The idea of freedom has acquired throughout the history of philosophy various nuances, even contradictory. The Greeks approached the concept in its multiple dimensions. They considered the cosmic order they assigned to destiny, the importance of political autonomy and individual freedom, unequivocally landing, in the moral dilemma underlying the depth of the concept of freedom.
The notion of natural freedom relates to the idea of a cosmic order determined by destiny. Is it possible to be free against predestination? Possibly, but this kind of freedom does not constitute any sign of human dignity. On the contrary, it is a kind of honor to have been chosen by destiny to carry forward a necessity of the cosmic order. And in this line, acting according to a necessary destiny implies a higher, higher freedom.
political freedom or social freedom is a concept that alludes to the autonomy of a community from the real possibility of deciding its own destiny. An apparent contradiction could be seen in this sense, because it is no longer free who does what he wants but who chooses to act according to his own laws.
The law, being his own, is part of the will of the community; therefore, when man agrees to be governed by it, he does not decline his freedom, but on the contrary, he will be acting autonomously, according to the law he voluntarily consented.
Finally, the Greek panorama proposes a third notion that refers to a type of individual freedom or personal freedom. In this case, being free indicates being free from pressure from the community or the State. For the Greek, to be able to abandon the “business” to devote oneself to “leisure” (in the sense of study), is to carry forward the full exercise of his individual freedom. This conception was addressed by different socratic schools, but mainly by stoics For them, freedom consisted of being able to dispose of ourselves.
Freedom inevitably leads us to the ethical problem. That is why Aristotle will wonder whether it is possible to reconcile the natural order with the moral order.
Thus, he will observe that just as all processes are naturally oriented towards an end, man should also be oriented towards a goal... What kind of purpose? Well, happiness. The point is that in order to achieve its purpose, unlike what happens with other processes of nature, in the case of man, the intervention of the will is necessary. It will distinguish two kinds of actions, involuntary and voluntary. While the former are the result of coercion or ignorance, the latter are not. From this perspective, a moral action requires the confluence of two dimensions: voluntary action (freedom of the will) and the effective possibility of freely choosing between different options (free will or free choice).
But what if someone evil forced us to commit evil? Imagine that they threaten us to do something unfair, for example, a teacher pressed to pass a student who has not studied because otherwise, he is threatened with losing his job, which he needs to support his children. If the teacher decides to obey, he will have done so but against his basic will. But strictly speaking, you will also have voluntarily chosen to avoid the execution of the threat. What scope for moral action in such a raise? It is possible to choose, but the choice is severely conditioned.
An answer according to the Greek spirit would affirm that knowing good, man cannot fail to act according to it. What is the good in this case? To be unfair to the student to protect his children? Be fair to the student, even at the cost of unprotecting his own children? Looking for any way, an alternative solution, perhaps?
In short, from the Greek point of view, freedom belongs to the order of reason, which means that only man is free when he acts according to his rationality. Then freedom, proper to the wise man, must naturally bow to good.
