The Paradox of Freedom

There is no document of civilization which is not at the same time a document of barbarism. And just as such a document is not free of barbarism, barbarism taints also the manner in which it was transmitted from one owner to another.
Walter Benjamin, On the Concept of History, VII

Source

In his book 'On the Concept of History', Walter Benjamin emphasizes that ‘there is no document of civilization which is not at the same time a document of barbarism’. That may be interpreted as the author’s understanding of a community or a civil society, which is inevitably driven by human moral principles and a supreme power. For instance, that could be the state authorities, who do not follow moral principles by default. The historical approach to human existence demonstrates that the development of civilization, especially its part represented by revolutions and national conflicts, has a decent amount of cruelty and what can be called barbarism. Thus, from Benjamin’s point of view, humanity is constantly driven by evil in its progress despite the progress being commonly understood as beneficial. Should this be recognized as a law?

Source

The bond between either civilization or the development of society and barbarism may appear overt to certain individuals and even philosophers. Nevertheless, several doctrines suggest that the reason for the progress co-existing with havoc is rather human freedom than the backbone of civilization. Immanuel Kant, an adept of critical philosophy indicated that the locus of existence is human autonomy, which shapes both individual and social beliefs and laws. The individual’s liberty is not limited naturally but their decisions always carry consequences. Similarly, Friedrich Hegel supposed that reality as a microcosm is formed by the mind and consciousness in particular. Therefore, everyone has an innate right to do anything but will refrain from certain actions because of not willing to manage the consequences they might have for the actor or other people. This perception is highly affected by social background and personal experience, which results in cases that involve a negative result because of not refraining.

Source

Let us take a revolution as an example. Oppositional movements have numerous victims a priori, and that is a product of violence performed by either the ruling power or oppositionists themselves. While these actions might be called barbarism, revolutions often result in positive changes in civil society, in other words — the development of civilization. Forced regulation done by the establishment can be a required measure as well as barbarism, depending on the actuation.

Source

Regarding this, Hegel noted that freedom is the variation of necessity, which means freedom is the very feature of an individual, but being a common need, personal liberty turns out to be restricted by a higher power like the law. Overall, the aim is to avoid inequality by giving every member of civil society approximately the same amount of rights to live freely. Therefore, a forced restriction remaining lawful should not be perceived as barbarism at all, as it is the required measure to regulate the freedom of a minority so it does not forbid the freedom of the majority.

On the opposite, there are occasions in the history of civilization when barbarism was caused primarily by certain influential actors striving to reach personal goals while neglecting common legal and moral principles. They see their individual freedom to make the decision as supreme to the law, that is — more important than others’ freedom. This perception often leads to violence reaching the community level and is often classified as barbarism.

Source

While these conclusions may represent a more empiricist view, it may be argued that moral principles are typically similar in a range of communities, which can enhance the role of innate knowledge in the formation of one’s moral principles. However, even rationalism does not limit cognition by innate knowledge, leaving space for individual development. Moreover, Kant stated in his book about pragmatic anthropology that it is nearly impossible for humans to truly understand themselves because people behave naturally only when they are not aware of themselves. That serves as a ground to conclude that it is complicated for an individual to exist strictly according to innate knowledge rather than freedom and morality. People are not aware of it most of the time, and if innate understanding influences cognition, it still cannot be the major ruler.

Source

Lastly, barbarism may occur connected to civilization when it is being idealized. That is, the society may be persuaded in the importance of violence for the civilization to exist and improve. A good example is the praise given to 'Anti-Dühring' in the communist countries, when Engels’s opposition of materialist theories to idealism was strongly supported. At the same time, it was promoted along with the materialist theories of Marks and other followers of the branch. This way, materialism, that partly reinforced the idea of victimizing ones for the happiness of the others or barbarism coexisting with civilization, was approximated to idealism, and the society was given an idea that materialism itself reinforces and complements idealism.

To conclude, according to Kant’s critical philosophy and Hegel’s doctrine, the connection between civilization and barbarism should not be perceived as an inevitable law of human existence. Civilization is rather trapped by barbarism in certain periods of human history when the concept of freedom becomes an armament instead of a known necessity.

Note: This content is owned by the finalist of the All-Ukrainian Olympiad in Philosophy. @cathywrites has permission from the author to publish it on Steemit platform.