What do you think?
Rate this book
Against the Current: Essays in the History of Ideas
In this outstanding collection of essays, Isaiah Berlin, one of the great thinkers of the twentieth century, discusses the importance of dissenters in the history of ideas--among them Machiavelli, Vico, Montesquieu, Herzen, and Sorel. With his unusual powers of imaginative re-creation, Berlin brings to life original minds that swam against the current of their times--and still challenge conventional wisdom.
In a new foreword to this corrected edition, which also includes a new appendix of letters in which Berlin discusses and further illuminates some of its topics, noted essayist Mark Lilla argues that Berlin's decision to give up a philosophy fellowship and become a historian of ideas represented not an abandonment of philosophy but a decision to do philosophy by other, perhaps better, means. "His instinct told him," Lilla writes, "that you learn more about an idea as an idea when you know something about its genesis and understand why certain people found it compelling and were spurred to action by it." This collection of fascinating intellectual portraits is a rich demonstration of that belief.
623 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1979
90 people are currently reading
1415 people want to read
About the author
Isaiah Berlin
200 books780 followersSir Isaiah Berlin was a philosopher and historian of ideas, regarded as one of the leading liberal thinkers of the twentieth century. He excelled as an essayist, lecturer and conversationalist; and as a brilliant speaker who delivered, rapidly and spontaneously, richly allusive and coherently structured material, whether for a lecture series at Oxford University or as a broadcaster on the BBC Third Programme, usually without a script. Many of his essays and lectures were later collected in book form.
Born in Riga, now capital of Latvia, then part of the Russian Empire, he was the first person of Jewish descent to be elected to a prize fellowship at All Souls College, Oxford. From 1957 to 1967, he was Chichele Professor of Social and Political Theory at the University of Oxford. He was president of the Aristotelian Society from 1963 to 1964. In 1966, he helped to found Wolfson College, Oxford, and became its first President. He was knighted in 1957, and was awarded the Order of Merit in 1971. He was President of the British Academy from 1974 to 1978. He also received the 1979 Jerusalem Prize for his writings on individual freedom. Berlin's work on liberal theory has had a lasting influence.
Berlin is best known for his essay Two Concepts of Liberty, delivered in 1958 as his inaugural lecture as Chichele Professor of Social and Political Theory at Oxford. He defined negative liberty as the absence of constraints on, or interference with, agents' possible action. Greater "negative freedom" meant fewer restrictions on possible action. Berlin associated positive liberty with the idea of self-mastery, or the capacity to determine oneself, to be in control of one's destiny. While Berlin granted that both concepts of liberty represent valid human ideals, as a matter of history the positive concept of liberty has proven particularly susceptible to political abuse.
Berlin contended that under the influence of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant and G. W. F. Hegel (all committed to the positive concept of liberty), European political thinkers often equated liberty with forms of political discipline or constraint. This became politically dangerous when notions of positive liberty were, in the nineteenth century, used to defend nationalism, self-determination and the Communist idea of collective rational control over human destiny. Berlin argued that, following this line of thought, demands for freedom paradoxically become demands for forms of collective control and discipline – those deemed necessary for the "self-mastery" or self-determination of nations, classes, democratic communities, and even humanity as a whole. There is thus an elective affinity, for Berlin, between positive liberty and political totalitarianism.
Conversely, negative liberty represents a different, perhaps safer, understanding of the concept of liberty. Its proponents (such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill) insisted that constraint and discipline were the antithesis of liberty and so were (and are) less prone to confusing liberty and constraint in the manner of the philosophical harbingers of modern totalitarianism. It is this concept of Negative Liberty that Isaiah Berlin supported. It dominated heavily his early chapters in his third lecture.
This negative liberty is central to the claim for toleration due to incommensurability. This concept is mirrored in the work of Joseph Raz.
Berlin's espousal of negative liberty, his hatred of totalitarianism and his experience of Russia in the revolution and through his contact with the poet Anna Akhmatova made him an enemy of the Soviet Union and he was one of the leading public intellectuals in the ideological battle against Communism during the Cold War.
Born in Riga, now capital of Latvia, then part of the Russian Empire, he was the first person of Jewish descent to be elected to a prize fellowship at All Souls College, Oxford. From 1957 to 1967, he was Chichele Professor of Social and Political Theory at the University of Oxford. He was president of the Aristotelian Society from 1963 to 1964. In 1966, he helped to found Wolfson College, Oxford, and became its first President. He was knighted in 1957, and was awarded the Order of Merit in 1971. He was President of the British Academy from 1974 to 1978. He also received the 1979 Jerusalem Prize for his writings on individual freedom. Berlin's work on liberal theory has had a lasting influence.
