IndexIntroductionThe influence of authority on liberationEvolution From ancient societies to the modern CONCLUSIONBenjamin Constant de Rebecque, born on 25 October 1767, was a French-Swiss political activist and writer on politics and religion. Famous for his French-translated article The Freedom of the Ancients Compared to That of the Moderns, Constant describes the many improvements that nations have experienced in their mentality and structure, through evolution, where time is an important factor. Analyzing his various claims about how liberation deviated from its previous definition through deviations in nations' political regimes and the implementation of practices such as trade, arguments arise as to whether a connection can be drawn between modern and ancient societies. Questioning whether ancient ways of dealing, while oppressive, were as consistent as they were as negative as described and interconnected reasoning as to why modern societies are where they are now. By referring to various other philosophers and articles, we hope to draw a final analogy on what liberation means for the free man. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Introduction Time is change, transformation, and evolution. Although this phrase can represent several meanings, a deviation could be that with time, the world observes the multitude of changes that accelerate the rate of transformation and thus conclusively denote evolution. Touched upon in the conference held by Benjamin Constant, in his article The Freedom of the Ancients Compared to that of the Moderns, Constant describes the fundamental differences between the types of freedom just distinguished, that of ancient societies and the modern one. Adopting a rather casual but objective tone, exhibiting numerous views and opinions on different nations, Constant uses famous quotes from Jean Jacques Rousseau and the Abbé de Mably to further corroborate his data and thus attempt to advance his arguments. Constant believed that there were two different types of 'Freedom', one of ancient societies, collective social freedom, and one of modern, private and individualistic freedom. Using history as the main reference through the addition of numerous ancient social groups such as Rome, Athens, and various others, it further attempts to belong to a conclusive position that freedom has evolved over time. His analysis of the works of Mably and Rousseau intertwined with French diction allows one to definitively assimilate a factual technique for deciphering why precisely these concepts were misunderstood for as long as they were. Influence of Authority on LiberationAuthority, which translates into having legal and political power influence and enforce the law, has always been perpetually intertwined with the concept of freedom. Bearing in mind the meaning of 'the right to be subject only to the laws, and not to be arrested, imprisoned, put to death or otherwise ill-treated by the decision of any individual or individuals;' freedom stagnates the ability to maintain one's self-independence. Constant states that modern authoritarian regimes revolve around the ideology that dominant forces must make it possible for the economy to resist threats and progress at a rapid pace and then introduce trade and commerce. This ideology predicts history that through networking, one's nation will prosper and deter previous threats. Predicting the story that in ancient times it was not uncommon for religious viewpoints and political influences to be used in formulating a formulabasic understanding of how to survive, his critical viewpoint seems to be shaped by the perception that survival was simply always about one's basic needs alone. choices. His analysis, while conceptually constant, asserts that previous societies were unable to sustain moderate levels of freedom due to the constraints usually associated with collective freedom precludes the belief that self-chosen perspectives such as religion were anything other than major contributors to their oppression. By not giving any consideration to individualistic freedom, societies suffered due to their lack of privacy and various references were made highlighting the slave atmosphere adopted in prehistoric times. Constant's choice to include historical references helps sustain a more stagnant foundation for his readers when drawing parallels between different nations of both previous and present times. In his reference to the Gauls, he emphasizes that they survived thanks to a rather theocratic and violence-fueled system, one of which consisted of the repression of civilians and, in turn, deprived them of what would today be known as their fundamental rights. On the other hand, his choice to omit essential details such as more detailed comparisons between modern nations and those of antiquity raises the question of whether earlier nations were consistently as unhappy as they appeared to be portrayed. He also makes observations about the Roman Republic which also followed the forum of ancient freedom through a more representative system which participated in regular voting to develop customary laws and rulings and thus breaching the wall that constituted feudal and regulated control was completely disgusting. of a detailed review of the highly contrasting but more modernly described nations such as the Spartan Republic and the Athenians who followed monastic and ostracized positions respectively provides readers with a basis for comparison so as to gain a self-regulated opinion of why the standards of oppression have diverged through time and evolution. These references though are quite informative help in corroborating and broadening the mind on the values ​​and aspects of how society has failed due to its immoral and unsustainable methods, thus further influencing our perception of the social wrongs of both decades. However, due to its inclusions, the plausibility in understanding the distinctions of these times is made slightly less feasible due to its highly contrasting nature which guarantees confusion. Described to be closer in nature to our modern states, the Lacedaemonians were described as a tyranny for its monarchy. power by their king, but the adoption of regulation by five separate individuals, who held authority in both political and religious aspects, helped regulate its prepositions but still stagnated in completely obliterating the oppression. The inclusion of the Athenian story of how they were skilled in the practice of a craft, through the use of money that granted their citizens basic rights, provides the perception of a positively evolving state. However, further clarifying that the practice of ostracism, slavery, and oppression has not yet been abandoned revokes the claim that evolution over time essentially never leads to complete progress. Further constant comments about how these practices were immoral since society was assumed to have complete authority over its members further expand the thesis that liberation was and still is simply a socially constructed concept, one of which humanity still does nothe can understand even after years of trial and never. Through the introduction of