinoza. Spinoza, as you remember, called freedom “solid existence”, Hegel - “truth”, Engels - “knowledge”, Lenin - “consciousness”. Well, Marx has nothing to do with it at all.

So where did it come from, this “conscious need”? It’s funny to say, but it seems that it arose spontaneously from Lenin’s formulation in the minds of people who did not know the Russian language well enough to feel the difference between a verbal noun and a participle. Among the early theoreticians of Marxism-Leninism there were many such authors, their creations are countless, and go figure now which of them was the first to create this oxymoron and how consciously he did it. But it caught on and almost became a slogan. That's how it happens, yes.

UPD 05/11/2016: The author of the “conscious need” has finally been found! It was Plekhanov. Here is the quote: “Simmel says that freedom is always freedom from something and that where freedom is not thought of as the opposite of connectedness, it has no meaning. This is certainly true. But on the basis of this small elementary truth it is impossible to refute the position, which constitutes one of the most brilliant discoveries ever made by philosophical thought, that freedom is a conscious necessity».

[Plekhanov G.V. On the question of the role of personality in history / Selected philosophical works in five volumes. T. 2. - M.: State Publishing House of Political Literature, 1956. P. 307]

Many thanks to LJ user sanin, who made this amazing discovery!

Sergei Mikhailov: “I am free - I have forgotten what fear means” - in my opinion, this is what the lead singer of the group Aria sings. “You are free to choose any type of beer” - that’s what beer producers say. Freedom is the opportunity to speak out - something like this is what the announcers of Radio Liberty say. Freedom is when you do whatever you want - that's what anarchists say. A person can do anything (realize this and you will find freedom) - this is what the organizers of business trainings say. Physicists talk about degrees of freedom of particles. Freedom is a recognized necessity - that's what Marxists say.

GO: I join the Marxists, but... The need for what has been recognized? I’ll explain later, below.

Sergey Mikhailov: Manipulators offer freedom from a pre-selected or imposed list of alternatives. This list is being pushed through all available means, including through the media.

Spiritual leaders introduce into consciousness the omnipotence of man. Like, everything can be done through willpower. Well, let them cut off their finger and, through an effort of will, grow a new one in the place of the stump, or let them live for 150 years. Over two thousand years, prophets and spiritual leaders would be legion, but none of them stood the test of time.

By the way, the idea of ​​human omnipotence can also be used for harm. What is not “good” about the idea of ​​an advantage of a race of blond, strong guys over other nations?

From omnipotence there is one step to powerlessness (dementia): Man is a creature (slave) who lives according to a predetermined schedule (fate). Hordes of weak-minded people go to work! And you need to realize your slavery and get rid of dementia by paying for courses or receiving the Image of the Future.

So what is freedom? I am inclined to believe that freedom is a perceived necessity. Freedom is a recognized necessity in philosophical concept this word. The awareness that sooner or later there will be illness and death, that if you do not act as “necessary”, then you will not be happy. Try driving in oncoming traffic? To drive safely on the road, you MUST move in the designated lane.

GO: I join the Marxists and Sergei Mikhailov - you need to follow the rules on the road. If a person has realized this need and voluntarily fulfills it, then he is completely free on the road. In a philosophical sense.

GO: When a person leaves prison, one says, “Well!” I'm going free! “, and the second one says, “I’m going free.” The first one will return back in a matter of days, there is no doubt about that. His “will” is precisely permission for himself not to comply with some restrictions. He has not yet realized what freedom is. He confuses it with will (this word, unfortunately, in Russian has two meanings).

Sergey Mikhailov: An elementary particle has six degrees of freedom (according to x,y,z axes and freedom in rotation along x,y,z). The other (unbound) particle also has six degrees of freedom. Once a bond is formed between the particles, the overall system will have 6*n-1 degrees of freedom. Why do particles combine? Why should they form connections, for example, family, company, national, human? Isn’t it better to go into the forest, run naked and eat boogers (you don’t have the strength for more)?

We live in interconnected world. The number of degrees of freedom of the system grows exponentially as more and more new members are involved in the system. The power of the Internet, for example, grows in proportion to the number of members involved. Already now, for example, you can find almost any information based on a correctly formulated query.

