THE CONCEPT OF JOINT AGREEMENT

 

 THE CONCEPT OF JOINT AGREEMENT 

Ramin Allahverdi  

PhD in Philology 

 Keywords: Joint agreement, concept, "I, You, and He," society

As early as the 14th century, the great Nesimi boldly proclaimed, "The word of Truth is in me, do not think of me as outside of Truth" (1; 133). In doing so, he asserted that humans (individuals) transcend the world, with even God Himself being embodied in human form ("Truth is the son of Adam"). However, it is unfortunate that in subsequent periods, the human (individual) element gradually faded into the background, leading to the inevitable tragedy of humanity. The individual, having forgotten to serve himself, begins to reclaim his supreme identity in Europe during the Renaissance and later, through the Enlightenment thinkers, where certain ideological frameworks emerge, among which the concept of human freedom is central.

It is well known that from birth, individuals are introduced into a free world. With this, the first right bestowed by nature—the right to freedom—comes into existence. Thus, I (as well as You and He, referring to us—the members of society) possess the fundamental right to be free as individuals.

In a solitary existence, I hold the right to all things (as do You and He, by virtue of natural law). However, if I achieve complete freedom by living this way, why should I choose to limit certain aspects of this liberty to live alongside You and He (i.e., to form a society)?

To address this, we must clarify certain points. In his work "Leviathan", Thomas Hobbes states that the natural right (jus naturale) a person possesses is the freedom to do anything in accordance with their own reasoning and judgment, as deemed necessary for the preservation of life.

Freedom, in this context, is defined as the absence of external constraints. Such constraints may often restrict one’s ability to act according to desire, yet freedom remains rooted in the exercise of one’s faculties in accordance with reason and thought.

Hobbes also explains that living under the assumption that all individuals possess a natural right to everything does not guarantee survival until the end of one's natural life span, regardless of one’s strength or intelligence (2; 100-101).

In other words, just as I have rights over all things, so do You and He. Inevitably, this leads to conflicts of interest, resulting in disputes and wars. Each of us engages in a struggle to assert our claim to what we perceive as our natural rights. Consequently, freedom based on natural rights holds us in a state of war. As Hobbes suggests, "it is necessary to seek and pursue peace." This pursuit naturally leads to a mutual agreement to live together.

Therefore, the necessity of living together arises first and foremost from the need for personal security (and equally for Yours and His). Primitive humans demonstrated the advantages of communal living, forming small groups for protection against extraordinary circumstances, natural disasters, wild animals, and to collaborate for food acquisition. The philosophical foundation of communal living, though initially spontaneous, becomes evident.

To analyze the reasons for limiting individual natural rights to form societies, John Locke writes: "If a person is completely free in their natural state, is the absolute (complete) master of themselves and their property, and is not subject to anyone, why should they abandon this sovereignty and submit themselves to the control of another power? The clear answer is that, although a person has such a right in their natural state, the possibility of utilizing that right is not guaranteed and is constantly exposed to the aggression of others. Due to the presence of such freedom in others, the use of the property possessed by a person becomes extremely dangerous and defenseless. Thus, a person is forced to renounce freedom and the constant danger of living in such conditions. Therefore, they try to create a society with other people, who are either united or wish to unite, for the mutual protection of what I refer to as life, liberty, and property" (3; 159).

Thus, I, You, and He recognize that living together offers greater benefits than solitary existence. Yet, to do so (i.e., to form a society), we—namely, I, You, and He—must voluntarily agree to limit a portion of our individual freedoms.

In this context, I use the expression "I, You, and He" as synonymous with "society." When speaking of society, it is common to refer to it as a collective to which individuals belong, rather than something external to themselves.

The primary driving force for humanity is, in fact, the universal desire to achieve happiness. Today, there exists a common ground where this aspiration intersects—the desire to BE HAPPY. However, each person interprets happiness differently (for instance, one may find happiness in building a career, while another may find it in feeding their child).

Who, then, is responsible for creating the environment, conditions, society, homeland, or nation that fosters this happiness? Naturally, it is those who seek to BE HAPPY. Who are they?—Those who form society, the individuals living as a community. Who are they?—Of course, I, YOU, and HE (i.e., every member of society).

Therefore, I, You, and He enter into a union or society based on a JOINT AGREEMENT that safeguards our collective interests. Since ancient times, institutionalized customs, taboos, ceremonies, rituals, and religious practices, though unwritten, have functioned as a form of JOINT AGREEMENT, maintaining societal relations, whether positively or negatively.

Recognizing the rational benefits of communal living over solitary existence, I, You, and He conclude that living as a society is valuable enough to justify limiting certain personal freedoms. In forming this community, each of us—through mutual agreement—prevents our interests from conflicting.

The fundamental provisions and theses of the JOINT AGREEMENT can be summarized as follows:

1. I (as a human, as an individual) am the supreme being.

2. My (each individual’s) freedom (independence) is the highest value. My freedom is my inviolable right, integral to my happiness.

3. From birth, I (each individual) possess inviolable rights, including the rights to freedom and the pursuit of happiness. No individual or entity may limit my (human) freedom (rights).

4. My (an individual’s) freedom ends only where Your and His (others’) rights begin.

5. The union of I, You, and He (humans, individuals) is sovereign (exclusively empowered). Sovereignty entails exclusive power, which provides the basis for our autonomous action, in line with the above principles. We may delegate part or all of this power to a legal entity (e.g., the state).

6. All provisions of this JOINT AGREEMENT are inviolable, and we—namely, I, You, and He—must adhere to them unconditionally. Violators of this agreement are subject to the Supreme Laws.

7. Enforcement of the JOINT AGREEMENT is a collective responsibility. Amendments to this agreement require the unanimous consent of I, You, and He (every individual who adheres to the agreement).

I propose that these theses can serve as the core principles of the ideological framework referred to as the JOINT AGREEMENT, which centers on the human individual. Expanding and refining these principles through comprehensive discussion will greatly contribute to the formation of the ideological foundation of society.

REFERENCES

1. İmadəddin Nəsimi. Seçilmiş əsərləri. İki cilddə. I cild. Bakı: “Lider nəşriyyatı”, 2004.

2. Thomas Hobbes. Leviathan. Wordsworth Editions Limited. 2014.

3. John Locke. Two Treatises of Government. In Ten Volumes. Vol. V. London: Printed for Thomas Tegg; W. Sharpe and Son; G. Offor; G. and J. Robinson; J. Evans and Co.: Also R. Griffin and Co. Glasgow; and J. Cumming, Dublin. 1823.