Some time ago I received an email in which the sender, 83 years old, looks back on his experiences during and after the war. I'd like to read you a bit from his mail for:

My father was 'counsel' at "Hollandia', at the time the club of Dutch students at the University of Leuven. That's how he got into hiding. Flanders of Dutch students who would not sign the declaration of loyalty. His role was that of treasurer. Every once in a while, two young men came to stay with us one night in Leuven. All they had was a first name. They were couriers who came from Spain or Switzerland to bring money from the Dutch government into exile (London). My father then divided it among the families where those boys were housed. Once the money didn't arrive (I don't know why).

Then my father went to the director of the local Philips factory, a certain Plieger (who he personally did not like at all!), and said: "I need so much money for a good cause, but I can't say why." He got it right away.

Especially in a situation like that under the occupation, freedom and responsibility fell together. If you did not then take responsibility (sometimes with danger of life) then you could never feel truly free. That is now, from our comfortable situation, quickly and easily said. I suspect my parents have had a lot of discussions. If you have children, you don't just risk your own life. On the occasion of their wedding anniversary, I thanked them in a speech for risking our lives. Freedom and responsibility in the conflicting reality.

World War II is, in many ways, a benchmark for me, to this day. So many memories! For people from your generation, that is of course different, because it is not linked to such personal memories. .

Apart from the fact that his story is a special testimony to the situation in which people were living under the occupation and to the often existential choices they were faced with, it is perhaps precisely for this reason that the story is mainly the last sentence that struck me:For people Of course, it is different from your generation, because it is not linked to such personal memories.’ 

Indeed, the Second World War is not a benchmark, not as it is for people who have consciously experienced the war. We have been given the necessary information, but the personal and intrusive experiences of the war do not know most people. This also means that freedom and responsibility no longer have the meaning and cargo they at the time had under the occupation for people. The experience is that if you don't take responsibility, you can never feel free. Although the war in Ukraine is certainly affecting Ukrainians but to some extent also citizens of other Western countries, this experience is again strongly affected.

How did the father get into the story I just quoted to his acts of resistance? We don't know exactly, but apparently he had a deep sense that freedom is worth a sacrifice, not just a sacrifice in general, but a personal sacrifice. He experienced personal responsibility for others, for people he hardly knew. That is an attitude, a way of dealing with freedom, which requires deeper exploration. What ethos speaks here? And is that ethos still present within ourselves? What do these terms "freedom" and "responsibility" mean? Well, today, is it?

In our time, freedom is strongly linked to ideals of authenticity, selfrealization and individualization. The prevailing idea is that you can decide everything yourself, that you can design your life at your own discretion and discretion, independently of others. We have an enormous freedom of choice that allows us to shape life as we see fit, but this individual freedom, alongside great challenges and opportunities, also has shadow sides. Thus, a strong freedom directed at one's own self can be a barrier to real involvement with others. Moreover, we live in a hunted and demanding society where the pressure to be successful and successful is enormous, or at least to be felt by others. As a result, the importance of social connectedness and I-overlying ideals is quickly getting away with it.

All this raises the question of whether the freedom of the autonomous individual, who wants to shape his own life independently of traditions and with a lot of technical equipment, is really not a false freedom. Appearance when freedom is not challenged, tested and deepened into character. The Danish thinker Søren Kierkegaard largely pertains to fear. With a fear of freedom. Indeed, we often see this, especially in this world of choices, lifestyles and diversity. Its own is quickly becoming the group-own (see the identity debate) or following trendsetters and opinion makers.

With the disappearance of the old collective rules and the greatly increased focus on personal life, the measure of happiness and well-being has also changed. The people and things around us no longer have the meaning that suits their place in the whole. This quickly gives them an instrumental character: What can they do for my life project? A project in which the standards are often derived from what the group wants, finds interesting or presents with repertoire of action etc. Meanwhile, feelings of lack of control and senselessness are evident among (especially young) people.

In addition, we seem to be increasingly ignoring the question of what is actually the substantive justification for such coveted freedom. Why freedom? What are the deeper experiences and sources from which we draw this high value? Is the original experience, which allowed the formulation of this value, still present in our mindset?

This question is important not only for personal life, but also for life and perhaps even more for society as a whole. Freedom and responsibility are key pillars in our liberal rule of law. As soon as freedom and freedom rights cease to be lived and appropriate, this will have fundamental consequences and risks to the democratic rule of law as such.

The functioning and survival of our free society cannot be based on rules and procedures alone. The democratic rule of law, as a political community of government and citizens, calls for a certain attitude or mentality - a

The European Union is committed to supporting the peace process. It likewise respects so much that it does not stand and falls with the taking of the other, for political gain, for career drive driven by the wrong consciousness of the class, of the identity group and whether or not alleged institutionalized discrimination. Democratic consciousness and freedom see in the other not an enemy, but a reason for taking responsibility.