Perhaps you have heard that debates in the field of budgetary policy are raging in Europe between France and England? France gives subsidies to farmers. England insists on an innovative path of development for Europe (let South America and Africa grow radishes), and Europe must direct investments into high-tech production, otherwise it will not be able to withstand the historical challenge of China and India. The positions are, at first glance, irreconcilable. In case of cooperation (establishing communication), some degrees of freedom will die out (for example, farmers in France will die out). Freedom lies in the recognized need to take or not take steps towards meeting each other.

Is a person free to believe in the presence of spirits or Santa Claus? Volen! At the same time, this person binds himself with a connection with a non-existent element of nature and... creates a limitation for himself. There is no known need. So there is an obstacle.

Is a person free who imagines himself as an angel, capable of opening a high-rise building window and walking on air? Volen. Volen. Volen! But, an incorrect hypothesis will lead to the complete destruction of the body. There is no recognized need - there is no result.

Is it free, say, for a wife to decide that the wife's purpose is to grow flowers and the husband's purpose is to make money? In some cases, for example, on the pages of stylish lifestyle magazines, this assumption will go off with a bang! In reality, I doubt it. The husband will be free to offer care for himself and the children in exchange for time spent earning money. How will the imaginary infringement of freedoms end (an unknown necessity)? The collapse of the system, that is, a divorce. Finding yourself alone with your problems and flowers, ex-wife will earn her own living. There will be a correction of the recognized need.

What does all of the above have to do with the topic of the newsletter? The active role of man, his desire to know the laws of nature, and not stuffing himself like a stocking with knowledge, a continuous series of experiences and experiments (we assume, but God disposes) leads to Freedom!

GO: Oh! Yes, it doesn’t lead to life!! To various "disintegrations"? Leads! But to freedom as a recognized and accepted need to coordinate restrictions with each other - to such freedom the path lies in a completely different direction. And on this path there is a negligible part of the world's population. Why? It’s not difficult to explain, but it’s much more difficult to find a way to change the trend. My “comrades” and I are making such an attempt right now.

« A statement that outrages every sane person. Freedom and necessity are opposite, mutually exclusive, destroying each other concepts. How can necessity be freedom? Necessity is an external pressing, coercive force hostile to my will. Necessity is slavery, not freedom. It is obvious. And this is exactly so, but only as long as the necessity remains external, not understood and not accepted by me.

The magic is in awareness. It is she who turns necessity into freedom.

Necessity becomes freedom at the moment of its comprehension. Comprehension is experienced as a huge relief, uplifting, liberation. After all, the comprehension of necessity is nothing other than the revelation of truth. The revelation of the truth is inevitable and its acceptance. The one who comprehends accepts necessity (truth) into himself. It is as if he himself becomes this necessity, begins to feel it as his own nature, as his own self.

At this moment, necessity ceases to be an external coercive, limiting force. It turns into freedom, i.e. into the comprehender’s own will. Conscious necessity becomes nature and, accordingly, the freedom of the one who comprehends it.

It is so simple "

Since such judgments occur often, I will speak out. This aphorism [relevantly] has two understandings.

Firstly, when we are talking about a very specific prevailing force, awareness frees us from the need for submission [necessity]. A disease, for example, once known (a medicine and treatment method has been prepared) is a defeated need. As in the more general case, knowledge of the properties of matter, the essence of phenomena, frees one from subordination to the forces of nature (heated houses, electricity, internal combustion engine, etc.). In the same way, knowledge of history, economics, and society will ultimately free a person from blindly following chaos public relations, subordinating them to man in a society of conscious organization (this is cornerstone in the understanding of communism).

Secondly, when it comes to freedom of choice. If a person is not aware of the consequences, the essence of the options that exist before him, then he acts chaotically, on a whim, by chance, relying on prejudice, prejudice, emotions, and therefore is subject to circumstances, his choice is not free, while circumstances, regardless of the choice, are a necessity, lack of freedom. It’s another matter if a person recognizes the necessity facing him and acts with knowledge of the matter - in every emerging need, a person makes a free, conscious, reasonable choice. As a simple example, the famous fairy stone: “ You'll go left..., you'll go right..., you'll go straight...“- without knowing exactly what lies ahead, any choice, as the necessity of choice, is unfreedom. Or, as a more complex example, religious dogmatism: a person with upbringing is deprived of the freedom of meaningful choice, he is subordinate to this worldview, it is a necessity, and therefore lack of freedom. And in general, such an example is practically the entire life of a person today, when he does not have a holistic scientific worldview, a broad and modern outlook - lack of freedom in views, beliefs, in daily activities and in targeted life choices, to one degree or another.

