In German, there is no "Man" like we would use it in English... they use "One". To understand why, take this sentence:
Boy is either free or not.
That doesn't make sense in English because it lacks an article ("the" or "a"). It's the same in German because "Mann" equals the English "man (male)" not "man (mankind)".
That's how you can tell the difference. Like other comments above mine said, in German, it would have to be "Ein Mann" for "man" (meaning a male).
Hope that helps anyone who was confused!
Speaking as a newbie myself from the perspective of the English language, I would use "a person" "one" and "someone" interchangeably in a sentence like this, so I would think it should be able to translate to any of those, though that doesn't necessarily mean it would in every case.
What I mean is that "someone" in English has multiple meanings, so just because it works here does not mean that it translates back to "Man" when used in other circumstances.
the problem is "one" in english is the gender neutral, indefinite pronoun and refers to no person in particular while someone is a noun referring to a specific person whose identity is unknown. the difference being the speaker has a person in mind in the latter case and is thinking about people in general in the former case. additionally, "a person" is still referring to a single person, while "one" is used to talk about an indefinite number of people. potentially one person, potentially unlimited people (general, universal).
Whether man is either free or not is a complicated question that has fascinated all beings on Earth. Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.
Free will is closely linked to the concepts of responsibility, praise, guilt, sin and other judgments which apply only to actions that are freely chosen. It is also connected with the concepts of advice, persuasion, deliberation and prohibition. Traditionally, only actions that are freely willed are seen as deserving credit or blame. There are numerous different concerns about threats to the possibility of free will, varying by how exactly it is conceived, which is a matter of some debate.
Some conceive free will to be the capacity to make choices in which the outcome has not been determined by past events. Determinism suggests that only one course of events is possible, which is inconsistent with the existence of free will thus conceived. This problem has been identified in ancient Greek philosophy and remains a major focus of philosophical debate. This view that conceives free will to be incompatible with determinism is called incompatibilism and encompasses both metaphysical libertarianism, the claim that determinism is false and thus free will is at least possible, and hard determinism, the claim that determinism is true and thus free will is not possible. It also encompasses hard incompatibilism, which holds not only determinism but also its negation to be incompatible with free will and thus free will to be impossible whatever the case may be regarding determinism.
In contrast, compatibilists hold that free will is compatible with determinism. Some compatibilists even hold that determinism is necessary for free will, arguing that choice involves preference for one course of action over another, requiring a sense of how choices will turn out. Compatibilists thus consider the debate between libertarians and hard determinists over free will vs determinism a false dilemma. Different compatibilists offer very different definitions of what "free will" even means and consequently find different types of constraints to be relevant to the issue. Classical compatibilists considered free will nothing more than freedom of action, considering one free of will simply if, had one counterfactually wanted to do otherwise, one could have done otherwise without physical impediment. Contemporary compatibilists instead identify free will as a psychological capacity, such as to direct one's behavior in a way responsive to reason, and there are still further different conceptions of free will, each with their own concerns, sharing only the common feature of not finding the possibility of determinism a threat to the possibility of free will.
I also wrote: "A man is either free or not." I think it means the right thing, and sounds better than Man is either free or not. In English I think "Man is either free or not" would signify man as a species not man as an individual, but I think in German it probably means more man as a general singular person as we would use "one". Sorry for the clutter,but....