Berlin is best known for his essay Two Concepts of Liberty, delivered in 1958 as his inaugural lecture as Chichele Professor of Social and Political Theory at Oxford. He defined negative liberty as the absence of constraints on, or interference with, agents' possible action. Greater "negative freedom" meant fewer restrictions on possible action. Berlin associated positive liberty with the idea of self-mastery, or the capacity to determine oneself, to be in control of one's destiny. While Berlin granted that both concepts of liberty represent valid human ideals, as a matter of history the positive concept of liberty has proven particularly susceptible to political abuse.
Berlin contended that under the influence of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant and G. W. F. Hegel (all committed to the positive concept of liberty), European political thinkers often equated liberty with forms of political discipline or constraint. This became politically dangerous when notions of positive liberty were, in the nineteenth century, used to defend nationalism, self-determination and the Communist idea of collective rational control over human destiny. Berlin argued that, following this line of thought, demands for freedom paradoxically become demands for forms of collective control and discipline – those deemed necessary for the "self-mastery" or self-determination of nations, classes, democratic communities, and even humanity as a whole. There is thus an elective affinity, for Berlin, between positive liberty and political totalitarianism.
Conversely, negative liberty represents a different, perhaps safer, understanding of the concept of liberty. Its proponents (such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill) insisted that constraint and discipline were the antithesis of liberty and so were (and are) less prone to confusing liberty and constraint in the manner of the philosophical harbingers of modern totalitarianism. It is this concept of Negative Liberty that Isaiah Berlin supported. It dominated heavily his early chapters in his third lecture.
This negative liberty is central to the claim for toleration due to incommensurability. This concept is mirrored in the work of Joseph Raz.
Berlin's espousal of negative liberty, his hatred of totalitarianism and his experience of Russia in the revolution and through his contact with the poet Anna Akhmatova made him an enemy of the Soviet Union and he was one of the leading public intellectuals in the ideological battle against Communism during the Cold War.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
May 20, 2009
Isaiah Berlin was a master of the philosophical essay. In fact, nearly all of his literary output comes to us in this form. His essays are timeless, mentally stimulating, and simply a pleasure to read. He is one of those authors whose works inevitably lead one to other authors, usually the classics. His point of view is fresh and his writing is engaging. Don’t miss out on the experience of reading Isaiah Berlin.
April 17, 2009
Reading Isaiah Berlin is like having a conversation with the most brilliant human on the planet -- who also likes what you like and is happy to eat at your table with you. Never has learning been bestowed as such a friendly gift -- and Berlin's is learning as only a preeminent scholar and Oxford don attains. Fantastic "conversation"!
June 1, 2021
When I was a child, if there was a heavy weight intellectual conversation on the TV or radio, it was quite likely that Berlin would be part of it. I'm not sure that sort of highly intellectual personality, who has spent their life in academia, really appears in the media in the same way nowadays. Berlin mostly wrote essays, a form which does not always create a huge following outside of academia, but many of his best were bundled into a series of books of which this is one.
It fits into one of the categories of the sort of book I tend to enjoy, insightful commentary about the history of ideas. The writer seems to expect the reader to have some knowledge of philosophy - not too deep, but at least enough to be familiar with philosophical concepts used. I read this book decades ago, before any philosophy studies and I got a lot less out of it then.
He talks about how ideas flow between thinkers and focusing on a range of what are generally the lesser well known thinkers and writers. It is in some ways a little old fashioned in terms of style - some of the essays in this volume are almost 70 years old - but they remain accessible. In fact I would stress this - yes these essays are quite intellectual, but they are certainly not hard to read.
Much of the content of this collection focuses on pluralism and nationalism. Probably not for everyone, possibly not for many people, but if you are interested in the history of ideas, and like what I could categorise as intellectual conversational journeys, then worth a go.
It fits into one of the categories of the sort of book I tend to enjoy, insightful commentary about the history of ideas. The writer seems to expect the reader to have some knowledge of philosophy - not too deep, but at least enough to be familiar with philosophical concepts used. I read this book decades ago, before any philosophy studies and I got a lot less out of it then.
He talks about how ideas flow between thinkers and focusing on a range of what are generally the lesser well known thinkers and writers. It is in some ways a little old fashioned in terms of style - some of the essays in this volume are almost 70 years old - but they remain accessible. In fact I would stress this - yes these essays are quite intellectual, but they are certainly not hard to read.
Much of the content of this collection focuses on pluralism and nationalism. Probably not for everyone, possibly not for many people, but if you are interested in the history of ideas, and like what I could categorise as intellectual conversational journeys, then worth a go.
