To rescue the concept of freedom for the soc sci's, one must distinguish between its purely emotive usages & its various descriptive meanings. Operational definitions are given for freedom & unfreedom in the interpersonal sense (for expressions such as: 'A leaves B free to do either (mean - average) or y or z'; 'With respect to A, B is unfree to do x'. E.g. the latter expression is defined as follows: 'A makes it impossible for B to do x, or A would punish B if B did x'). Thus defined, statements about interpersonal freedom & unfreedom can be empirically tested. Interpersonal unfreedom is not identical with control or power; A may make B unfree to do (mean - average) without controlling B's behavior, & vice versa. The concept of freedom of action does not refer to someone's freedom, but to his ability to do something. The distinction between 'negative' & 'positive' freedom is therefore untenable. (AA - IPSA).
When speaking of freedom, La Bruyère's word comes to mind—that everything has been said and that we come too late to add anything. Yet an analysis of the concept of freedom may be warranted for the very reason that it is being used by everyone to refer to whatever he considers valuable, from obedience to law (positive or natural) to autonomy and economic abundance. I believe that it is possible to assign to "freedom" in its different aspects meanings which are emotively neutral and operationally testable, and thereby to rescue for the social sciences generally and for political science in particular an important set of concepts, closely related as they are to those of power and control.One would have to start with disentangling the widely different senses in which "freedom" is being used indiscriminately. I shall deal with freedom in only two of its many meanings, interpersonal freedom and freedom of action. One of the difficulties will be to steer a middle course between the vagueness of conversational language and the awkwardness of a precise terminology; but I hope to demonstrate that such an endeavor is no idle exercise in semantics but a necessary prerequisite for the fruitful investigation of social and political phenomena.
The purpose of article to justify the abstractness of the concept of "freedom", and to show that the real practical importance have the concept "freedom of action", which is a necessary condition to committing of free action. And a sufficient condition is connected with a practical manifestation of the states of the will of human by means of motivation and/or goal-setting. Also the levels and sublevels of human's freedoms are denoted. In doing so to denote and representation concepts related to freedom are used some mathematical concepts.
The capacity of religious movements to influence individual freedom is explored. Analysis of contemporary literature indicates that public citizens & academics alike support the assertion that novel religious movements brainwash their members, thus constraining their individual freedom. Findings from the author's (1984) study of the Unification Church's ability to restrain new members' capacity to choose are reviewed. It is asserted that religious movements either constrain individual liberty or provide liberation for restrained individuals; ie, religious movements provide members the opportunity to escape life situations & develop particular skills. Nevertheless, it is demonstrated that religious organizations can facilitate nervous breakdowns & require that members unconditionally support a unidimensional religious vision. 14 References. J. W. Parker