postmodern methods of survival within these nations, Constant manages to highlight subtle aspects that help formulate his thesis that although a man is born free, he is impulsively forced to give up his freedom by the jurisdiction of those who control his nation. War, for many centuries, has held sway when considering how individuals have obtained their rights to freedom. Constant's argument that this impulsive nature was a practice that forced the weak to give up their independence and were thus involuntarily subjected to slavery, highlights the importance of why the slave trade was, in fact, a time of suppression and where freedom was undoubtedly just a fanciful term. He also states that modern societies, unlike their predecessors, have adopted the means of commerce to attempt to achieve their ultimate goal of getting what they want, through means they would not have. Don't expect them to give up their individualistic freedom and hopefully , do not lose more than they invested. This generates a rather incomprehensible confusion regarding the evidence of his analysis on how for the ancients, until now, were unable to correlate a link between collective freedom and the imposition of authority from one party to another. It seems evident that the practice of trade was essentially a calculative procedure, and thus the argument formulates that modern freedom has succeeded when corroboration is considered and because of this the conception of evolution is again seen in a positive light. Trade is another vital keyword in the article and translates to “the offer to purchase a substance from an individual through peaceful agreement rather than by force, establishes a tribute to one's strength”. Describing it as a working climate, Constant formulates the concept that through this peace and tranquility adopted, individuals allowed slavery to be slowly abolished and through the implementation of laws, numerous economic enterprises were now penalized and prohibited. This is not an uncommon practice that has slowly been adopted in many other countries, such as India, with the Indian Slavery Act. This practice, being clearly contradictory to ancient methods, has provided societies with a new forum to anticipate new norms social and attempt to grow further in economic and political strength and through this the universally accepted ideology was carried forward that through industrialization and commercialisation, nations grow and therefore now also "The most populous, the most powerful, the most consistent among them do not they were the same size as the smallest of modern states." Trade is a concept that has been commented on by several influential parties of different nations. The French philosopher Montesquieu, in his book The Spirit of Laws, puts forward an argument contradictory to that of Constant, according to which trade, although denoting a sense of freedom in an individual's mind, still presents serious restrictions. Through the implementation of trade restrictions, it is still made plausible for political parties to govern civilians and businesses, and dominate their plans and choices, and thus our nations are still reasonably governed. Instead, these restrictions appear to have been relevant only to protect individuals from losing sight of their goals and thus monitor their eventual success, provided it was in fact done adequately. It seems that without these restrictions, the antiquities would have suffered if not for the constant communication transmitted through collective power, whichseems questionable considering the restrictions already associated with this technique. The intervention denoted by the government, although formally present, no longer allows the indulgence to intrude into every form of private and public affairs, thus essentially freeing the free man from these decrees. The evolution from ancient societies to modern trade, provided through trade, has produced several hopeful prospects for ancient societies. Athens is the most regular in this practice, successfully eliminating numerous differences between its ancient and modern societies. Through the circulation of money, it was evident that citizens were now more willing to obtain their benefits or "moeurs" by opening their homes to the idea of ​​marriage and friendship, a seemingly deviant meaning of trading a person through non-profit means. linked to slavery. .Constant mentions how during the war at intervals of time, men constantly lost their rights to land, individuals and public property while stagnating their rights.possibility of progress. Modern men, in contrast, share social power through non-combative means, trade, and this understanding is what establishes that no mistreatment occurs within or between nations, an ideology he highlights through a brief on the Revolution French. Constant, throughout his articles, is found to be attempting to justify himself with contradictory statements of other philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau who believed that "an individual should be enslaved in order for people to be free". Both Rousseau and de Mably made negativity-fueled arguments about how the implementation of personal freedom forgoes admiration for ancient nations such as the Egyptians, Spartans, and Athenians, all of whom are popular sources of research in this field of analysis. . By holding perspectives that do not support personal freedom and independence, it is believed to be simply an extension of power into unrequited agreements. Believing that "personal freedom must submit to the collective will in exchange for participation in social power", Constant disagreed with these claims stating that modern men deserve to enjoy their rights without the need for war and violence. man demands the ways of both individual and political freedom, he brings out a new form of socio-political freedom, in which the renunciation of individual personal freedom will not be required. Through the election of representatives for the protection of the nation and political effectiveness, citizens have demonstrated the possibility of seeking their own forms of happiness and enjoyment, without the watchful eyes of a highly restrictive power. Giving them the ability to both elect and strip these representatives of their power allows societies to no longer be forced to accept restrictive authority without fear of abuse or exile due to retaliation, a clear distinction between modern and ancient liberation. While this seems like a push towards a positive evolution, the counterargument stagnates from the claim that, although the same level of authority is no longer adopted, these representatives are still granted sufficient rights to prevail over parties, especially if done with intent harmful. Attempting to completely abolish the country's feudal laws and practices, the French Revolution was a time of vast danger across Europe. In an attempt to withdraw from the jurisdiction of Louis XVI and undermine all the religious-political influence of the Catholic Church and, in turn, develop society according to its modern scenario. With the Catholic Church and Louis XVI together squeezing more than 8% of the nation's total.’.