April 15, 2019
Sometimes Isaiah Berlin's writings seem repetitive, as he's always trying to cast his favorite intellectuals as spokesmen for his own brand of open ended, mildly skeptical liberalism. Nevertheless I have come to enjoy his books over the years as I have George Steiner's, and for the same reason: one departs from them after being given fresh looks into different authors and into a plethora of books one takes notice of for the first time.
Politics is not Berlin's area of expertise but his opinions on nationalism seem to me both solid and empathetic. He is one of the few anti nationalist who truly tried his best at understanding the appeal of nationalism, and so his definitions of it could be made use of even today, maybe specially today.
Politics is not Berlin's area of expertise but his opinions on nationalism seem to me both solid and empathetic. He is one of the few anti nationalist who truly tried his best at understanding the appeal of nationalism, and so his definitions of it could be made use of even today, maybe specially today.
December 28, 2017
Essential collection of essays by the noted historian of philosophy and politics, Isaiah Berlin. The excellent work "The Originality of Machiavelli" is worth the price of the book. I would also recommend "The Divorce Between the Sciences and the Humanities", the two essays on Vico, and "Georges Sorel".
March 29, 2022
I must say this book gave me some headaches. With the surgical precision of a mad neurolgist, sir Isaiah travels back in time in the tunnel of old ideas, cutting and separating gold from trash.
I am amazed of the way he makes connections between writers their ideas, and the way those ideas influences societies in time
As once Immanuel Kant said: "Ideas have consequences" . This book shows both the fathers of ideas that shaped societies and the effect the ideas had. Some of which are still running today in the blood of their nephews.
Sir Isaiah Berlin and his essays are a good companion with a large cup of tea, a history book and some classics from the Reniassance, as he writes a lot about them. I bet he loved Mozart.
I am amazed of the way he makes connections between writers their ideas, and the way those ideas influences societies in time
As once Immanuel Kant said: "Ideas have consequences" . This book shows both the fathers of ideas that shaped societies and the effect the ideas had. Some of which are still running today in the blood of their nephews.
Sir Isaiah Berlin and his essays are a good companion with a large cup of tea, a history book and some classics from the Reniassance, as he writes a lot about them. I bet he loved Mozart.
August 30, 2021
I can’t get enough of this guy. I liked the essay on Herzen most of course, but also enjoyed Machiavelli, German Anti-Rationalism, and both essays on Vico (a thinker I knew nothing about prior to reading this collection of essays). Berlin’s style is tough for some, but I love it. Can’t wait to read his other collections of essays. The Herzen essay has flung me back into the deep crevices of the 19th century Russian Intelligentsia. Looking forward to reading more on Belinsky, Bakunin, Kropotkin, and so forth!
January 27, 2024
Inspiring, insightful, at once immediately accessible and overflowing with erudition. Despite any political disagreements I might have, Berlin was astoundingly gifted at relaying ideas that continue to shape politics to this day, and this book deserves canonical status in the field. An "honest intellectual" of the first order.
July 19, 2014
DEDICATED TO KALLIOPE
before you venture into the Morass of Interpretation,
an exciting place to wander no doubt,
BUT below offering an Equally Wonderful
and Intriguing
but Simpler Alternative.
I borrowed this book from the local library a few years ago
for a single essay
...hoping, vainly as it proved, to browse the Others as well.
The Essay in which I was in Hot Pursuit was to enlighten me
re the mercurial and fascinating but indecipherable Machiavelli;
the essay, "The Originality of Machiavelli".
Berlin's essay offered so many possibilities as to the key to Machiavelli
that I simply gave up, totally swamped and bamboozled by CHOICE.
For me a good lesson in interpreting history, personality or whatever.
I intend to borrow it again
...unless another borrower destroyed it in a Rage of Despair.
Since then I have continued to enjoy multiple essays and articles and commentaries
on Machiavelli;
and also enjoyed the Sufferings or Amazing Certainties of the Authors.
I particularly liked one essay in a Philosophy Now magazine
but I can't recall the issue.
And that gives me a perverse pleasure.
I may search for it one day ,
but I do relish the Magic of Machiavelli.
HOWEVER...
one has only to look at His Portrait by Santo di Tito,
in the Palazzo Vecchio, in Florence,
also conveniently reproduced on many covers
eg the Penguin edition of "The Prince"
or a Philosophy Now magazine cover
(not the one with the essay!!)
to find
that
a Face is Worth a Thousand Words.
