Liberty is one of types of manifestation of the randomness directed by a free will (intention of will, conscious liberty) or the stochastic law (unpredictability of an outcome of an event, unconscious liberty), i.e. something opposite to necessity.

Here liberty is arbitrariness grasped by will. If liberty is opposite of necessity, people could not create accidentally the whole civilization and much that in it make not accidental, but consciously and purposefully. Much of what people do based on their needs which arise not randomly. Even desires of the person are not arbitrariness, and proceed from his representations which are formed by an environment.

Liberty is fear releasing the person from all conventionalities of a reality.

This definition reduces liberty to nothing. It is not visible the person in this definition. Being exempted from conventionalities which represent public life, the human is exempted from himself. Liberty to the person is not needed in this case.

Liberty is the person who is projecting freely himself on freely chosen purpose.

Here Sartre strongly went too far, having told three times about liberty, but without having defined it, having noted, however, that liberty and the free person – same. Certainly, without person in our world of liberty does not exist, but that after all forces the human "to project himself on freely chosen purpose"? Perhaps it also is the liberty? Sartre did not give the answer on this question

It is curious that there is no precise definition of liberty. All of these authors of definitions of liberty "beat around the bush". The feeling is created that they define liberty like blind palpating different parts of an elephant: one, touching a trunk, says that the elephant is similar to a snake, another, feeling a foot, claims that the elephant reminds a column.

All these vague ideas of liberty point out that their authors do not know to what it can belong that it is actually and what is its mission.

All these ideas of liberty are fragmentary, chaotic, often false, in places are superficial. At best they snatch out the separate sides of liberty, but these ideas are not able to clarify its true substance.

If to understand liberty literally – as domination over circumstances, even the Lord can have no such liberty, not that the person.

What is it such? How liberty came from? For what it is necessary?

If not to go far, and try to remember national songs in which aspiration of the person to liberty is famous for and the bondage is damned, it is visible that the people understand liberty as aspiration of the person not in prison, and – to the best share. So, people express their dissatisfaction with the fact that there is, and get rid of it involves only by aspiration. Why not to serve by popular wisdom in quality of the basis for definition of liberty?

However, it seems to people that liberty is somewhere outside. But there can be, at best, only the purpose of an aspiration which can be reached or maybe not. Where here is liberty? Liberty does not coincide with the purpose. And here the person has an aspiration always because the aspiration is a conscious desire. Show me of the person who wishes nothing. Even before death the person has desire not to die if his life was good and he got used to it, or when becomes absolutely unbearable, he seeks to die somewhat quicker so long as not to suffer.

Outside much that is: wind, the woods, mountains, other people. It is possible to climb, of course, on the mountain, having set to yourself such purpose. Only, here, liberty there you will not find.

From here it is clear that liberty can be only in the human head which ponders where is better and where is worse, and aspires to the best, without being satisfied by the worst. If the person almost is satisfied with everything and especially does not aspire anywhere, any liberty provided to him from outside, will frighten and irritate him only because it can destroy his insignificant wellbeing. Low level of consciousness, as a rule, does not demand release, and wishes calm and the patronage.

If to address to the analysis, for comprehension of that such actually is liberty it is required to resolve two issues at first: about affiliation of liberty and its true mission.

Nobody will start to object that the highest creation of beingness is conscious beings.

The universe is deadened and becomes at once unnecessary without them. It is possible to argue, from where consciousness undertook. However it is clear that as though avaricious it was not expressed into people, any consciousness as creating formation represents appearance of something larger.

Consciousness, as a matter of fact, presents to the person the world as it can because all human ideas about a surrounding medium initially are given by feelings. Human feelings, despite addition to them of various devices, are very limited in the opportunities. They bear, apparently, only some part of information on the world surrounding us. This part in the processed form also remains at us. It turns out in this regard that the broached object turns into subject, i.e. the person forms own reality on the basis of given him. If all its sensors-feelings gave him other information on the world, and the world would be absolutely other and the person would turn into another being.