If chance determines the diversity of possibilities, and necessity determines their uniformity, then freedom is the unity of possibilities in their diversity or the diversity of possibilities in their unity.

Opposing views on freedom

In the history of philosophy, one can observe two mutually exclusive points of view on the concept of freedom.

Some philosophers (for example, Spinoza, Holbach, Kant, Schelling, Hegel) bring the concept of freedom closer to the concept of necessity; they either deny the presence of an element of chance in freedom or downplay its significance. This is how B. Spinoza characterized freedom:

“Freedom is such a thing that exists only by the necessity of its own nature and is determined to act only by itself...” From Spinoza comes the famous formula: “Freedom is the knowledge of necessity” (for him it sounds like this: freedom is knowledge “with some the eternal necessity of oneself, God and things” [Ethics, Vol. 42]).

Hegel interpreted this formula in his own way. Then in Marxism it was fundamental in defining the concept of freedom.

This point of view received its extreme expression in Holbach. “For a person,” he wrote, “freedom is nothing more than the necessity contained within him.” Moreover, Holbach believed that a person cannot be free in the true sense, since he is subject to the action of laws and, therefore, is at the mercy of inexorable necessity.

The feeling of freedom, he wrote, is “an illusion that can be compared with the illusion of a fly from a fable, which imagines, sitting on the drawbar of a heavy cart, that it controls the movement of the world machine, but in fact it is this machine that draws a person into the circle of its movement without him.” known."

Kant in the Critique of Pure Reason put forward an antinomy: there is freedom in man, there is no freedom. In the world of phenomena, according to Kant, necessity reigns; in the world of things in themselves, man is free. But what, according to Kant, is freedom? - asks A.A. Gulyga. And he answers in Kantian style: “This is the adherence to moral duty, that is, again, the subordination of man to necessity. The challenge is to choose the right need.” In a book dedicated to Kant, A.A. Gulyga explains his position as follows:

“Freedom from an ethical point of view is not arbitrary. Not just a logical construction in which from a given cause can equally arise various actions. If I want to, I’ll do it this way, but if I want to, I’ll do the exact opposite. Moral freedom personality consists of awareness and fulfillment of duty. Before oneself and other people, “free will and will subject to moral laws are one and the same.”

Schelling's position is in many ways similar to Kant's. “A person is evil or good,” writes A.A. Gulyga, outlining Schelling’s position, “not by chance, his free will is predetermined. Judas betrayed Christ voluntarily, but he could not do otherwise. A person behaves in accordance with his character, but character is not chosen. You can't escape fate! Schelling calls the doctrine of freedom of choice “a plague on morality.” Morality cannot rest on such a shaky foundation as personal desire or decision. The basis of morality is the awareness of the inevitability of certain behavior. “I stand on this and cannot do otherwise.” In the words of Luther, who realized himself as the bearer of destiny, there is an example of moral consciousness. True freedom consists in agreement with necessity. Freedom and necessity exist one within the other.” Elsewhere, A.A. Gulyga states Schelling’s position as follows: “The process of creation is the self-limitation of God. (“The ability to limit oneself reveals a master,” Schelling quotes Goethe) This happens according to the free will of God. Does this mean that the world arose by chance? No, it doesn’t mean: absolute freedom is an absolute necessity; there can be no talk of any choice with free expression of will. The problem of choice arises where there is doubt, where the will is not clarified and, therefore, is not free. He who knows what he needs acts without choosing.” In “The System of Transcendental Idealism,” Schelling, discussing the movement of society towards a universal civil order, spoke about the intertwining of the free activity of people with historical necessity (as Hegel, K. Marx and F. Engels later said):

“Although a person is free in relation to his immediate actions, the result to which they lead within the limits of visibility depends on the necessity that stands above the actor and participates even in the development of his very freedom.”