June 22, 2017
Berlin, called by Arthur Schlesinger the "most brilliant and engaging intellect of our time"...is presented in this volume edited by long time collaborator Henry Hardy. His erudition and passionate embrace of the pursuit of knowledge and understanding in all the hard to reach places made this book both an intellectual challenge and delight at the same time. My understanding of Machiavelli and Montesquieu are enlarged and enhanced by Berlin's writing, focused on the ways in which these two thinkers upset convention and created a new way to describe and understand mankind. His uncovering of other outliers in the history of ideas and their contributions to the development of Western political culture in the 20th century are like uncovering small little known nuggets of intellectual gold. His closing essay on Nationalism, originally written in 1972 seems remarkably current in today's political and cultural environment.
Not a page turner or easy afternoon read, but more like an intellectual journey into largely unknown , unrecognized or unappreciated territory in the history of ideas.
Not a page turner or easy afternoon read, but more like an intellectual journey into largely unknown , unrecognized or unappreciated territory in the history of ideas.
October 9, 2012
Outstanding representative of Berlin's ideas and thoughts. Collection of the essays touch, albeit on somewhat lighter level, nearly all major intellectual contributions of Isaiah Berlin as a historian of ideas and philosopher of history. He begins with his chief academic contribution to the field of intellectual history, that is, his treatment of the Counter-Enlightenment as a historical phenomenon. That is followed up by his trilogy on Giambattista Vico and formulation of the 'humanistic' understanding of knowledge that is separate and distinct from both inductive and deductive methods of epistemology. His major political idea of value pluralism has been dealt in depth in his treatise on Machiavelli, while one also can get a good look at Berlin's capacity as a historian in his works on Disraeli and Marx, nationalism, and Moses Hess. Overall a superb recommendation as an introduction to Isaiah Berlin's writings and thoughts.
December 5, 2021
Isaiah Berlin makes a compelling case for a Counter-Enlightenment made up of intellectuals who questioned a number of principles axiomatically enshrined by mainstream Enlightenment figures: amongst them the central and key status of Reason as the driver of progress and the identification of a "superior" integrated set of values valid for all humankind at any time. As Hausheer correctly points out in his introduction to the book:
Berlin's superb essay on Machiavelli, which starts by raising the question of how Machiavellan are Machiavelli's writings, argues that Machiavelli discards, in so far it was possible for him to do so in his time, the idea of Christian virtues as a realistic basis for civitas, proposing instead a more realistic constellation of Roman republican virtues. It is not that he discards a Christian framework of virtues but that he considers it inadequate as a basis for political governance. In a sense, Berlin considers Machiavelli the forerunner of political theorists grappling with the realities of social dynamics.
Almost as fascinating as his essay on Machiavelli is his essay on Montesquieu, a thinker Berlin considers to represent a sharp, skeptical but somewhat ambivalent divergence from the ideals at the core of the Enlightenment.
The development of 19th century socialist thought is a complex, twisting history full of shifting alliances, falling outs and squabbles. Berlin's fine biobibliographic studies on Alexander Herzen and Moses Hess shed light on two key but, at least in the West, somewhat neglected figures of that period. However, from my point of view and interests in ethics, rather than political theory, the two essays constitute sidelines. The essay on Hess, together with the essay on Benjamin Disraeli and Karl Marx unexpectedly shines a light on the question and development of Jewish identity during the nineteenth century.
I found the essay on Verdi characterized as a "naive" artist in the Schillerian distinction between naive and sentimental artists, together with the essay on George Sorel, the least interesting of the essays in this collection in spite of the following tantalizing, thought-provoking and blunt remark on technological optimism in the essay on Sorel:
Roger Hausheer's introduction to Against the Current provides a good overview of these undogmatic and generous essays clarifying Berlin's approach to the history of ideas and is worth reading before Berlin's essays, especially if you are not familiar with Berlin's work:
...the burning issue of philosophical monism, the doctrine that all reality, and all branches of our knowledge of it, form a rational, harmonious whole, and that there is ultimate unity or harmony between human ends, is discussed and criticized from many angles by close scrutiny of the cardinal doctrines of some of those thinkers who did most to undermine it.Berlin writes incisively, reflexively and elegantly on Giambattista Vico's (1668-1774) theory of knowledge and cyclical conception of history which combine to flatly reject the Enlightenment optimistic conception of linear progress in ethics and moral principles. His essay on Vico is obligatory reading for those who suspect there are incompatible, culture-dependent, integrative frameworks of ethical values.
Berlin's superb essay on Machiavelli, which starts by raising the question of how Machiavellan are Machiavelli's writings, argues that Machiavelli discards, in so far it was possible for him to do so in his time, the idea of Christian virtues as a realistic basis for civitas, proposing instead a more realistic constellation of Roman republican virtues. It is not that he discards a Christian framework of virtues but that he considers it inadequate as a basis for political governance. In a sense, Berlin considers Machiavelli the forerunner of political theorists grappling with the realities of social dynamics.
