| Summary: | In this essay, I have tried to make a comparative comparison of Shahid Motahari's and Isaiah Berlin's views on freedom with an analytical approach and by adopting a modified McCalm's definition of freedom as a theoretical framework and looked at how these concepts were constructed differently. Accordingly, under the component of "human actor", he compares the anthropological issues of two thinkers; The aims and ends of each of these two thinkers of freedom were compared. In Berlin's view, since man is an indeterminate being and must determine himself; freedom is not an instrumental value and is itself an end. Freedom is the most important value because it is used to realize its incomplete, incomplete and indeterminate aspects at will. But in Martyr Motahari's view, since man is a natural being who has a definite nature and therefore has definite ends, freedom is validated so that one can step in the path of his / her development. That is, freedom is a means by which one can only attain his or her ultimate goals.
|
|---|