A. Gulyga comments:

“We act completely freely, with full consciousness, but as a result, something appears in the form of the unconscious that never existed in our thoughts. Hegel will call such a combination “the cunning of reason”

In his book “On the Method of University Education” Schelling speaks about the importance of necessity in history:

“In history, as in drama, events follow necessarily from the previous and are comprehended not empirically, but thanks to the higher order of things. Empirical reasons satisfy reason, but for reason history exists only when the instruments and means of supreme necessity appear in it.”

He also argued that in a perfect state, necessity merges with freedom.

And here is Hegel’s opinion on freedom and necessity:

“...but the true spirit is concrete, and its definitions are both freedom and necessity. Thus, the highest understanding is that the spirit is free in its necessity and only in it finds its freedom, just as, conversely, its necessity is based only on its freedom. Only here it is more difficult for us to posit unity than in natural objects. But freedom can also be abstract freedom without necessity; this false freedom is arbitrariness, and it is precisely for this reason that it is the opposite of itself, unconscious connectedness, an empty opinion about freedom, formal freedom.”

Other philosophers, on the contrary, contrast the concept of freedom with the concept of necessity and thereby bring it closer to the concept of chance and arbitrariness.

American philosopher Herbert J. Mueller writes, for example:

“To put it simply, a man is free insofar as he can take up or leave a task at his own will, make his own decisions, answer “yes” or “no” to any question or order, and, guided by his own understanding, determine the concepts of duty and dignity. goal. He is not free insofar as he is deprived of the opportunity to follow his inclinations, but due to direct coercion or fear of consequences he is obliged to act contrary to his own desires, and it does not matter whether these desires are for his benefit or harm.”

We find a similar understanding of freedom (according to the principle “I do what I want”) in German philosophical dictionary, and in "Brief philosophical encyclopedia". Hegel rightly remarked on this matter: “When we hear that freedom consists in the ability to do whatever they want, we can recognize such a concept as a complete lack of culture of thought."

And here is a witty remark from a collection of prison aphorisms: do what you want, but so as not to lose this opportunity in the future.

It is very difficult, of course, to realize the presence of both moments in freedom: chance and necessity. Rational thought struggles in the grip of “or.” IN Marxist philosophy despite the fact that everyone considered themselves dialecticians, there was some kind of random fear in assessing and characterizing freedom. Here is what I. V. Bychko wrote, for example:

““The existence of chance,” says one of the leading representatives of American naturalism, C. Lamont, “gives rise to freedom of choice, although it does not guarantee that it will actually come true” (C. Lamont. Freedom of Choice Affirmed. N.Y. 1967, p. 62). Having identified (or at least overly brought together) freedom with chance, Lamont, on this basis - completely in the spirit of 18th-century materialism - contrasts freedom with determinism."

The above quotation from the work of K. Lamont does not contain what I. V. Bychko attributes to it. The idea contained in it is quite fair. Paradoxical as it may seem, freedom necessarily presupposes chance and is impossible without it. Aristotle also noted that denial real existence randomness entails the denial of the possibility of choice in practical activity, which is absurd.

“The destruction of chance,” he wrote, “entails absurd consequences... If there is no chance in phenomena, but everything exists and arises out of necessity, then there would be no need to either consult or act so that, if one does this, there would be one thing, and if otherwise, then it didn’t happen.”

Some of our philosophers are literally “fixated” on the formula “freedom is a perceived necessity.” Meanwhile, Hegel himself, if we take all his statements about freedom together, did not understand this category so simplistically. He essentially recognized that freedom contains both moments in a sublated form: chance and necessity, and not just necessity alone. So in Small Logic he speaks of naked arbitrariness as will in the form of chance. On the other hand, he does not deny that truly free will in its sublated form contains arbitrariness (will “contains the accidental in the form of arbitrariness, but contains it only as a sublated moment”). Elsewhere in Lesser Logic, he wrote that “the true and reasonable concept of freedom contains in itself necessity as superseded.” Thus, the view attributed to Hegel that freedom is a recognized necessity is just a half-truth that distorts the German thinker’s complex and multifaceted idea of ​​freedom.

Food