Almost as fascinating as his essay on Machiavelli is his essay on Montesquieu, a thinker Berlin considers to represent a sharp, skeptical but somewhat ambivalent divergence from the ideals at the core of the Enlightenment.
The development of 19th century socialist thought is a complex, twisting history full of shifting alliances, falling outs and squabbles. Berlin's fine biobibliographic studies on Alexander Herzen and Moses Hess shed light on two key but, at least in the West, somewhat neglected figures of that period. However, from my point of view and interests in ethics, rather than political theory, the two essays constitute sidelines. The essay on Hess, together with the essay on Benjamin Disraeli and Karl Marx unexpectedly shines a light on the question and development of Jewish identity during the nineteenth century.
I found the essay on Verdi characterized as a "naive" artist in the Schillerian distinction between naive and sentimental artists, together with the essay on George Sorel, the least interesting of the essays in this collection in spite of the following tantalizing, thought-provoking and blunt remark on technological optimism in the essay on Sorel:
The concepts and categories in terms of which science puts its questions may vary with cultural change: the objectivity and reliability of the answers do not. But it is a weapon, not an ontology, not an analysis of reality. The great machine of science does not yield answers to problems of metaphysics or morality: to reduce te central problems of human life to problems of means, that is of technology, is not to understand what they are. To regard technical progress as being identical with, or even a guarantee of, cultural progress is moral blindness.The final essay on Nationalism is undoubtedly one of the best essays in the book, starting with Berlin's assertion of the relativey recent introduction, in historical terms, of values and concepts such as integrity, sincerity, toleration, liberty, the desirability of variety over uniformity, toleration, and human rights and continuing with his startling but on reflection, convincing definition of Nationalism as political romanticism.
Roger Hausheer's introduction to Against the Current provides a good overview of these undogmatic and generous essays clarifying Berlin's approach to the history of ideas and is worth reading before Berlin's essays, especially if you are not familiar with Berlin's work:
Time and again, Berlin raises and illuminates, in the light of vividly concrete historical examples, major issues with which he as dealt in a more abstract manner in his philosophical essays [...W]hat makes these essays so strikingly original and exciting is the sense we are given of the gradual birth of seminal new ideas [...} Berlin displays a uniquely perceptive sensitivity to the deeper stirrings and movements, the dark, uneasy, brooding seasons of the human spirit beneath the bland rationalistic surface of an age
March 28, 2023
The book is divided into five parts. Part I, "The Enlightenment and its Critics," provides an overview of the Enlightenment and its legacy. Berlin explores the ideas of thinkers such as Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Rousseau, and shows how their ideas shaped the development of modern Western thought.
Part II, "The Romantic Revolution," examines the emergence of Romanticism as a response to the Enlightenment. Berlin explores the ideas of Romantic thinkers such as Goethe, Schiller, and Byron, and shows how their ideas challenged the rationalism and individualism of the Enlightenment.
Part III, "The Counter-Enlightenment," explores the ideas of conservative and reactionary thinkers who rejected the values of the Enlightenment. Berlin examines the ideas of thinkers such as Joseph de Maistre and Edmund Burke, and shows how their ideas influenced the development of conservative political thought.
Part IV, "The History of Ideas," is a collection of essays that explore the development of ideas in a variety of fields, including philosophy, literature, and art. Berlin examines the ideas of thinkers such as Marx, Nietzsche, and Tolstoy, and shows how their ideas continue to shape our understanding of the world today.
Part V, "Personal Impressions," provides a more personal perspective on the history of ideas. Berlin reflects on his own experiences and the intellectual influences that have shaped his thinking over the course of his life.
Part II, "The Romantic Revolution," examines the emergence of Romanticism as a response to the Enlightenment. Berlin explores the ideas of Romantic thinkers such as Goethe, Schiller, and Byron, and shows how their ideas challenged the rationalism and individualism of the Enlightenment.
Part III, "The Counter-Enlightenment," explores the ideas of conservative and reactionary thinkers who rejected the values of the Enlightenment. Berlin examines the ideas of thinkers such as Joseph de Maistre and Edmund Burke, and shows how their ideas influenced the development of conservative political thought.
Part IV, "The History of Ideas," is a collection of essays that explore the development of ideas in a variety of fields, including philosophy, literature, and art. Berlin examines the ideas of thinkers such as Marx, Nietzsche, and Tolstoy, and shows how their ideas continue to shape our understanding of the world today.
Part V, "Personal Impressions," provides a more personal perspective on the history of ideas. Berlin reflects on his own experiences and the intellectual influences that have shaped his thinking over the course of his life.
