Liberation movements such as the civil rights movement of the 1960s or India's independence from England are excellent references in the method to achieve freedom and to see what freedom means to different types of people. To better understand the previously mentioned movements or other liberation events, a philosophical understanding of freedom is essential. As a rubric, if you will, Epictetus and John Stuart Mill both contributed significantly to the understanding of freedom. The two philosophers lived at very different times, thus offering a different interpretation of freedom. However, they both reacted to their experiences to lay the foundation for their interpretation. Mill's interaction with Victorian social reform and Epictetus' experience as a slave, each experience brought peculiarity to the interpretation of freedom. Keeping all this in mind, both philosophers hold the belief that individuals inconveniently have the choice to be happy, and this is done by acting in the realm of freedom. In order to fully understand the two interpretations of freedom, analyzes must be carried out on Epictetus' Handbook and John Stuart Mill's Liberty. Starting with Epictetus, The Manual, in a nutshell, the book illustrates how to be free and happy despite life's obstacles. The implicit semi-pessimistic and deterministic mood of the book is due to Epictetus's experience as a slave. Particularly the permanent deformity resulting from being a slave; Epictetus' leg was intentionally broken by his owner, leaving him limping as he walked. He later left Rome for Greece and opened a school. It was here that his philosophy was archived by a student. It is obvious that Epictetus's interpretation of freedom focused on the internal environment of the paper...and went against Mill's beliefs; he had to be careful about his response to reform. As discussed, Epictetus' experience as a slave is described in his philosophy. As a slave, his life was determined for him and he had little or no independence. Worrying or acting on things beyond one's control would cause distress, so believing in a deity can be interpreted as a method of coping. In summary, context had a great impact on both philosophers' method of understanding freedom because they saw it in terms of personal problems. In conclusion, Mill and Epictetus are not in philosophical harmony, but they both reacted according to their times and experiences. Therefore, when it comes to understanding freedom, these philosophies complement each other because they both address different components of freedom. Consequently, we can attempt to produce a synthesis for freedom.