Our freedoms are once again in the spotlight. But the pressing question is: what kind of freedom are we really talking about? And how do the individual and societal dimensions of freedom relate to one another?
Insights from the perspective of Logotherapy & Existential Analysis
In both the philosophy and practice of human existence, two forms of freedom keep reappearing: freedom from and freedom to. They are not synonyms but express fundamentally different modes of freedom. The first refers to external liberty, the second to inner liberty. Together they form a tension that touches the core of autonomy, responsibility, and meaning.
Freedom from: space through the absence of coercion
Freedom from refers to the absence of external obstacles — what Isaiah Berlin called negative freedom. It is liberation from censorship, oppression, fear, poverty, or social pressure. It is the space in which a person can escape coercion and manipulation: political freedom, religious freedom, the right to privacy.
Historically, this form of freedom is strongly tied to the liberal tradition, articulated by thinkers such as John Locke and Isaiah Berlin. It has opened unprecedented space for individual expression, diversity, and choice.
This liberation resembles adolescence, a stage in which young people distance themselves from parents and institutions and reject perceived boundaries. Something similar happens at the societal level: traditional structures — religion, fixed role patterns, hierarchical authority — are being dismantled. This has opened doors to emancipation, democratization, and personal development. But, as with adolescents, it often remains at the level of a freedom from: breaking away from the old without a clear vision of what should take its place.
And even after liberation, unexpected and often painful circumstances continue to limit our freedom of movement: a difficult diagnosis, the loss of a loved one, sudden unemployment, or a divorce. Collectively, we struggle with climate change, mountains of waste, social divisions, and political tensions. Freedom from is necessary – and not sufficient.
Freedom to: the possibility of giving direction
Where negative freedom ends, positive freedom begins. Freedom to is the possibility of becoming or doing something — and it presupposes inner orientation. It demands conscious choices in line with values, goals, and personal meaning.
Thinkers such as Hegel, Erich Fromm, and especially Viktor Frankl highlighted this form of freedom. For Frankl, freedom is inseparably linked with responsibility. Even under extreme conditions — such as in the concentration camps — he saw the human capacity to choose how one relates to suffering and restriction. This freedom to adopt a meaningful attitude is, in his view, the core of human dignity.
Two halves of a whole
Freedom from creates space; freedom to gives direction. An ideal society seeks a healthy balance between the two. Without their interplay, freedom remains empty or unusable. Freedom from alone can lead to the existential vacuum: emptiness, indifference, consumerism, or nihilism. Freedom to alone risks idealism detached from the reality of structural limitations.
Our classical freedoms — of speech, religion, assembly, and press — open up space for people to shape their lives. But when that space is not filled with guiding values and meaningful goals, it risks feeling empty. An abundance of possibilities without orientation leads to existential insecurity, superficiality, and fragmentation. This is precisely where our society struggles. Frankl put it succinctly: “We have enough to live by, but too little to live for.”
Freedom only gains meaning when it is used for something beyond ourselves: a value, a task, a relationship. Freedom, Frankl said, is merely the antechamber of responsibility. For society, maturity means learning to use this freedom for dialogue, connection, and constructive exchange. Too often we see freedom from degenerate into hate speech or misinformation, without being transformed into a responsible use of freedom.
Towards a mature freedom
The challenge of our time is the leap from adolescent to mature freedom. This means collectively learning to take responsibility: for the climate, for one another, for the world we pass on to future generations. Freedom becomes mature only when it is bound to values and to a consciously chosen direction.
Adolescence is a transitional phase — exciting and risky at the same time. It can lead to destruction and emptiness, but also to renewal and a deeper awareness of freedom and responsibility. The outcome depends on our ability to see freedom not merely as liberation, but as a calling to meaningful action. That is the existential challenge of our age.
Henning Zorn, September 2025