August 13, 2023
“Ideas are bulletproof!” - V, V for Vendetta
“An idea is something you have; an ideology is something that has you” - Morris Berman
“Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence.” - Louis Althusser
At the quantum level, it is impossible to determine exactly the location and the momentum of a particle at the same time- that’s what Heinsenbeg's uncertainty principle says.
Now begin to zoom out away from the quantum level toward the more complex and higher level of organization where the interaction of atomic particles is staggering: start picturing the ball-and-stick model of an inorganic molecule, then organic molecules, then unicellular bacterium, multicellular organisms, to an insect, a reptile, and finally, you arrived at the mental picture of a human being- You! the I (I am)! Then, we will look at one of his enigmatic organs- the brain from where the Mind is derived. In the mind ideas are concocted and sometimes get transformed into actions that will change the material things outside of him, outside the mind.
But I will not dwell on this mystery.
I will talk about this book- Isaiah Berlin’s thesis on the philosophy of history. Frustratingly, Berlin’s thesis cannot be synthesized into a short paragraph or some short rule of thumb or principle that can be derived- you have to read the book! I will try to extract as concisely as I can based on the level of my understanding.
So, Berlin said that history is shaped by ideas or ideology, though he did not implicitly say that it is just the sole factor that has shaped history (other historical factors ie. Energetics- the role of the use of energy in history), particularly, the ideas made during the period of Enlightenment that shaped our current sociopolitical structure- civil liberty, individualism, positivism, capitalism, freedom of expression, etc. That these ideas or any ideologies that have been or will be conceived have no basis aside from their metaphysical origin, and for this reason, the tenets of enlightenment were easily and violently pushed back, especially, by German Romanticism, which culminated in the rise of Nazism.
He pointed out, that, in hindsight, not one of the famous intellectuals ( though he mentioned one individual- Moses Hess- but that he didn’t predict it intentionally) was able to predict the rise of the idea of Nationalism. In all cases of ideologies (if ever we can confine each one of them into categories), no one has yet convincingly demonstrated that the human imagination that has produced such ideas/ideology obeys any discoverable laws, or are able to predict the movement of ideas (just like the particles in Heisenberg’s principle but on a higher level of organization). So, if a cluster of ideas had not been born, history might have taken another turn.
Simply put, there are infinitely possible courses of history that can unfold, given the endless ideas that minds could ever conceive.
Berlin concluded that whatever ideas or ideology that we as human beings have produced or will be produced, it is because of our inherent desire for meaning or to make sense of reality.
To make sense of reality… we can also call it to be “rooted” unto something or our way to make a fixed and certain worldview out of the chaos around us or ontological security, or simply….our attempt to deal with life.
On the same note, Arendt argued that humans have used reason to find meaning in life for themselves, rather than for truth:
“The need for reason is not inspired by the quest for truth but by the quest for meaning. And truth and meaning are not the same. The basic fallacy, taking precedence over all specific metaphysical fallacies, is to interpret meaning on the model of truth.” - Hannah Arendt
“An idea is something you have; an ideology is something that has you” - Morris Berman
“Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence.” - Louis Althusser
At the quantum level, it is impossible to determine exactly the location and the momentum of a particle at the same time- that’s what Heinsenbeg's uncertainty principle says.
Now begin to zoom out away from the quantum level toward the more complex and higher level of organization where the interaction of atomic particles is staggering: start picturing the ball-and-stick model of an inorganic molecule, then organic molecules, then unicellular bacterium, multicellular organisms, to an insect, a reptile, and finally, you arrived at the mental picture of a human being- You! the I (I am)! Then, we will look at one of his enigmatic organs- the brain from where the Mind is derived. In the mind ideas are concocted and sometimes get transformed into actions that will change the material things outside of him, outside the mind.
But I will not dwell on this mystery.
I will talk about this book- Isaiah Berlin’s thesis on the philosophy of history. Frustratingly, Berlin’s thesis cannot be synthesized into a short paragraph or some short rule of thumb or principle that can be derived- you have to read the book! I will try to extract as concisely as I can based on the level of my understanding.
So, Berlin said that history is shaped by ideas or ideology, though he did not implicitly say that it is just the sole factor that has shaped history (other historical factors ie. Energetics- the role of the use of energy in history), particularly, the ideas made during the period of Enlightenment that shaped our current sociopolitical structure- civil liberty, individualism, positivism, capitalism, freedom of expression, etc. That these ideas or any ideologies that have been or will be conceived have no basis aside from their metaphysical origin, and for this reason, the tenets of enlightenment were easily and violently pushed back, especially, by German Romanticism, which culminated in the rise of Nazism.