The most important starting point of the rule of law, which essentially pertains to the protection of freedoms, is that the government is bound to the law in its exercise of power, to a constitution. Fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of conscience protect citizens equally against government while allowing them to express themselves in the public domain, in accordance with their views and deepest beliefs. Thus we create space for each other, even though we do not know each other personally, but because we know that every other person is also a person, and with that has a value far beyond individual relationships we have with them, a value that is independent of whether we like someone or not, whether we agree with someone or not.

Once members of the democratic rule of law themselves do not believe in, let alone act on, constitutional achievements such as freedom and responsibility, the democratic rule of law loses meaning and attraction both outward and inward. In this case, it lacks a reliable foundation; There is no more shared truth or shared "self transcending" interest for which citizens jointly know their responsibility.

I therefore believe that the functioning of the democratic rule of law, in addition to rules, laws and procedures, presupposes a certain notion of innerity and self-reflectivity, a space for the soul. A critical reflection on the conditions under which a bridge can be built between the soul of human beings and the democratic rule of law between the inside and the outside of our modern political order is relevant and necessary. First, that inner dimension is needed to live on why freedom and freedom rights are so important. Secondly, innerness enables the individual to come to his own views and beliefs, not only in a theoretical but above all in a practical sense. And in the third place self-knowledge creates an inner space in which, in the realization of our own good and less good sides, we also build up gentleness and compassion towards everyone else, even though we think that the other person is much appreciated, it is nevertheless a fellow man.

In short, if the democratic rule of law is to maintain its continuity and support, it is not so much a question of empty liberalism or empty socialism as of a policy of freedom that respects the integrity of the individual, as a precondition for freedom and sincerity. As soon as the modern liberal order is presented as a purely rational construction, it loses its meaning and consequently its appeal and moral authority. In that respect, I share the conviction of the German-American political philosopher Eric Addelin: Anyone who loses sight of the underlying experiences of "Police Order" "Police Order"

Experience results. A joint pietas I would like to say a few words about this.

Innerness implies that people have access to moral and truth sources that guide their dealings with themselves, with the other and with the world and that, as such, are constituent to the personal identity. As far as the sources of truth are concerned, I must also think of the men and women who, not rarely at risk of their own lives, risked swimming against the current. People who refused to bow to the law or the brutality of the ruler. They held on to the idea that you can hold on to other thoughts and beliefs, that the deviation should be respected because it is precisely this that is the core of human dignity and freedom.

As soon as the individual loses ties to these moral sources and perspectives, it is thrown back on itself, but a self that has to be without guidance and interpretation, without any moral framework, as the Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor rightly argues. What remains is a self that is focused on one's own desires and needs, for whom everything outside this self can only appear as an instrument to fulfill it.

The development of a meaningful and free self can only be achieved in a true sense if man is not determined by the demands arising from his individual preferences, but if he is also linked to sources and perspectives that transcend the order of self and make everyone else realize their own dignity. By making contact with moral sources outside of me, by having them resonate in myself and then giving these sources a personal interpretation, I can fully realize myself as a human being, be truly faithful to myself, and thus realize a true authenticity that is able to go beyond itself, beyond the limits of one's own self. That is why Kierkegaard, for example, was so keen to free people from the desire for possession, career etc. Freedom does not depend on it.

In short, notes such as self-realization and authenticity, which are so much at the forefront in the present time, represent a relationship to a personal and appropriate moral ground. In the political sense, the relationship to this foundation is a prerequisite for the individual to come to his own views, to oppose the attraction of public opinion and the masses, and at the same time to be involved with others, the public cause and democratic debate.

What does this mean for freedom? In the context just outlined, freedom does not imply arbitrary or infinite freedom of choice, but an existential choice, namely the choice to take responsibility for your own freedom and to connect it to the meaning and meaning of existence. That is also the core of the story I started this lecture with: freedom and responsibility coincide in such a context.

The truly free individual refuses an imposed order, but also does not believe that everything is lawful. Such a person is able to see that man, just like the society in which he lives, is only on the right path if he is believed in an I-crossing perspective, in us and outside us. Only then can you discover the possibility of free self-limitation and freeing commonality.

Therefore, I think it is time to reflect on that belief: the belief in the core values that have fought so hard for us earlier generations and are not nearly as self-evident as is sometimes thought. Freedom, responsibility, justice: They're just empty concepts if we're both citizens and governments, they don't live through, stand up and act on them.

Welvoed Vlieger is the official secretary at Groep Omtzigt, a speaker at Comenius Lectures and
bPhD student at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam. More information on Your emails.