At the same time where it limits in them, it is the body that in the sample the possibilities of the freedom. On the other hand, Sartre refuses the materialism determinista, because, if everything was reduced to the substance, it would not have conscience, and, therefore, it would not have freedom. This corporeidade that if relates with the freedom implies that the freedom can, yes, to be definite for the concrete situations. If, as object, the freedom cannot if presenting in them fenomenicamente, we can at least having contact with the particular cases of freedom. Each particular case where we identify the freedom can be considered as a manifestation of the freedom. If it cannot be seen as ‘ ‘ coisa’ ‘ , this if of because it really is not a thing, but something that is only presented from the human behavior. In this direction, we cannot understand the freedom seno in its empirical manifestation, it wants staff, it wants intersubjetiva.
Concluding this quarrel, in which many elements we leave propositalmente in open, we can consider that the man, while existing, only can really define itself from its existence. The freedom, that is the essential factor for this definition, is the point limit that exceeds proper itself, showing that, if we have at least some determination, is to be free.
The true end of the State is, therefore, liberdade.' '. Soon for Espinosa, the end and the bedding of the State reason to say what is the Freedom according to it is thought and to teach what it is thought, freeing the men of all fear. In the base of ' beddings of the Estado' State that has finally the Freedom? it is clearly where measured each one can usufruct of ' freedom of opinio' without injuring the power of the sovereigns? that it is the same to be able that guarantees the freedom. For Espinosa if it considers that ' fidelidade' to the State it is as ' fidelidade' the God, and that he is ' fidelidade' he only can be demonstrated, alone can be known by the workmanships, the love he stops with the next one, he must leave itself clearly that the freedom that the State offers, or must offer, is the same freedom of ' ' to filosofar that the faith oferece' '. For the reason, in ' ' State bom' ' , the thought freedom must be allowed, therefore after all it is a power that if cannot deny, and that it makes sciences and the arts well, that make well to the advance of sciences. The advance of science alone can occur if the freedom of ' ' pensar' ' it will be established with success inside of a State. Good part of the men, for thinking one of the others differently, does not support that they call ' delito' what it calls ' mercy stops with Deus' , and if this happens, if this occurs thus it makes its thought to be different of the established laws will make with that it does not like them laws, also making with that such man the times if judges to be able to go against? with violence? being able inside established to them of a State, but it will have to be shown who will not be able to act thus for thinking different.