He pointed out, that, in hindsight, not one of the famous intellectuals ( though he mentioned one individual- Moses Hess- but that he didn’t predict it intentionally) was able to predict the rise of the idea of Nationalism. In all cases of ideologies (if ever we can confine each one of them into categories), no one has yet convincingly demonstrated that the human imagination that has produced such ideas/ideology obeys any discoverable laws, or are able to predict the movement of ideas (just like the particles in Heisenberg’s principle but on a higher level of organization). So, if a cluster of ideas had not been born, history might have taken another turn.
Simply put, there are infinitely possible courses of history that can unfold, given the endless ideas that minds could ever conceive.
Berlin concluded that whatever ideas or ideology that we as human beings have produced or will be produced, it is because of our inherent desire for meaning or to make sense of reality.
To make sense of reality… we can also call it to be “rooted” unto something or our way to make a fixed and certain worldview out of the chaos around us or ontological security, or simply….our attempt to deal with life.
On the same note, Arendt argued that humans have used reason to find meaning in life for themselves, rather than for truth:
“The need for reason is not inspired by the quest for truth but by the quest for meaning. And truth and meaning are not the same. The basic fallacy, taking precedence over all specific metaphysical fallacies, is to interpret meaning on the model of truth.” - Hannah Arendt
November 27, 2022
“His revolutionary move is to have denied the doctrine of a timeless natural law the truths of which could have been known in principle to any man, at any time, anywhere. Vico boldly denied this doctrine, which has formed the heart of the Western tradition from Aristotle to our own day. He preached the notion of the uniqueness of cultures, however they might resemble each other in their relationship to their antecedents and successors, and the notion of a single style that pervades all the activities and manifestations of societies of human beings at a particular stage of development.”
王沪宁之流应该把这段话写入党章…….
王沪宁之流应该把这段话写入党章…….
October 11, 2020
Isaiah Berlin'in genel görüşlerini ve siyasi yaklaşımını değerlendirebileceğimiz bir kitap. Liberalizmin felsefi kökleri kadar milliyetçiliğin felsefi köklerine dair de oldukça yararlı bilgiler var. Zor bir kitap. çevirisi iyi değil. İyi edit de edilmemiş. Ama çevirmenin zorlandığı muhakkak. Yorulduğunu hissedebiliyorsun. Umarım ikinci baskısı daha düzgün neşredilir. Türkiye'de edinilmiş ezberleri bozacağı muhakkak ama kimler okuyacak kısmı ve okuyanların nasıl yansıtacağı sorununu ise yaşayacağız.
May 22, 2021
伯林认为马克思的阶级理论中带有种族问题的烙印，“马克思实际上从自己自觉的思想中清除了对祖先的全部意识”，很难说这个结论究竟是否成立。毕竟伯林自己也是犹太人和犹太复国主义者，种族身份对于他本人来说不可能毫无意义，那么，伯林是否多多少少不自觉地将自己的某些意识代入到马克思“自觉的思想中”去了呢？突然觉得像我这种身份认同意识薄弱的人，不容易产生偏见的同时，可能也伴随着某种理解力和行动力的缺失。
(ps: 伯林的思想里好像有不少孟德斯鸠的影子。)
(ps: 伯林的思想里好像有不少孟德斯鸠的影子。)
August 25, 2024
contains magnificent essay on Machiavelli and Christian virtues
November 16, 2019
I first reviewed this book 10 years ago, and though I seldom re-read, I make an exception for Isaiah Berlin -- and this collection of essays is still worth four stars.
That said, though, the value in "Against the Current" is primarily in its first six essays, which trace the collision of Enlightenment scientific success with the more intractable intricacies of human moral and political life. The basic hope, which culminated in the thinking of Karl Marx, was that all that needed to happen for human beings to become moral and live together peaceably was to come up with a precise and scientific formulation of society.
From the 21st century perspective, this seems so hopelessly naive as to be almost infantile, but remember, the first wonders of material science had shone light on areas that had been dark since human beings emerged on the planet. The earth revolved around the sun? Gravity? The circulation of blood? The world that microscopes revealed?
With all of that happening, why couldn't we expect to figure out how to create a society that made everyone happy? As 18th century philosophers began to work on this, the obvious parallel was a single set of rules that worked all the time, like Newton's laws of thermodynamics, or calculus, or the rate at which bodies fell in a vacuum. But as Berlin points out in his penetrating, well-written essays, this was a triumph of hope over experience, and the intellectual backlash was inevitable.
But the ultimate utopian, Karl Marx, who believed that once human beings were raised in a proper socialist environment they would take only what they needed and give all they could, was the one who took the idea the farthest. Using Georg Hegel's dialectic and vision of a World Spirit working out a history that would end in peace and harmony, Marx believed the rise of the workers would inevitably lead to the disappearance of the need for government, and we would all live happily ever after.
