Alefthirus and the Greek Obsession with Freedom

Dr Ayoub Abu Dayyeh

I met him by chance at Babylon Bar, in Nicosia, Cyprus—a city that itself feels like a philosophical argument written in stone and checkpoints. He introduced himself as Alefthirus, a name that immediately sounded ancient. Later I learned that the name is the Greek Eleftherios derived from eleuthería meaning freedom. It is not merely a pleasant meaning, but one of the heaviest concepts in Greek intellectual history and world philosophy.

Meeting someone whose very name means "freedom” in a divided city like Nicosia felt less like coincidence and more like an invitation to think, react and reflect.

In Greek culture, freedom is not a decorative virtue; it is the essence of Greek Philosophy . From the earliest philosophical texts, freedom was understood not simply as the absence of chains, but as the condition that allows reason, virtue, and politics to exist. Aristotle distinguished between the free citizen and the slave not in biological terms, but in the capacity for rational thinking. To be free was to be able to participate in the polis, to argue, to decide and vote. Freedom was inseparable from responsibility.

This deep philosophical weight explains why Greeks turned freedom into a personal name. Naming someone Eleftherios is not unlike naming them Justice or Wisdom, but with far greater existential ambition. It implies not only a wish for personal autonomy, but an alignment with a long historical struggle: against tyranny, against empire, against occupation and against fate itself.

The name gained particular prominence in modern Greek history during and after the War of Independence from the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century. Eleftherios Venizelos, one of Greece’s most important statesmen, carried the name as both in identity and political program.

What struck me, however, was the contrast with Arabic culture. Arabic thought, literature, and political history are saturated with the concept of freedom—Hurriyat. Arabs have written poems for it, revolted for it, died for it. And yet, unlike Greek, Hurriyat is not used as a personal name, at least not traditionally. One does not commonly meet an Arab named "Hurriyat” in the way one meets a Greek named Aleftherios. Why?

The answer lies in the value placed on freedom and more in how cultures encode values into names. Greek naming traditions, inherited from antiquity, are comfortable with abstract nouns as personal identities: Sophia (wisdom), Agape (love), Eirene (peace), Eleftherios (freedom). The individual becomes a living embodiment of an idea. This reflects a philosophical culture that places the human being at the center of ethical inquiry: What is a good life? What is freedom? What is virtue?

Arabic naming traditions follow a different logic. Classical Arabic names are often relational rather than abstract: names of prophets, companions, attributes of God (usually prefixed with ʿAbd: servant of), or qualities framed as moral states rather than political conditions.

Freedom in Arabic thought historically existed in tension with slavery, tribal obligation, divine sovereignty, and later imperial rule. To be free was often defined legally or socially, not absolutely or metaphysically. As a result, freedom remained a condition to be attained or defended, not an essence to be attributed or named.

There is also a theological dimension. In Islamic theology, absolute freedom belongs to God alone. Human freedom exists, but within moral, existential, and divine boundaries. Naming a person "Freedom” could feel conceptually unstable, as this is a way to give him an attribute of God, which is called in Islam polytheism, attributing what is only to God to your own self (freedom).

Greek philosophy, by contrast, was far less restrained in assigning cosmic concepts to humans. The Greek human being was tragically free—free even to defy the gods, as Prometheus did. In ancient Greece, defiance of the gods evolved from myth to reason:

Prometheus openly rebelled by giving fire to humans; Homeric heroes like Achilles asserted choice against fate; Xenophanes and Protagoras questioned the gods’ nature or existence; Socrates placed moral reason above all; and by Aristotle, divine intervention was replaced by natural law.

Standing in Nicosia—a city split by war, ideology, and memory—the name Alefthirus felt especially important. Cyprus itself is a meditation on freedom deferred, negotiated, and fragmented.

To carry such a name there is almost a philosophical irony: freedom as an aspiration rather than fact, as name rather than reality. Eventually, is any of us free in any way?

Perhaps that is the ultimate lesson. Greeks named freedom because they argued about it endlessly and never fully possessed it.

Arabs cherish freedom deeply but treat it with a certain divinity and seriousness, as something too heavy and holy to reduce to a personal name. Therefore, one culture personalizes freedom; the other idealizes it. Yet, neither loves it more than the other, but they simply speak of it differently according to their historic paradigms.