Political Conditions for Autonomous Speech

The problem that I want to pose in this work is that the existing society does not provide a person with the possibility of independent (autonomous) speech. But why is independent speech a value, and such that the lack of conditions for it is a problem? The desire of man for statements that relate to the very essence of human life is understandable. Human speech is a way of communication that is necessary in order to understand what kind of life is good and to identify guidelines for action and life here and now. It is therefore possible, therefore, to assume that a person wants to speak for himself, because the matter concerns his life. That is, some statements in the absence of autonomy lose not only their purpose, but also their essence. It turns out that the independence of speech is fundamentally important for the person himself and everyone can face this problem. In this work, I will try to propose a solution to the problem, suggesting the conditions under which independent speech would be possible. In the first chapter of my paper I will give a preliminary definition of what autonomous speech is, but my main task will be to formulate the criteria for independent speech, how it is possible to distinguish independent speech from non-independent. In the second chapter, my task will be to study the political conditions of independent speech; I will think about how society can be changed so that independent speech in it becomes possible. At the same time, I will try to show that even if the problem of impossibility of independent speech is a problem of certain people, this does not mean that this is not a universal problem. I will formulate three political conditions for independent expression, which arise from the main obstacles to its existence. The solution to these problems that I propose is to create a new political space that would become a very useful part of the existing one. My goal in this work is not thoroughly thinking through its appearance; what kind of place on the map such a space should occupy. First of all, it is important for me to show why it is necessary to fulfill the criterion of self-knowledge of a person. When this criterion is fulfilled, it will be possible to fulfill the second - a truly radical and fruitful criticism, from which society as a whole will benefit. In addition, I will try to show a number of other advantages that will become possible for society. That is, my argument will be built in parallel with the formulation of problems already existing in society, which can be understood by everyone; even to a person who does not consider independent speech as necessary for his happiness. It is necessary to say a little about the authors, whose work I rely on in the formulation of my idea. I turn to M. Foucault, who uses a concept very close to independent speech. In the description of modern political conditions, I mostly refer to K. Marx and J. Deleuze. Their work is useful for formulating problems; but not too suitable for a solution: the concept of independent speech is generally studied in connection with the happiness of a person. However, ancient Greek, not modern, philosophy speaks of human happiness. Therefore, I turn to the early Stoics. This choice is made by the intuition that in the absence of political conditions for utterance, a more or less stoic way of life is inevitable for a person: the more important it is to consider what its grounds are. The stoic ethics with which I begin implies that a person can become independent by following his nature, and there is no other happiness. However, this ethics, as I show, leads to the fact that the world becomes indifferent to a person. Since such happiness is generally doubtful, this leads to the idea that ethics without politics is not self-sufficient, that the possibility of happiness for a person is connected with the existence of other people. This ideas were formulated by Plato, so I will appeal to some of his dialogues.