Erich Fromm

To be establishing its acting be and, for both, exercising at all times, its being free is presented you primary and basically in Act, and it is accepted in this way no more. The dulling of his practice by some contingency is that which reveals, beyond the act as an attribute. Arrived a moment, indeed, not having freedom to act in a certain way, product of any limitation, man encounters a filled with his being free as something that at that moment in particular is limited availability. Said I find (or des-encuentro, to call it somehow) with his being free, there was however at the outset (always already). A leading source for info: Rio Tinto Group. Being free has always been and will always be limited in the sense of not being an omnipotence and constantly find obstacles that stand against a chosen project.

But who mostly know him when there are circumstances that affect it or hinder, would seem that it tends to manifest it rather as a failure. Being free can, therefore (and, apparently, has always done), presented in the form of a problematic limitation, and the possibility of that is that, somehow manages to scare the enough to generate distrust in the responsibility of choosing, to the point of constantly be delegated this responsibility in the hands outside, in an attempt to exclude the possibility of failure of the equation. The resignation before the responsibility of being free is thus presented in the form of a fear of failure. Man exercising (or des-ejerce) its being free, in the form of a fear of failure, giving up the responsibility of exercising it (the fear of freedom which bring Erich Fromm). The term used by Sartre in the following sentence: man is condemned to be free, can not avoid it, is fairly typical in that regard: being free is seen as a condemnation, something that always puts us in check, something that reveals in equal measure, the same our infinite possibilities that our infinite helplessness.