The shaping of the contemporary idea of freedom

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15175/1984-2503-201911307

Keywords:

Freedom, political ideas, contemporary society

Abstract

Human beings yearn for freedom, and the concept has been shaped over the course of history, both politically and socially. The contemporary idea of freedom based on legal regulations and basic rights for all people has been developed by means of a series of philosophical thoughts and of political, economic, and cultural movements to have shaped this concept according to an individual’s right to self-determination. The ideas influencing this construction are thus researched by means of the thoughts of four modern philosophers: Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant. Furthermore, by means of and through the influence of these thinkers, two large movements have emerged to form the bases of the contemporary understanding of what freedom constitutes. Such movements – liberalism and romanticism – are also explored in this essay in order to examine the process to have shaped the idea of freedom in contemporary Western society, with its primary aim to ensure the individual rights of all peoples and to respect basic human rights.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Marcos Antunes Kopstein, Universidade Franciscana, Santa Maria, RS

Mestrando em Ensino de Humanidades e Linguagens, Universidade Franciscana/UFN, Santa Maria/RS. Bolsista pelo PROSUC/CAPES. Bacharel em Direito. Especialista em Direito do Trabalho. Advogado.

Diego Carlos Zanella, Universidade Franciscana, Santa Maria, RS

Doutor em Filosofia pela Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul/PUC-RS. Professor do Curso de Filosofia e do Mestrado em Ensino de Humanidades e Linguagens da Universidade Franciscana/UFN, Santa Maria/RS.

Published

2019-10-02

How to Cite

Kopstein, M. A., & Zanella, D. C. (2019). The shaping of the contemporary idea of freedom. Passages: International Review of Political History and Legal Culture, 11(3), 468-487. https://doi.org/10.15175/1984-2503-201911307