At the metaphysical level, 2 concepts of freedom can be distinguished in the final account, which, for deficiency of more accessible terms, could be called natural freedom and gnostic freedom.
Natural freedom can be full enjoyed by an entity that first correctly defines its natural genre possible and immanent laws governing its relation with the environment, and then leads to a situation where no another entities will be able to forcefully prevent it from achieving this possible (either by itself or by team), nor will it be able to prevent them from achieving their analogous potential.
Gnostic freedom, on the another hand, is simply a hypothetical state of affairs in which a given entity not so much operates on the basis of cognition about immanent laws of reality, which effectively frees itself from their power, becoming its exclusive legislator at not only social but besides logical and metaphysical level. In another words, it is simply a state of affairs in which a given entity can not so much realise its possible in the ontologically appointed limits, which, by its own free will, invalidates all specified limits.
The approval for the first of these concepts can be found, for example, in Rothbard's "Ethic of Freedom", methodologically based on aristocratic-tomist foundations, deducing-praxeological and causal-realistic. The affirmation of the another 1 appears in turn, for example, in Stirner's "The 1 and His Own" or in Satan's tirades from Milton's "The Paradise Lost". And while the first allows in its logical incontrovertibility and metaphysical consistency for the actual fulfilment of the entity in its existence capabilities, the second is simply a performatively anti-nomial mirage, the pursuit of which yet leads to self-servation and self-destruction (which mostly involves serious harm to the environment).
It is so crucial not to confuse both concepts in the context of deliberalisation over legal and political principles aimed at safeguarding freedom in society. For example, carelessness in this field can lead to a situation where the real right to decide on itself is identified with the imagined "right to be who you want", and the cardinal rule of equality with respect to the law is considered to be a different claim name and possibly paralysing "non-discrimination principle". The frequent immersion in akin misunderstandings threatens to discourage the doctrine of consistent respect for individual liberty, which is always an unfortunate result, as long as this doctrine has many full conscious enemies who like to slander it.
In conclusion, freedom has its best prospects erstwhile it is full free from its frail caricatures: or, in another words, the more free man you become, the more immune to the destructive belief that the culmination of this process is the Lord God.
Jakub Bożydar Wiśniewski