Unfortunately, though Marx's brilliant exposure of economics as one of the most important, if not the most important, driving forces in history, his dreams of a communist utopia crashed on the reefs of human nature -- as Berlin's essays point out. But Berlin also shows how the conflicting ideas about the best society are with us today, and the conflicts between them are still unresolved.
Unfortunately, the last seven essays are a step down from the first six, but still packed with wisdom and insight. Isaiah Berlin is far from a household name, but he is clearly one of the great thinkers of the 20th century, and his work has much to teach us.
That said, though, the value in "Against the Current" is primarily in its first six essays, which trace the collision of Enlightenment scientific success with the more intractable intricacies of human moral and political life. The basic hope, which culminated in the thinking of Karl Marx, was that all that needed to happen for human beings to become moral and live together peaceably was to come up with a precise and scientific formulation of society.
From the 21st century perspective, this seems so hopelessly naive as to be almost infantile, but remember, the first wonders of material science had shone light on areas that had been dark since human beings emerged on the planet. The earth revolved around the sun? Gravity? The circulation of blood? The world that microscopes revealed?
With all of that happening, why couldn't we expect to figure out how to create a society that made everyone happy? As 18th century philosophers began to work on this, the obvious parallel was a single set of rules that worked all the time, like Newton's laws of thermodynamics, or calculus, or the rate at which bodies fell in a vacuum. But as Berlin points out in his penetrating, well-written essays, this was a triumph of hope over experience, and the intellectual backlash was inevitable.
But the ultimate utopian, Karl Marx, who believed that once human beings were raised in a proper socialist environment they would take only what they needed and give all they could, was the one who took the idea the farthest. Using Georg Hegel's dialectic and vision of a World Spirit working out a history that would end in peace and harmony, Marx believed the rise of the workers would inevitably lead to the disappearance of the need for government, and we would all live happily ever after.
Unfortunately, though Marx's brilliant exposure of economics as one of the most important, if not the most important, driving forces in history, his dreams of a communist utopia crashed on the reefs of human nature -- as Berlin's essays point out. But Berlin also shows how the conflicting ideas about the best society are with us today, and the conflicts between them are still unresolved.
Unfortunately, the last seven essays are a step down from the first six, but still packed with wisdom and insight. Isaiah Berlin is far from a household name, but he is clearly one of the great thinkers of the 20th century, and his work has much to teach us.
July 16, 2012
Mostly excellent though there is some repetitiveness in the first half (even some self-plagiarism). Of note, I thought, was his essay on the ironic (to us) way Hume was used by German anti-rationalists—they saw him as a weapon against the Enlightenment thinkers they despised. I also found his comparison of Disraeli and Marx interesting—they had a fascinatingly similar background yet took opposing paths. Berlin sees their paths as the same, psychologically, even if different politically. I also learned that Marx was anti-Semitic which surprised me. I found the first half of the book the stronger or at least the more interesting to me. Be warned that there is a lot of overlap between different collections of Berlin’s work—that is one of the reasons I’m listing the included essays:
“The Counter-Enlightenment”
“The Originality of Machiavelli”
“The Divorce between the Sciences and the Humanities”
“Vico’s Concept of Knowledge”
“Vico and the Ideal of the Enlightenment”
“Montesquieu”
“Hume and the Sources of German Anti-Rationalism”
“Herzen and his Memoirs”
“The Life and Opinions of Moses Hess”
“Benjamin Disraeli, Karl Marx and the Search for Identity”
“The ‘Naivete’ of Verdi”
“George Sorel”
“Nationalism: Past Neglect and Present Power”
“The Counter-Enlightenment”
“The Originality of Machiavelli”
“The Divorce between the Sciences and the Humanities”
“Vico’s Concept of Knowledge”
“Vico and the Ideal of the Enlightenment”
“Montesquieu”
“Hume and the Sources of German Anti-Rationalism”
“Herzen and his Memoirs”
“The Life and Opinions of Moses Hess”
“Benjamin Disraeli, Karl Marx and the Search for Identity”
“The ‘Naivete’ of Verdi”
“George Sorel”
“Nationalism: Past Neglect and Present Power”
January 2, 2021
以赛亚·伯林和伍迪·艾伦的共同之处就在于，他们纷繁复杂的所有作品都围绕着那几个核心的理念在打转。是否可以说，他们其实是两只披着狐狸皮的刺猬？
August 2, 2013
It's more challenging for me to write an essay now because of this predictable book.
May 30, 2015
Another one I didn't finish. Another one of those books to get back to someday.
November 22, 2016
Tough read
April 8, 2022
I didn't learn any new or revolutionary from this. Philosophy is dead. There are better books to spend your time on.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews