What do you think?
Rate this book
Чотири есе про свободу
Книжка видатного сучасного англійського філософа, лауреата Нобелівської премії сера Ісаї Берліна складається з чотирьох розвідок, в яких розглядаються різні аспекти особистої свободи. В них ідеться про мінливість цього поняття протягом XIX—XX століть; про те, який зміст у це вкладали історики, соціологи, філософи; про важливість двох головних концепцій свободи в історії ідей; і, нарешті, про ту роль, яку відігравав ідеал свободи у світогляді видатного борця за неї — Джона Стюарта Мілля.
272 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1969
105 people are currently reading
4799 people want to read
About the author
Isaiah Berlin
202 books792 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 - 30 of 65 reviews
January 1, 2015
A terrific book that inspired me and made me want to study philosophy at university in the first place. Reading my rather grubby copy (at least I didn't make notes on it!) so many years later tells me that I made the right choice and inspires me again.
What is freedom; what do we mean by that word? Do we mean the total freedom of anarchy (although even Proudhon makes it clear that our duties temper our rights), or freedom from oppression? Can we, in fact, make any choices at all, if we are determined by our situations, our personalities, or perhaps by something greater than ourselves?
Berlin's writing is as fresh and accessible and the questions that he addresses as relevant as they always were. His analysis of political thought is (depressingly) as on the money as it was when he wrote it. Why? Because remarkably little has actually changed. The idea that the bovine masses do not need or want free choice, that they find it confusing and (irony!) oppressive and need to have someone who really understands what they need and provides it for them is treated to a pretty thorough dissection. This idea is described in action in the brilliant Iron Curtain http://www.anneapplebaum.com/iron-cur....
History, with a capital H for some writers, is also the subject of Berlin's analysis. There is a view that history and its study should somehow discover the purpose of events and determine the pattern that Providence (the capitalisation is intentional) has laid down so that we can learn from it. Berlin's dissection of this medieval idea is a pleasure to read. There may well be patterns in history and no doubt we can learn from the earlier mistakes of our predecessors, but the fact that similar things happen over and over again and we never quite get rid of some forms of bigotry suggests that we don't. Order and patterns of events and behaviour are not a necessary part of the universe. Sometimes stuff just happens; not every event has a 'purpose' and it is not the function of history or historians to reveal the purpose of every occurrence. History is not a science and it doesn't follow rules like physics. And yes, we can blame Hitler for his actions.
Above all, the style and quality of Berlin's writing make this a very difficult book to put down. His writing is so clear that his ideas flow easily and his arguments develop naturally. A great pleasure.
What is freedom; what do we mean by that word? Do we mean the total freedom of anarchy (although even Proudhon makes it clear that our duties temper our rights), or freedom from oppression? Can we, in fact, make any choices at all, if we are determined by our situations, our personalities, or perhaps by something greater than ourselves?
Berlin's writing is as fresh and accessible and the questions that he addresses as relevant as they always were. His analysis of political thought is (depressingly) as on the money as it was when he wrote it. Why? Because remarkably little has actually changed. The idea that the bovine masses do not need or want free choice, that they find it confusing and (irony!) oppressive and need to have someone who really understands what they need and provides it for them is treated to a pretty thorough dissection. This idea is described in action in the brilliant Iron Curtain http://www.anneapplebaum.com/iron-cur....
History, with a capital H for some writers, is also the subject of Berlin's analysis. There is a view that history and its study should somehow discover the purpose of events and determine the pattern that Providence (the capitalisation is intentional) has laid down so that we can learn from it. Berlin's dissection of this medieval idea is a pleasure to read. There may well be patterns in history and no doubt we can learn from the earlier mistakes of our predecessors, but the fact that similar things happen over and over again and we never quite get rid of some forms of bigotry suggests that we don't. Order and patterns of events and behaviour are not a necessary part of the universe. Sometimes stuff just happens; not every event has a 'purpose' and it is not the function of history or historians to reveal the purpose of every occurrence. History is not a science and it doesn't follow rules like physics. And yes, we can blame Hitler for his actions.
Above all, the style and quality of Berlin's writing make this a very difficult book to put down. His writing is so clear that his ideas flow easily and his arguments develop naturally. A great pleasure.
December 28, 2018
مقالهی اول را برلین در مورد هویت فکری–سیاسی نیمهی اول قرن بیستم برای نشریهی «فارن افرز» نوشته است و مقالهی آخر یادبودی برای جان استوارت میل است. دو مقالهی میانی کتاب شهرت بیشتری دارند: «ناگزیری تاریخ» و «مفاهیم دوگانهی آزادی». در اولی برلین با حتمیت تاریخی و فرض نوعی طرح تکامل تکخطیِ تاریخ مخالفت میکند و در دومی از تفاوت آزادی منفی (آزادی از موانع و مداخلات خارجی) و مثبت (توانایی خودمختاری و اعمال ارادهی شخصی) مینویسد و به معرفی تحریفاتی که در تعریف «آزادی» صورت گرفته است میپردازد
November 21, 2015
(( حدود الحرية ))
كتاب صغير ومكثّف هو للمفكر البريطاني ايزايا برلين نقلته إلى العربية جمانا طالب وصدر عن دار الساقي 1992م.
-------------
جاء فيه:
تعريف الحرية
1-
على حد تعبير ""آيزايا برلين"" فإن هناك حوالى مئتي تعريف لها حتى الآن، ووجه الاشتراك بين هذه التعريفات هو ازالة المعوقات من طريق اختيار الإنسان، يقول ""آيزايا برلين"" في تعريفه للحرية: "إنني أعد الحرية فقدان الموانع من طريق تحقق آمال الإنسان وتمنياته"
2-
" أن الحرية تعني عدم تدخل الآخرين في أنشطة الفرد وأعماله: "الحرية الشخصية عبارة عن السعي للحيلولة دون تدخل الآخرين الذين يسعون وراء أهدافهم الخاصة في دائرة الفرد واستغفالهم وتقييدهم إياه"
3-
" إن عجز الإنسان ليس منافيا لحريته، فعدم قدرة شخص ما على القفز إلى الأعلى، أو عجزه بسبب العمى عن القراءة، وكذلك عدم استطاعة الجميع فهم فلسفة هيغل، ليس مؤشرا على عدم الحرية، فعندما نقول: إن إنسانا ليس حرا، فهذا معناه أن شخصا آخر قد حال بينه وبين رغباته وآماله."
4-
((إن الفرد كما يشير "روسو" يكون حراً عندما يرغب فيما يستطيع القيام به، ويعمل ما يرغب فيه))
ايزايا برلين
(ص34).
5-
"يقال عادة إني حر ..
وفق الدرجة التي لا تسمح
بتدخل أي فرد
أو جماعة في نشاطي وعملي "
وجهة نظر
" ليس باستطاعتنا أن نكون أحراراً بشكل كامل وتام، وعلينا في الوقت نفسه التضحية بشيء من حريتنا من أجل الحفاظ على ما تبقى لنا. إن الاستسلام الذاتي التام هو انهزام ذاتي. ماذا يجب إذن أن يكون عليه الحد الأدنى من الحرية؟ الجواب هو: ما لا يستطيع الفرد التخلي عنه، من غير أن يسيء إلى جوهر الطبيعة البشرية"-
----------
وجهة نظر :
((إن المفهوم "الإيجابي" لكلمة "حرية" مشتق من رغبة الفرد في أن يكون سيد نفسه. فأنا أرغب في الاعتماد على نفسي، في الحياة وفي اتخاذ القرارات وليس على قوى خارجية من أي نوع كانت، وأرغب أن أكون أداة نفسي وليس أداة يحددها آخرون ويتحكَّمون فيها، أرغب في أن أكون الفاعل وليس من يقع عليه تأثير الفعل، وأن أسير بموجب غايات وأهداف شخصية واعية، لا أن أتحرك بموجب غايات تُفرض عليّ، أرغب أن أكون صاحب شأن وليس نكرة عديمة الشأن والقيمة، أن أقرر بنفسي ما أرغب القيام به، لا أن أعمل ما يُملى عليّ، أن أكون موجِّهاً، لا موجَّهاً من قِبَل آخرين، وكأنني شيء أو حيوان أو عَبْد ليس في استطاعته القيام بدور إنساني يدرك أهدافه ويفكر فيها ويختار أساليب ومناهج شخصية يرغب في تحقيقها)
كتاب صغير ومكثّف هو للمفكر البريطاني ايزايا برلين نقلته إلى العربية جمانا طالب وصدر عن دار الساقي 1992م.
-------------
جاء فيه:
تعريف الحرية
1-
على حد تعبير ""آيزايا برلين"" فإن هناك حوالى مئتي تعريف لها حتى الآن، ووجه الاشتراك بين هذه التعريفات هو ازالة المعوقات من طريق اختيار الإنسان، يقول ""آيزايا برلين"" في تعريفه للحرية: "إنني أعد الحرية فقدان الموانع من طريق تحقق آمال الإنسان وتمنياته"
2-
" أن الحرية تعني عدم تدخل الآخرين في أنشطة الفرد وأعماله: "الحرية الشخصية عبارة عن السعي للحيلولة دون تدخل الآخرين الذين يسعون وراء أهدافهم الخاصة في دائرة الفرد واستغفالهم وتقييدهم إياه"
3-
" إن عجز الإنسان ليس منافيا لحريته، فعدم قدرة شخص ما على القفز إلى الأعلى، أو عجزه بسبب العمى عن القراءة، وكذلك عدم استطاعة الجميع فهم فلسفة هيغل، ليس مؤشرا على عدم الحرية، فعندما نقول: إن إنسانا ليس حرا، فهذا معناه أن شخصا آخر قد حال بينه وبين رغباته وآماله."
4-
((إن الفرد كما يشير "روسو" يكون حراً عندما يرغب فيما يستطيع القيام به، ويعمل ما يرغب فيه))
ايزايا برلين
(ص34).
5-
"يقال عادة إني حر ..
وفق الدرجة التي لا تسمح
بتدخل أي فرد
أو جماعة في نشاطي وعملي "
وجهة نظر
" ليس باستطاعتنا أن نكون أحراراً بشكل كامل وتام، وعلينا في الوقت نفسه التضحية بشيء من حريتنا من أجل الحفاظ على ما تبقى لنا. إن الاستسلام الذاتي التام هو انهزام ذاتي. ماذا يجب إذن أن يكون عليه الحد الأدنى من الحرية؟ الجواب هو: ما لا يستطيع الفرد التخلي عنه، من غير أن يسيء إلى جوهر الطبيعة البشرية"-
----------
وجهة نظر :
((إن المفهوم "الإيجابي" لكلمة "حرية" مشتق من رغبة الفرد في أن يكون سيد نفسه. فأنا أرغب في الاعتماد على نفسي، في الحياة وفي اتخاذ القرارات وليس على قوى خارجية من أي نوع كانت، وأرغب أن أكون أداة نفسي وليس أداة يحددها آخرون ويتحكَّمون فيها، أرغب في أن أكون الفاعل وليس من يقع عليه تأثير الفعل، وأن أسير بموجب غايات وأهداف شخصية واعية، لا أن أتحرك بموجب غايات تُفرض عليّ، أرغب أن أكون صاحب شأن وليس نكرة عديمة الشأن والقيمة، أن أقرر بنفسي ما أرغب القيام به، لا أن أعمل ما يُملى عليّ، أن أكون موجِّهاً، لا موجَّهاً من قِبَل آخرين، وكأنني شيء أو حيوان أو عَبْد ليس في استطاعته القيام بدور إنساني يدرك أهدافه ويفكر فيها ويختار أساليب ومناهج شخصية يرغب في تحقيقها)
November 16, 2019
ينشغل برلين بفكرة كان ليبراليو القرن التاسع عشر ومحافظوها على السواء ممسوسين بها، ويتبين أنها فكرة قديمة بقدر قدم تاريخ الفلسفة السياسية، لكنها فكرة خطرة. يحاول أن يوضح سذاجة الاعتقاد بوجود نموذج من العيش تتآلف فيه المعاني التي يعرفها الإنسان باعتبارها جيدة ومرغوبة: العدالة والحرية والمساواة. ويشدد على ضرورة أن تحذف هذه المعاني بعضها بعضًا. وأن المساواة مثلًا قد تناقض العدالة. كيف استخدمت هذه الفكرة الطموحة الغبية في بناء أيديولوجيا لدكتاتوربات؟
في المحاضرات الخمس، يعرج على هذه الفكرة. ويتحدث عن الحتمية التاريخية، وعلافتها بها، يعتبر دمج نماذج العلوم الطبيعية في حفل الدراسات الإنسانية، نزعةً ظلامية بقدر إنكار العلم. ورغم أنه ينتهي إلى توفيقية مساومة، لكنه لا يدعي أفكارًا حاسمة مثل من ينتقدهم.
أهم فكرة بالطبع في الكتاب، هي التفرقة بين نوعين من الحرية، وتشديده على أهمية مجال حيوي للحرية السلبية. مضيفًا فكرة مثيرة عن أنه لا يهم من بيده القوة، المهم مقدارها. يقتبس من كونستان:"لا يجب على المرء شجب اليد، بل السلاح. إن بعض الأوزان ثقيلة جدًا على اليد البشرية".
يعرض لأفكار ج. س. مل طبعًا، في أكثر من موضع. لكن فكرة الحرية السلبية هي أهم أفكار الكتاب، وأهم أفكار برلين بشكل عام.
في المحاضرات الخمس، يعرج على هذه الفكرة. ويتحدث عن الحتمية التاريخية، وعلافتها بها، يعتبر دمج نماذج العلوم الطبيعية في حفل الدراسات الإنسانية، نزعةً ظلامية بقدر إنكار العلم. ورغم أنه ينتهي إلى توفيقية مساومة، لكنه لا يدعي أفكارًا حاسمة مثل من ينتقدهم.
أهم فكرة بالطبع في الكتاب، هي التفرقة بين نوعين من الحرية، وتشديده على أهمية مجال حيوي للحرية السلبية. مضيفًا فكرة مثيرة عن أنه لا يهم من بيده القوة، المهم مقدارها. يقتبس من كونستان:"لا يجب على المرء شجب اليد، بل السلاح. إن بعض الأوزان ثقيلة جدًا على اليد البشرية".
يعرض لأفكار ج. س. مل طبعًا، في أكثر من موضع. لكن فكرة الحرية السلبية هي أهم أفكار الكتاب، وأهم أفكار برلين بشكل عام.
April 26, 2018
برلین در هر چهار موضوع به خوبی ورود پیدا میکند، در حین تشریح دیدگاه مخالف برای فهماندن آندبه مخاطب از هیچ تلاشی فروگذار نمیکند و در ارائه دیدگاه خود اختصار و دقت را به کار میبندد و در این حین ارجاعات خوب و به موقعی به دیگر متفکران و آثارشان میدهد.
کتابی است که باید خواند و دوباره خواند. هر مقاله آن حاشه نویسی خانه خود را دارد، شاید وقتی دیگر جایی دیگر.
کتابی است که باید خواند و دوباره خواند. هر مقاله آن حاشه نویسی خانه خود را دارد، شاید وقتی دیگر جایی دیگر.
March 5, 2024
Isaiah Berlin, un pensador prominente del siglo XX, propuso dos conceptos de libertad que han sido fundamentales en el discurso filosófico y político: la libertad positiva y la libertad negativa. Estos conceptos reflejan dos maneras diferentes de pensar sobre lo que significa ser libre, y han influenciado profundamente el entendimiento moderno de la libertad.
La libertad negativa, en la conceptualización de Berlin, se refiere a la ausencia de obstáculos, barreras o coacciones impuestas por otros que impiden que un individuo realice acciones específicas. Este tipo de libertad se centra en la zona de acción no interferida en la que un individuo puede actuar sin ser detenido por otros. Es, en esencia, la libertad "de" algo: de restricciones, de interferencia externa, de coacción. Por ejemplo, la libertad de expresión se considera una libertad negativa porque implica la ausencia de restricciones sobre lo que se puede decir.
La libertad positiva, por otro lado, es la libertad "para" hacer algo, implicando la presencia de control o autonomía personal en la realización de los propios deseos y la habilidad para actuar de acuerdo con la propia voluntad. Esto no solo requiere la ausencia de restricciones, sino también la presencia de capacidades y recursos que permitan a una persona actuar para realizar sus propios objetivos y desarrollarse plenamente. La libertad positiva se relaciona con la idea de autodeterminación o autosuficiencia.
Berlin argumenta que estos dos conceptos de libertad, aunque ambos valiosos, pueden entrar en conflicto. La libertad negativa, si se lleva al extremo, puede conducir a un tipo de libertinaje donde la ausencia de restricciones resulta en caos o anarquía. Por otro lado, la libertad positiva puede llevar a una forma de autoritarismo, bajo la premisa de que un estado o un líder sabe lo que es mejor para sus ciudadanos y, por tanto, puede justificar la imposición de restricciones "por su propio bien".
Es importante entender que Berlin no aboga por una versión de la libertad sobre la otra, sino que destaca la importancia de mantener un equilibrio entre ambas. Él reconoce que una sociedad saludable necesita tanto de la autonomía individual (libertad negativa) como de la capacidad de los individuos para actuar de manera que realicen sus propios objetivos y aspiraciones (libertad positiva).
En resumen, los conceptos de libertad positiva y negativa de Isaiah Berlin ofrecen una forma dual de entender la libertad, cada una destacando diferentes aspectos de lo que significa vivir libremente. Estos conceptos han sido cruciales para debates filosóficos y políticos, proporcionando un marco para entender las complejidades y los desafíos de cultivar y mantener la libertad en la sociedad moderna.
La libertad negativa, en la conceptualización de Berlin, se refiere a la ausencia de obstáculos, barreras o coacciones impuestas por otros que impiden que un individuo realice acciones específicas. Este tipo de libertad se centra en la zona de acción no interferida en la que un individuo puede actuar sin ser detenido por otros. Es, en esencia, la libertad "de" algo: de restricciones, de interferencia externa, de coacción. Por ejemplo, la libertad de expresión se considera una libertad negativa porque implica la ausencia de restricciones sobre lo que se puede decir.
La libertad positiva, por otro lado, es la libertad "para" hacer algo, implicando la presencia de control o autonomía personal en la realización de los propios deseos y la habilidad para actuar de acuerdo con la propia voluntad. Esto no solo requiere la ausencia de restricciones, sino también la presencia de capacidades y recursos que permitan a una persona actuar para realizar sus propios objetivos y desarrollarse plenamente. La libertad positiva se relaciona con la idea de autodeterminación o autosuficiencia.
Berlin argumenta que estos dos conceptos de libertad, aunque ambos valiosos, pueden entrar en conflicto. La libertad negativa, si se lleva al extremo, puede conducir a un tipo de libertinaje donde la ausencia de restricciones resulta en caos o anarquía. Por otro lado, la libertad positiva puede llevar a una forma de autoritarismo, bajo la premisa de que un estado o un líder sabe lo que es mejor para sus ciudadanos y, por tanto, puede justificar la imposición de restricciones "por su propio bien".
Es importante entender que Berlin no aboga por una versión de la libertad sobre la otra, sino que destaca la importancia de mantener un equilibrio entre ambas. Él reconoce que una sociedad saludable necesita tanto de la autonomía individual (libertad negativa) como de la capacidad de los individuos para actuar de manera que realicen sus propios objetivos y aspiraciones (libertad positiva).
En resumen, los conceptos de libertad positiva y negativa de Isaiah Berlin ofrecen una forma dual de entender la libertad, cada una destacando diferentes aspectos de lo que significa vivir libremente. Estos conceptos han sido cruciales para debates filosóficos y políticos, proporcionando un marco para entender las complejidades y los desafíos de cultivar y mantener la libertad en la sociedad moderna.
July 17, 2023
Personally. I think Isaiah Berlin and Bertrand Russell are the two most important philosophers of the 20th Century.
This essays make a strong case for Berlin
This essays make a strong case for Berlin
June 26, 2025
Isaiah Berlin is a 20th century philosopher of Latvian-Jewish descent and British education who has wrote extensively on personal and political liberty. It is clear and obvious from these essays (many derived from the lectures he gave at Oxford in the 50s-60s) that Berlin is well acquainted with the vast western philosophical literature that has accumulated over millennia.
"Political Ideas in the 20th Century" is the first and probably the most striking of his essays collected in this book. In this he principally covers the development of the two dominant ideologies after the Second World War: Liberalism and Socialism/Communism. While different in many respects, liberalism and socialism are both fundamentally rationalist ideologies who believe in reason and the conviction that societal issues can be solved if intelligent people of the right virtues triumph over the ignorant and evil (as opposed to the romantic nationalists/fascists, who appeal more to the emotional and spiritual character of people). However, the pursuit of reason over ignorance came with it uncomfortable questions for both ideologies that did not have clear-cut answers: what is an individual's purpose in society? What responsibilities do the majority have for the minority? What responsibilities do the minority have for the majority? How are competing interest claims to be balanced against one another? These questions do not have easy solutions, in fact they might not ever be solved. Instead, Berlin witnesses a frankly terrifying trend amongst all societies east and west to ignore these issues entirely as irrational nuisances to the rule of the just. Over his life, Berlin saw the power to control society centralized increasingly into fewer hands of state and corporate administrators, experts and busy bodies to a degree that would have seemed utopian not too long ago. Onlookers in Britain and America who still clung to 19th century visions of political life looked on in horror at Europe as both men and masters alike agreed on a consensus that liberty should be handed over for the sake of increasing control over every part of life. The current year is 2025, and I feel like what Berlin has described has not stopped.
"Historical inevitability" concerns determinism as a way of viewing the world and its impact on how we view the freedom of individuals. Are we destined to do what we have done/do/will do? Berlin thinks that there is no real way to disprove determinism (after all, one would need a time machine to see whether destiny really does exist) but rejects it nonetheless. His main contention seems to be that determinists do not actually think deterministically, and for determinism to actually be true would require a complete restructuring of how we view the world. We cannot ascribe praise or blame to people because everything would simply be a result of background factors and not the people themselves. A criminal cannot be persecuted if in reality we are blaming whatever socioeconomic factors caused him to commit crime, but we too cannot blame a rich man for exploiting others if that was what he was determined to do. Likewise, we cannot say "I should have/should not have done that" because we were never free in the first place to do so. Obviously people are influenced by several different factors when we make decisions, which Berlin acknowledges, but to leave everything to the explanation of "factors" would, in my opinion, render society incapable of governing itself as it would treat every person like a child, unresponsible for their own actions.
"Two Concepts of Liberty" talks about negative and positive freedom. Berlin describes negative freedom as "how far am I controlled" and positive freedom as "who controls me." Berlin seems largely concerned though with refuting those who emphasize positive freedom, as he sees it as responsible for some of the worst abuses and dictatorial regimes of the 20th century. He sees positive freedom as something that usually incorporates with it the idea that there is an ideal, objective end to be pursued by all people but which only a few are aware of. These enlightened few must guide the rest of humanity, regardless of their objections, to this end to achieve their true self. This, according to Berlin, is at the core of most ideological dictators' rationales for their power. I shall leave others to dispute Berlin on this. Additionally, it is just impossible to solve positive freedom completely. One can be completely absent of restraints (negative freedom) but one is always oppressed by the physical and psychological processes of life. Overemphasis leads to suicide being the only way to achieve true positive liberty.
"John Stuart Mill and the Ends of Life" is a neat though not altogether controversial (at least to me) essay on JS Mill and his commitment to liberty as an end. He recounts Mill's early life, where he was surrounded by Benthamite utilitarians who preached the God of utility. However, despite Mill being at times associated with the utilitarian movement, Berlin argues through Mill's political life and writings to be committed to liberty above all, and that he made a constant stand against utilitarianism.
"From Hope and Fear Set Free" is a sort of bonus essay included in the book and a relatively simple one. Some have advanced that knowledge and liberty go hand in hand. Berlin objects to this, and states that knowledge can at times be a hindrance on one's liberty. Berlin identifies the sometimes illogical views of logical men to tie knowledge inseparably with liberty to be a result of a view held by many that all that is good in the world must not seriously conflict with one another. Things we may deem good however, like liberty, equality, security, or in this case, knowledge, are not always in agreement with one another. I agree.
The book includes other writings by Berlin but these are the main essays that frame his principal views on liberty. It also has another essay by him about the birth of Greek individualism, wherein he describes the transition in Ancient Greek from the polis-oriented worldview of Plato and Aristotle to the personal, introspective worldviews of the epicureans and stoics. Suffice it to say that I find this book gives a lot to think about.
"Political Ideas in the 20th Century" is the first and probably the most striking of his essays collected in this book. In this he principally covers the development of the two dominant ideologies after the Second World War: Liberalism and Socialism/Communism. While different in many respects, liberalism and socialism are both fundamentally rationalist ideologies who believe in reason and the conviction that societal issues can be solved if intelligent people of the right virtues triumph over the ignorant and evil (as opposed to the romantic nationalists/fascists, who appeal more to the emotional and spiritual character of people). However, the pursuit of reason over ignorance came with it uncomfortable questions for both ideologies that did not have clear-cut answers: what is an individual's purpose in society? What responsibilities do the majority have for the minority? What responsibilities do the minority have for the majority? How are competing interest claims to be balanced against one another? These questions do not have easy solutions, in fact they might not ever be solved. Instead, Berlin witnesses a frankly terrifying trend amongst all societies east and west to ignore these issues entirely as irrational nuisances to the rule of the just. Over his life, Berlin saw the power to control society centralized increasingly into fewer hands of state and corporate administrators, experts and busy bodies to a degree that would have seemed utopian not too long ago. Onlookers in Britain and America who still clung to 19th century visions of political life looked on in horror at Europe as both men and masters alike agreed on a consensus that liberty should be handed over for the sake of increasing control over every part of life. The current year is 2025, and I feel like what Berlin has described has not stopped.
"Historical inevitability" concerns determinism as a way of viewing the world and its impact on how we view the freedom of individuals. Are we destined to do what we have done/do/will do? Berlin thinks that there is no real way to disprove determinism (after all, one would need a time machine to see whether destiny really does exist) but rejects it nonetheless. His main contention seems to be that determinists do not actually think deterministically, and for determinism to actually be true would require a complete restructuring of how we view the world. We cannot ascribe praise or blame to people because everything would simply be a result of background factors and not the people themselves. A criminal cannot be persecuted if in reality we are blaming whatever socioeconomic factors caused him to commit crime, but we too cannot blame a rich man for exploiting others if that was what he was determined to do. Likewise, we cannot say "I should have/should not have done that" because we were never free in the first place to do so. Obviously people are influenced by several different factors when we make decisions, which Berlin acknowledges, but to leave everything to the explanation of "factors" would, in my opinion, render society incapable of governing itself as it would treat every person like a child, unresponsible for their own actions.
"Two Concepts of Liberty" talks about negative and positive freedom. Berlin describes negative freedom as "how far am I controlled" and positive freedom as "who controls me." Berlin seems largely concerned though with refuting those who emphasize positive freedom, as he sees it as responsible for some of the worst abuses and dictatorial regimes of the 20th century. He sees positive freedom as something that usually incorporates with it the idea that there is an ideal, objective end to be pursued by all people but which only a few are aware of. These enlightened few must guide the rest of humanity, regardless of their objections, to this end to achieve their true self. This, according to Berlin, is at the core of most ideological dictators' rationales for their power. I shall leave others to dispute Berlin on this. Additionally, it is just impossible to solve positive freedom completely. One can be completely absent of restraints (negative freedom) but one is always oppressed by the physical and psychological processes of life. Overemphasis leads to suicide being the only way to achieve true positive liberty.
"John Stuart Mill and the Ends of Life" is a neat though not altogether controversial (at least to me) essay on JS Mill and his commitment to liberty as an end. He recounts Mill's early life, where he was surrounded by Benthamite utilitarians who preached the God of utility. However, despite Mill being at times associated with the utilitarian movement, Berlin argues through Mill's political life and writings to be committed to liberty above all, and that he made a constant stand against utilitarianism.
"From Hope and Fear Set Free" is a sort of bonus essay included in the book and a relatively simple one. Some have advanced that knowledge and liberty go hand in hand. Berlin objects to this, and states that knowledge can at times be a hindrance on one's liberty. Berlin identifies the sometimes illogical views of logical men to tie knowledge inseparably with liberty to be a result of a view held by many that all that is good in the world must not seriously conflict with one another. Things we may deem good however, like liberty, equality, security, or in this case, knowledge, are not always in agreement with one another. I agree.
The book includes other writings by Berlin but these are the main essays that frame his principal views on liberty. It also has another essay by him about the birth of Greek individualism, wherein he describes the transition in Ancient Greek from the polis-oriented worldview of Plato and Aristotle to the personal, introspective worldviews of the epicureans and stoics. Suffice it to say that I find this book gives a lot to think about.
March 11, 2015
Sự thật sẽ giải phóng bạn. Đây là sự thật. Hãy tự giải phóng mình.
April 3, 2021
در یککلام کتاب و نویسنده کم مایه است.
توصیفی از مکاتب نظری در کار نیست.
استدلالها ضعیف و نقدها ضعیفتر است.همچنین ادعاهای سست و خلط مبحثهای فاحش.
توصیفی از مکاتب نظری در کار نیست.
استدلالها ضعیف و نقدها ضعیفتر است.همچنین ادعاهای سست و خلط مبحثهای فاحش.
June 5, 2020
Isaiah Berlin si presenta come uno dei più grandi (e influenti) storici delle idee e filosofi della libertà del secolo scorso, a lui si deve la sistematizzazione moderna del concetto di libertà negativa e positiva.
Oggigiorno verrebbe probabilmente definito un liberal, in quanto le sue sono speculazioni di taglio principalmente filosofico da cui traspare uno scarso interesse/conoscenza per il campo economico (da questo punto di vista considero Hayek o Popper più completi o perlomeno complementari a Berlin). Questo aspetto me lo fa accomunare a Croce e alla diatriba con Einaudi su liberalismo e liberismo.
In un certo senso Berlin mi appare più come un filosofo del secolo scorso, con gli occhi maggiormente puntati nell'800, poiché a differenza di altri non intravede quale minaccia per la libertà sarebbe diventata, non solo l'avanzata di comunismo e socialismo, ma anche la continua estensione del welfare state, dell'intermediazione statale nell'economia, dei monopoli, delle tasse, della burocrazia, ecc..
Berlin non è quindi un amante del laissez faire, che considera una stortura dal lato della libertà negativa, ma si presenta comunque come un filosofo rigoroso, strenuo difensore del pluralismo dei valori e di una sfera di libertà individuale intoccabile da qualunque autorità o potere.
Nonostante questo era pienamente consapevole di quanto nella sua epoca il pericolo più grande provenisse da una distorta concezione della libertà positiva ('libertà di' o 'da chi vogliamo essere governati') a discapito della libertà negativa ('libertà da' o 'quanto vogliamo essere governati'). Questa distorsione è quella che porta a giustificare i totalitarismi e le intrusioni più oppressive dello Stato nella sfera privata, col fine di perseguire una volontà più alta di quella del singolo individuo; per questo aveva ben chiara la carica liberticida di giacobini, comunisti e socialisti.
Tra i vari saggi quello che più ha avuto impatto nella storia della filosofia è quello relativo ai due concetti di libertà, nonostante non sia stato lui il primo ad esprimere tale differenza la sua è la disamina a cui poi tutti faranno riferimento nei dibattiti successivi.
Personalmente ho apprezzato moltissimo i due saggi in cui Berlin esercita pienamente le sue qualità di grande storico delle idee, e cioè il saggio sul pensiero di Mill e quello sulle idee politiche del diciannovesimo secolo. In quest'ultimo è illuminante leggere come la strada di liberali e socialisti si sia divisa quasi subito nel momento in cui questi ultimi hanno deciso di sacrificare i diritti individuali sull'altare della rivoluzione.
Il saggio sul determinismo fa piazza pulita di tutti quelli che, figli del positivismo e dell'iper-razionalismo ottocentesco, credono di poter indagare con il metodo 'scientifico' le scienze sociali e di trovare un fine teleologico unico per l'umanità. E' in opposizione a questi razionalisti che si pongono i romantici, nazionalisti e conservatori vari, come Schiller o Dostoevskij,
L'idea centrale che pervade i saggi, oltre a quella della libertà, è quella del pluralismo, tanto che il curatore del libro Hardy è tentato di definire la posizione filosofica di Berlin come 'pluralismo liberale'. Berlin è convinto non solo dell'esistenza di un'eterogeneità di valori e fini diversi che guidano o possono guidare l'esistenza umana (a differenza degli assolutisti, fanatici, religiosi, marxisti, ecc..) ma anche della conflittualità tra questi valori; per cui il perseguimento, ad esempio, dell'eguaglianza può collidere con il perseguimento della libertà individuale. Questo sarà lo stesso concetto ripetuto da Friedman più avanti.
Rispecchiando il peso specifico dell'autore e la sua sterminata conoscenza, ogni pagina del libro è densa di ragionamenti e autori e necessità dei suoi tempi per poter essere metabolizzata. Piccola postilla: è molto gustosa l'introduzione del curatore sulla genesi del libro, che ci mostra un Berlin titubante sul valore dei propri scritti, perfezionista ed eterno procrastinatore.
Oggigiorno verrebbe probabilmente definito un liberal, in quanto le sue sono speculazioni di taglio principalmente filosofico da cui traspare uno scarso interesse/conoscenza per il campo economico (da questo punto di vista considero Hayek o Popper più completi o perlomeno complementari a Berlin). Questo aspetto me lo fa accomunare a Croce e alla diatriba con Einaudi su liberalismo e liberismo.
In un certo senso Berlin mi appare più come un filosofo del secolo scorso, con gli occhi maggiormente puntati nell'800, poiché a differenza di altri non intravede quale minaccia per la libertà sarebbe diventata, non solo l'avanzata di comunismo e socialismo, ma anche la continua estensione del welfare state, dell'intermediazione statale nell'economia, dei monopoli, delle tasse, della burocrazia, ecc..
Berlin non è quindi un amante del laissez faire, che considera una stortura dal lato della libertà negativa, ma si presenta comunque come un filosofo rigoroso, strenuo difensore del pluralismo dei valori e di una sfera di libertà individuale intoccabile da qualunque autorità o potere.
Nonostante questo era pienamente consapevole di quanto nella sua epoca il pericolo più grande provenisse da una distorta concezione della libertà positiva ('libertà di' o 'da chi vogliamo essere governati') a discapito della libertà negativa ('libertà da' o 'quanto vogliamo essere governati'). Questa distorsione è quella che porta a giustificare i totalitarismi e le intrusioni più oppressive dello Stato nella sfera privata, col fine di perseguire una volontà più alta di quella del singolo individuo; per questo aveva ben chiara la carica liberticida di giacobini, comunisti e socialisti.
Tra i vari saggi quello che più ha avuto impatto nella storia della filosofia è quello relativo ai due concetti di libertà, nonostante non sia stato lui il primo ad esprimere tale differenza la sua è la disamina a cui poi tutti faranno riferimento nei dibattiti successivi.
Personalmente ho apprezzato moltissimo i due saggi in cui Berlin esercita pienamente le sue qualità di grande storico delle idee, e cioè il saggio sul pensiero di Mill e quello sulle idee politiche del diciannovesimo secolo. In quest'ultimo è illuminante leggere come la strada di liberali e socialisti si sia divisa quasi subito nel momento in cui questi ultimi hanno deciso di sacrificare i diritti individuali sull'altare della rivoluzione.
Il saggio sul determinismo fa piazza pulita di tutti quelli che, figli del positivismo e dell'iper-razionalismo ottocentesco, credono di poter indagare con il metodo 'scientifico' le scienze sociali e di trovare un fine teleologico unico per l'umanità. E' in opposizione a questi razionalisti che si pongono i romantici, nazionalisti e conservatori vari, come Schiller o Dostoevskij,
L'idea centrale che pervade i saggi, oltre a quella della libertà, è quella del pluralismo, tanto che il curatore del libro Hardy è tentato di definire la posizione filosofica di Berlin come 'pluralismo liberale'. Berlin è convinto non solo dell'esistenza di un'eterogeneità di valori e fini diversi che guidano o possono guidare l'esistenza umana (a differenza degli assolutisti, fanatici, religiosi, marxisti, ecc..) ma anche della conflittualità tra questi valori; per cui il perseguimento, ad esempio, dell'eguaglianza può collidere con il perseguimento della libertà individuale. Questo sarà lo stesso concetto ripetuto da Friedman più avanti.
Rispecchiando il peso specifico dell'autore e la sua sterminata conoscenza, ogni pagina del libro è densa di ragionamenti e autori e necessità dei suoi tempi per poter essere metabolizzata. Piccola postilla: è molto gustosa l'introduzione del curatore sulla genesi del libro, che ci mostra un Berlin titubante sul valore dei propri scritti, perfezionista ed eterno procrastinatore.
February 22, 2019
I rate the book a 3 because it is going to be hard for many to get through it. The book spends a good deal of time on the philosophical issue of determinism. Science (at least up to Quantum Mechanics) assumed that "everything just happened" and that WHEN science discovered all the laws of nature including biology, we would discover that everything was fully determined at the point of the Big Bang, including me writing this blog.
I'm not going to go into the arguments for determinism ... only to agree with Berlin that nobody actually lives as if determinism is a fact. As he says on p17; "Unless men as held to posess some attribute over and above those which they have in common with other natural objects -- animals, plants, things (wether the difference is itself called natural or not), the moral command not to treat men as animals or things has to rational foundation."
Much discussion is about positive vs negative liberty. Negative liberty is essentially "freedom from" ... being the right to be left alone. Positive liberty is about "how am I governed", with demcracy being one of the main proposals. Clearly there is a conflict here -- if you leave the wolves alone, they will eat the sheep. OTOH, if you fully protect and care for the sheep, they become essentially slaves to the system that "gives" them their "freedoms" ... from want, from danger, from responsibility, etc.
I found the discussion of the youth and young adulthood of John Stuart Mill to be quite interesting -- I was vaguely aware of it, but Berlin covers it well. Mill's father raised him in strict atheism, materialism, reason, and very little of even poetry ... nothing that Jeremy Bentham, the father of Utilitarianism considered improper.
In his early adulthood he felt life was purposeless, his will was paralyzed and he fell into deep despair wishing for death. Apparently living in a choiceless, loveless, deterministic universe was not really all that much fun!
On 338 and 339 Berlin captures the true horror of Marxism, Utilitarianism and the like. He starts with the example of the Dostoevsky character Ivan Karamazov rejects the potential to consign one child to torture and death for the happiness of many -- an "easy decision" for a true utilitarian. As he puts the sense that utterly horrifes us as we think about Facism and Communism is the following ... "what turns us inside out, and what is indescribeable, is the spectacle of one set of persons that so tamper and "get at" others so that the others do their will without knowing what they are doing; and in this lose their status as free human beings, indeed as human beings at all".
Thoughts of the conversion of "citizens" into "consumers", social media anti-tribes, and the modern knee jerk dictates of Political Correctness come to mind.
It's not a page turner, however it is justifiably a work that is often referenced, and worth the effort to make a bit of a slog.
I'm not going to go into the arguments for determinism ... only to agree with Berlin that nobody actually lives as if determinism is a fact. As he says on p17; "Unless men as held to posess some attribute over and above those which they have in common with other natural objects -- animals, plants, things (wether the difference is itself called natural or not), the moral command not to treat men as animals or things has to rational foundation."
Much discussion is about positive vs negative liberty. Negative liberty is essentially "freedom from" ... being the right to be left alone. Positive liberty is about "how am I governed", with demcracy being one of the main proposals. Clearly there is a conflict here -- if you leave the wolves alone, they will eat the sheep. OTOH, if you fully protect and care for the sheep, they become essentially slaves to the system that "gives" them their "freedoms" ... from want, from danger, from responsibility, etc.
I found the discussion of the youth and young adulthood of John Stuart Mill to be quite interesting -- I was vaguely aware of it, but Berlin covers it well. Mill's father raised him in strict atheism, materialism, reason, and very little of even poetry ... nothing that Jeremy Bentham, the father of Utilitarianism considered improper.
In his early adulthood he felt life was purposeless, his will was paralyzed and he fell into deep despair wishing for death. Apparently living in a choiceless, loveless, deterministic universe was not really all that much fun!
On 338 and 339 Berlin captures the true horror of Marxism, Utilitarianism and the like. He starts with the example of the Dostoevsky character Ivan Karamazov rejects the potential to consign one child to torture and death for the happiness of many -- an "easy decision" for a true utilitarian. As he puts the sense that utterly horrifes us as we think about Facism and Communism is the following ... "what turns us inside out, and what is indescribeable, is the spectacle of one set of persons that so tamper and "get at" others so that the others do their will without knowing what they are doing; and in this lose their status as free human beings, indeed as human beings at all".
Thoughts of the conversion of "citizens" into "consumers", social media anti-tribes, and the modern knee jerk dictates of Political Correctness come to mind.
It's not a page turner, however it is justifiably a work that is often referenced, and worth the effort to make a bit of a slog.
July 28, 2015
While reading Four Essays on Liberty (not the expanded version), I felt sure I would criticize Berlin's verbosity and repetitiveness. But finally I'm reminded that an essay is, by definition, an exploration of a subject, not the author's final thoughts. There is in these essays a sense of Berlin advancing ideas he is not necessarily totally convinced of. And from the introduction, which is a reply to his critics, and several footnotes, it's clear Berlin is eager to receive, ponder and learn from criticism.
I still think, however, the book too long for the amount of solid intellectual substance it provides. The first three essays center around three basic ideas, respectively:
1) The decreasing acknowledgment in the twentieth century of the importance and efficacy of ideas,
2) The unexamined determinism of many historians, and
3) How leaders of men have misused man's need for positive liberty -- liberty to do something -- in the name of a higher nature that must be developed.
The is a gross simplification, for many other valuable auxiliary points are developed, but he also spends inordinate swathes of text elaborating theses that were already clear pages before.
The best and most succinct essay is the last, "John Stuart Mill and the Ends of Life," which superbly analyzes the strengths and fallacies of Mill's theory of liberty.
I still think, however, the book too long for the amount of solid intellectual substance it provides. The first three essays center around three basic ideas, respectively:
1) The decreasing acknowledgment in the twentieth century of the importance and efficacy of ideas,
2) The unexamined determinism of many historians, and
3) How leaders of men have misused man's need for positive liberty -- liberty to do something -- in the name of a higher nature that must be developed.
The is a gross simplification, for many other valuable auxiliary points are developed, but he also spends inordinate swathes of text elaborating theses that were already clear pages before.
The best and most succinct essay is the last, "John Stuart Mill and the Ends of Life," which superbly analyzes the strengths and fallacies of Mill's theory of liberty.
December 28, 2018
There are some interesting things in here, but his style is very high-flown in a way which gets obnoxious, and he has a tendency to discuss broad ranges of ideas at once, often leading to vague conclusions, blatant misinterpretations of other authors in the service of a narrative, or poetic wanking with no apparent end in sight...
I didn't find this very informative. Why not just read the authors he's talking about rather than his endlessly repetitious monologue about them?
3 stars - i didn't hate it, and "two concepts of liberty" is good (albeit over-simple), but i was disappointed.
I didn't find this very informative. Why not just read the authors he's talking about rather than his endlessly repetitious monologue about them?
3 stars - i didn't hate it, and "two concepts of liberty" is good (albeit over-simple), but i was disappointed.
May 23, 2007
Berlin is one of my favorite political philosophers - I think he's absolutely brilliant and very relevant to today's political debates, particularly in the field of bioethics, which is of particular interest to me.
September 6, 2020
دسم وممتع، اختلفت مع عدّة من الأفكار والآراء المطروحة؛ ولكنها لم تقلل من متعتي بهذا الكتاب.
February 2, 2026
Vier Essays über Freiheit, Geschichte und politische Illusionen
Die vier Essays dieses Bandes bilden zusammen ein erstaunlich geschlossenes intellektuelles Projekt: die Verteidigung der Freiheit gegen die Versuchung, Politik in eine Lehre der Notwendigkeit zu verwandeln.
Der bekannteste Text, Zwei Freiheitsbegriffe (Two Concepts of Liberty; 1958), liefert den begrifflichen Angelpunkt. Berlins Unterscheidung zwischen negativer Freiheit (Freiheit von Eingriffen) und positiver Freiheit (Selbstbestimmung) ist heute beinahe Gemeingut. Bahnbrechend war weniger die Unterscheidung selbst als die Warnung, die Berlin mit ihr verband: Wo behauptet wird, Menschen müssten zu ihrer „wahren“ Freiheit gezwungen werden, droht Unterdrückung im Namen der Vernunft. Der Essay ist weniger eine Theorie als eine politische Warnschrift – geprägt von den Erfahrungen des 20. Jahrhunderts.
Diese Warnung erhält ihr erkenntnistheoretisches Fundament im Essay Historische Unvermeidlichkeit. Berlin zerlegt hier die Vorstellung, Geschichte folge objektiven Gesetzen wie die Natur. Er unterscheidet klar zwischen historischer Erklärung und historischer Vorhersage und zeigt, dass Determinismus menschliche Verantwortung aushöhlt. Wer glaubt, im Namen der Geschichte zu handeln, fühlt sich schnell von moralischen Skrupeln entlastet. Dieser Text ist eine stille, aber wirkungsvolle Abrechnung mit dem „wissenschaftlichen Sozialismus“ und jeder Ideologie, die politische Entscheidungen als zwangsläufig ausgibt.
Politische Ideen im 20. Jahrhundert erweitert den Blick. Berlin analysiert Liberalismus, Sozialismus, Nationalismus und Faschismus nicht als bloße Irrtümer, sondern als Antworten auf reale Krisenerfahrungen der Moderne. Gerade diese nüchterne Empathie macht den Essay stark: Berlin erklärt, warum Menschen nach Sinn, Ganzheit und Gewissheit greifen – ohne diese Sehnsucht zu rechtfertigen. Der Text zeigt Berlin als Ideenhistoriker, der versteht, warum gefährliche Ideen attraktiv sind.
Den normativen Gegenpol bildet der Essay über John Stuart Mill. Mill erscheint hier als Berlins stiller Held: ein Denker ohne metaphysische Heilsversprechen, für den Freiheit vor allem die Möglichkeit zum Irrtum ist. Wahrheit entsteht bei Mill nicht durch Autorität, sondern durch offene Auseinandersetzung. Freiheit ist Experiment – ein Gedanke, der Berlins eigenen Wertpluralismus auf den Punkt bringt.
Zusammen gelesen, ergeben die vier Essays ein überzeugendes Ganzes. Berlin verteidigt keine „richtige“ Ordnung, sondern die Offenheit politischer Entscheidungen. Zu weit geht Berlin allerdings für mich, wenn er eine direkte Linie von Kants Aufforderung, den eigenen Verstand zu nutzen, über Hegels Annahme, man könne Wahrheit vernünftig erkennen und sie spiegele sich im Weltgeist der geschichtlichen Entwicklung, bis hin zu den Totalitarismen des 20. Jahrhunderts zieht.
Die Essays sind eloquent aber auch anspruchsvoll, verglichen mit manch anderen Philosophen aber sehr verständlich geschrieben. Unabhängig davon, wie man im Detail dazu steht, sind sie bedeutende philosophische Werke von anhaltender Bedeutung.
Rating: 5/5
Sprache gelesen: Deutsch
Gelesen im Jahr: 2026
Die vier Essays dieses Bandes bilden zusammen ein erstaunlich geschlossenes intellektuelles Projekt: die Verteidigung der Freiheit gegen die Versuchung, Politik in eine Lehre der Notwendigkeit zu verwandeln.
Der bekannteste Text, Zwei Freiheitsbegriffe (Two Concepts of Liberty; 1958), liefert den begrifflichen Angelpunkt. Berlins Unterscheidung zwischen negativer Freiheit (Freiheit von Eingriffen) und positiver Freiheit (Selbstbestimmung) ist heute beinahe Gemeingut. Bahnbrechend war weniger die Unterscheidung selbst als die Warnung, die Berlin mit ihr verband: Wo behauptet wird, Menschen müssten zu ihrer „wahren“ Freiheit gezwungen werden, droht Unterdrückung im Namen der Vernunft. Der Essay ist weniger eine Theorie als eine politische Warnschrift – geprägt von den Erfahrungen des 20. Jahrhunderts.
Diese Warnung erhält ihr erkenntnistheoretisches Fundament im Essay Historische Unvermeidlichkeit. Berlin zerlegt hier die Vorstellung, Geschichte folge objektiven Gesetzen wie die Natur. Er unterscheidet klar zwischen historischer Erklärung und historischer Vorhersage und zeigt, dass Determinismus menschliche Verantwortung aushöhlt. Wer glaubt, im Namen der Geschichte zu handeln, fühlt sich schnell von moralischen Skrupeln entlastet. Dieser Text ist eine stille, aber wirkungsvolle Abrechnung mit dem „wissenschaftlichen Sozialismus“ und jeder Ideologie, die politische Entscheidungen als zwangsläufig ausgibt.
Politische Ideen im 20. Jahrhundert erweitert den Blick. Berlin analysiert Liberalismus, Sozialismus, Nationalismus und Faschismus nicht als bloße Irrtümer, sondern als Antworten auf reale Krisenerfahrungen der Moderne. Gerade diese nüchterne Empathie macht den Essay stark: Berlin erklärt, warum Menschen nach Sinn, Ganzheit und Gewissheit greifen – ohne diese Sehnsucht zu rechtfertigen. Der Text zeigt Berlin als Ideenhistoriker, der versteht, warum gefährliche Ideen attraktiv sind.
Den normativen Gegenpol bildet der Essay über John Stuart Mill. Mill erscheint hier als Berlins stiller Held: ein Denker ohne metaphysische Heilsversprechen, für den Freiheit vor allem die Möglichkeit zum Irrtum ist. Wahrheit entsteht bei Mill nicht durch Autorität, sondern durch offene Auseinandersetzung. Freiheit ist Experiment – ein Gedanke, der Berlins eigenen Wertpluralismus auf den Punkt bringt.
Zusammen gelesen, ergeben die vier Essays ein überzeugendes Ganzes. Berlin verteidigt keine „richtige“ Ordnung, sondern die Offenheit politischer Entscheidungen. Zu weit geht Berlin allerdings für mich, wenn er eine direkte Linie von Kants Aufforderung, den eigenen Verstand zu nutzen, über Hegels Annahme, man könne Wahrheit vernünftig erkennen und sie spiegele sich im Weltgeist der geschichtlichen Entwicklung, bis hin zu den Totalitarismen des 20. Jahrhunderts zieht.
Die Essays sind eloquent aber auch anspruchsvoll, verglichen mit manch anderen Philosophen aber sehr verständlich geschrieben. Unabhängig davon, wie man im Detail dazu steht, sind sie bedeutende philosophische Werke von anhaltender Bedeutung.
Rating: 5/5
Sprache gelesen: Deutsch
Gelesen im Jahr: 2026
November 15, 2024
A real mixed-bag. Some of the essays are great. The first two are good, especially the second one on Historical Inevitability. In fact, it should probably be on all freshman reading lists for Determinism or Pol. Sci. I found it rather jarring at times because of the Herculean effort Berlin goes to in offering charitable expositions; often I found myself confused thinking that he'd suddenly changed his mind, so well put forward were many of the positions with which he subsequently disposes- it really is a bit of a master class, in that respect.
The main attraction, Two Concepts of Liberty, was clearly the poor-relation to the preceding essays despite its greater fame.
I've marked my book with adhesive markers where green is something I think is correct, red is incorrect, blue is something interesting and yellow is something questionable. As I look at the profusion of colour that is erupting from the stegosaurus-like spine of my copy I note two things: firstly, that the book has a lot of stickers (this is a very good thing because it means it had something worthwhile to say) and, secondly, that there are many instances of blue and yellow (this too reinforces my sense that, whether I agree with him or not, there is real value to reading theses essays).
The only criticisms that I can come up with are that he has a tendency to repeat himself on occasion and that this can feel reinforced by the repetition between essays (which isn't his fault that they are published side-by-side). I would also note that while this is, in a sense, a work of Philosophy his orientation is typically one of the historian (of ideas). Naturally, in the essays we find Berlin providing historical analysis alongside observations on human nature, psychology and linguistics; yet, the tension that I personally found in the work consisted in bringing together facts of the aforementioned domains and unifying them into a coherent view of what reality is like. There were a number of occasions where he doesn't manage it or really dimissively shows that he's already made up his mind.
The question I tend to ask nowadays in judging a book is whether it makes me want to read anything else by the author. In this case I also have The Crooked Timber of Humanity staring at me accusingly from my to-read pile/mountain; and yet I can't say that I am much motivated to read it having read this book; but, on the other hand, I don't feel a strong enough disinclination to remove it from the pile. Perhaps that's because this book covers the fundamentals of his thought and that, ultimately, his brand of relativism neither resonates with me nor do I think it is self-referentially-coherent.
A final note is that the references both for Berlin's and other works is a real gold-mine.
The main attraction, Two Concepts of Liberty, was clearly the poor-relation to the preceding essays despite its greater fame.
I've marked my book with adhesive markers where green is something I think is correct, red is incorrect, blue is something interesting and yellow is something questionable. As I look at the profusion of colour that is erupting from the stegosaurus-like spine of my copy I note two things: firstly, that the book has a lot of stickers (this is a very good thing because it means it had something worthwhile to say) and, secondly, that there are many instances of blue and yellow (this too reinforces my sense that, whether I agree with him or not, there is real value to reading theses essays).
The only criticisms that I can come up with are that he has a tendency to repeat himself on occasion and that this can feel reinforced by the repetition between essays (which isn't his fault that they are published side-by-side). I would also note that while this is, in a sense, a work of Philosophy his orientation is typically one of the historian (of ideas). Naturally, in the essays we find Berlin providing historical analysis alongside observations on human nature, psychology and linguistics; yet, the tension that I personally found in the work consisted in bringing together facts of the aforementioned domains and unifying them into a coherent view of what reality is like. There were a number of occasions where he doesn't manage it or really dimissively shows that he's already made up his mind.
The question I tend to ask nowadays in judging a book is whether it makes me want to read anything else by the author. In this case I also have The Crooked Timber of Humanity staring at me accusingly from my to-read pile/mountain; and yet I can't say that I am much motivated to read it having read this book; but, on the other hand, I don't feel a strong enough disinclination to remove it from the pile. Perhaps that's because this book covers the fundamentals of his thought and that, ultimately, his brand of relativism neither resonates with me nor do I think it is self-referentially-coherent.
A final note is that the references both for Berlin's and other works is a real gold-mine.
May 29, 2024
I got to know this book from a Chinese book borrowed from our school library, and as there are eight, not five, essays in it, I may talk about them in two journals. As a modest student who is not proficient in philosophy, I must first state that my journal is my personal feelings and impressions.
One of the most striking features that impressed me is that Berlin discerned seeking or imposing conformity as an essential task of totalitarian societies. Berlin’s age called for more drastic conformity, valuing loyalties, and adherence to a party or an ideology more than anything else. It was such a sweeping trend that even those traditionally moderate states could not escape. I can find numerous pieces of evidence from 20th-century history to support this idea, and as clear as this idea is, it's continual in today’s world. It may sound silly or mushy, but sometimes I would sigh when reading the history of the 19th century.
Derived from this argument, Berlin believed that the capacity of choice made men human, which was put forward by J.S. Mill. In his analysis of Mill’s political thoughts, the freedom of choice was distinguished as the most important, illustrated in sentences like “by freedom he meant a condition in which men were not prevented from choosing both the object and the manner of their worship...only a society in which this condition was realised could be called fully human. Its realisation was...more precious than life itself”. Furthermore, Berlin explained in other essays that a man is free if his behaviors are not mechanical and are sprung from a motive he is aware of. This reminded me of “A Clockwise Orange”, whose theme includes pursuing freedom of choice.
In addition, to make a choice is also to undertake responsibilities. However, humans’ natural tendency to escape responsibilities may lead them to seek alibi. This, in turn, brings the argument that some unconscious force directs history and individual actions. But we should keep in mind that the diversity of humans and their mind contributes to the flourishing civilization and unstoppable progress.
One of the most striking features that impressed me is that Berlin discerned seeking or imposing conformity as an essential task of totalitarian societies. Berlin’s age called for more drastic conformity, valuing loyalties, and adherence to a party or an ideology more than anything else. It was such a sweeping trend that even those traditionally moderate states could not escape. I can find numerous pieces of evidence from 20th-century history to support this idea, and as clear as this idea is, it's continual in today’s world. It may sound silly or mushy, but sometimes I would sigh when reading the history of the 19th century.
Derived from this argument, Berlin believed that the capacity of choice made men human, which was put forward by J.S. Mill. In his analysis of Mill’s political thoughts, the freedom of choice was distinguished as the most important, illustrated in sentences like “by freedom he meant a condition in which men were not prevented from choosing both the object and the manner of their worship...only a society in which this condition was realised could be called fully human. Its realisation was...more precious than life itself”. Furthermore, Berlin explained in other essays that a man is free if his behaviors are not mechanical and are sprung from a motive he is aware of. This reminded me of “A Clockwise Orange”, whose theme includes pursuing freedom of choice.
In addition, to make a choice is also to undertake responsibilities. However, humans’ natural tendency to escape responsibilities may lead them to seek alibi. This, in turn, brings the argument that some unconscious force directs history and individual actions. But we should keep in mind that the diversity of humans and their mind contributes to the flourishing civilization and unstoppable progress.
January 20, 2025
I've only read the essay on Historical Necessity, but I'll definitely come back to the others. The book’s tongue-in-cheek humor makes it a surprisingly enjoyable read — it’s rare to find a philosophy text that can make me chuckle! I especially relish the way it takes jabs at Hegel. Berlin makes a direct critique of the empirical tendency to scientify life, the formulaic approach taken to measure to the precise even a dynamic field like history that has so many erratic variables at play; he reinforces the importance of individual agency, and the responsability that comes with it, since we can't just comfort ourselves that History is a force that we merely ride along with, unable to intervene, and our eschatological inheritance that it leads to some sort of finality, as if our desires are not established by us, and do not change according to contemporary values. Upon reading Hegel, I couldn't help but wonder (besides marveling at that guy's egocentrism, "all roads lead to Hegel's writing desk") if totalitarism isn't somehow, well, related to his philosophy... there are dangerous ideas at play, that we as "ordinary people" do not have a say, that there is something greater who would lead us to the goal of humanity, whatever that is, and whatever it takes. What is even more ironic was that Hegel said that the Geist would lead us to freedom! and then it actually lead, well, to the totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century. Berlin’s a refreshing reminder of something we often lack, even in intellectual circles: humility.
January 2, 2022
This is a good attempt to explain the liberty and discuss what type of liberty is good vs. harmful.
Two concepts of liberty:
1) Negative liberty (or the passive liberty in my eyes): protection of basic rights
2) Positive liberty: people wants to take the control of their lives, or self-master. This attitude of positive intervention is very likely to lead to societal disasters due to abusive of power in a top-down centralized planning way.
The author's argument of (2) is more like induction but not fully convincing reasoning. Admittedly, the conclusion echoes partly with the Road to Serfdom [My Review].
What the argument lacks is that it seems that there are good examples of positive liberty (e.g., humans use efforts and knowledge to bring new, good changes). Even the establishment of many modern democratic societies is by positive actions. Maybe the exact things to be cautious about are
- prevent the abuse of power (which leads to unleashed greedy desires); never force other people to follow what we think are correct (same as the government forcing something to the people)
=> Solid reasons:
(a) unleashed power will lead to disastrous abuse
(b) complex systems cannot be planned naively
(c) not everyone agrees on the same set of values
- never infringe the basic rights (as argued in the Road to Serfdom)
Two concepts of liberty:
1) Negative liberty (or the passive liberty in my eyes): protection of basic rights
2) Positive liberty: people wants to take the control of their lives, or self-master. This attitude of positive intervention is very likely to lead to societal disasters due to abusive of power in a top-down centralized planning way.
The author's argument of (2) is more like induction but not fully convincing reasoning. Admittedly, the conclusion echoes partly with the Road to Serfdom [My Review].
What the argument lacks is that it seems that there are good examples of positive liberty (e.g., humans use efforts and knowledge to bring new, good changes). Even the establishment of many modern democratic societies is by positive actions. Maybe the exact things to be cautious about are
- prevent the abuse of power (which leads to unleashed greedy desires); never force other people to follow what we think are correct (same as the government forcing something to the people)
=> Solid reasons:
(a) unleashed power will lead to disastrous abuse
(b) complex systems cannot be planned naively
(c) not everyone agrees on the same set of values
- never infringe the basic rights (as argued in the Road to Serfdom)
July 11, 2024
Equality of liberty is my favourite takeaway.
After positive and negative liberty (beeing free i'm a good margin or in a all negative choice enviorement. ) the construction of the different dimensions one can be free in or how the imposed range of choices molds each person to different sets of Freedom You get a better understanding of how to notice yourself and others and the comprehention of different life choices.
The essays are complete each on their own but the forth one applies reglion, goverment, culture, family and contextual experience of the person really good to make a new set of questions.
I would have loved it if the book had been written after the global rise of china, and the internet as well. In particular because thinking on the components for self realisation as a particular personal subject molded by what we think of as negative freedom.
Also the mention of the false status desire as a general contradiction of self realisation and sacrifice of individual as well as community Freedom was really Nice.
Utilitarism as a destructor of Freedom Made it a Nice read as well.
Would recommend.
Note. Academic philosophy made smooth thanks to the pedagogic style of the Oxford University edition.
After positive and negative liberty (beeing free i'm a good margin or in a all negative choice enviorement. ) the construction of the different dimensions one can be free in or how the imposed range of choices molds each person to different sets of Freedom You get a better understanding of how to notice yourself and others and the comprehention of different life choices.
The essays are complete each on their own but the forth one applies reglion, goverment, culture, family and contextual experience of the person really good to make a new set of questions.
I would have loved it if the book had been written after the global rise of china, and the internet as well. In particular because thinking on the components for self realisation as a particular personal subject molded by what we think of as negative freedom.
Also the mention of the false status desire as a general contradiction of self realisation and sacrifice of individual as well as community Freedom was really Nice.
Utilitarism as a destructor of Freedom Made it a Nice read as well.
Would recommend.
Note. Academic philosophy made smooth thanks to the pedagogic style of the Oxford University edition.
August 1, 2017
ماذا نعني بالانسان الحر ؟ يجادل إيزيا برلين حول مفاهيم الحرية وعلاقتها بالحتمية - فهل يمكن أن تكون تصرفات الانسان مرتبطة بمبدأ الحتمية ؟ لذا من وجهة نظر برلين يجب وضع حدود بين الحتمية والحرية وليس فقط حدود علمية بل يجب ضمان كثافة اخلاقية حتى يملك الانسان وعي كامل عن تصرفاته .
وهذا يفتح مفهوم آخر عن الحرية وتقسيمها لحرية ايجابية وسلبية
أتى مفهوم الحرية السلبية لدى برلين عندما تتقطاع حرية الانسان مع جبرية وسلطة الدولة تضييق الحرية البشرية مقابل مشاعر أخرى مثل الامن والعدل
بينما آتى مفهوم الحرية الايجابية نستيطع أن نلخص هذا الجزء من الكتاب حول مناقشة مفهوم الانسان سيد نفسه وعبد قراره .
الا ان مارشال كوهين وجيرالد مالكوم اعتبروا ان ايزيا تعامل بسطحية شديدة مع فمهوم الحرية وتقسيمها وان الامر ليس مجرد دراسة خارجية للآمر بل يجب ان تضم تجذر تاريخي فالحرية يجب دراستها من ثلاثة ابعاد وهي الفاعل والظروف المانعة وتحول الفاعل بسبب الظروف بينما ايزيا قام بدراسة الحرية من بعدين فقط .
ملحوظة الكتاب ممل جدًا ونوه عن هذا الامر في قصة إعداد الكتاب للنشر ولم يكن هناك مشاكل كثيرة في الترجمة فمشكور جدًا معين الامام على مجهوده
وهذا يفتح مفهوم آخر عن الحرية وتقسيمها لحرية ايجابية وسلبية
أتى مفهوم الحرية السلبية لدى برلين عندما تتقطاع حرية الانسان مع جبرية وسلطة الدولة تضييق الحرية البشرية مقابل مشاعر أخرى مثل الامن والعدل
بينما آتى مفهوم الحرية الايجابية نستيطع أن نلخص هذا الجزء من الكتاب حول مناقشة مفهوم الانسان سيد نفسه وعبد قراره .
الا ان مارشال كوهين وجيرالد مالكوم اعتبروا ان ايزيا تعامل بسطحية شديدة مع فمهوم الحرية وتقسيمها وان الامر ليس مجرد دراسة خارجية للآمر بل يجب ان تضم تجذر تاريخي فالحرية يجب دراستها من ثلاثة ابعاد وهي الفاعل والظروف المانعة وتحول الفاعل بسبب الظروف بينما ايزيا قام بدراسة الحرية من بعدين فقط .
ملحوظة الكتاب ممل جدًا ونوه عن هذا الامر في قصة إعداد الكتاب للنشر ولم يكن هناك مشاكل كثيرة في الترجمة فمشكور جدًا معين الامام على مجهوده
August 7, 2025
یک اثر ارزشمند برای فهم بیشتر مفهوم آزادیست، برای تمام کسانی که شعار آزادی میدهند بدون آنکه معنای واقعی آن را درک کرده باشند. کتاب حول محور اصل اراده و اختیار انسان میچرخد، نقدهایی در خصوص دیدگاههای جبرگرایانه و نگاه خطی به تاریخ که انسان را موجودی مجبور و تسلیم در برابر “نیروهای شگرف غیرشخصی” میپندارد مطرح میکند. آزادی خردگرایانه رو مورد بررسی و نقد قرار میدهد و محدودیتهایی که تحت عنوان ملی گرایی، برابری، عدالت، آزادی اجتماعی ، دموکراسی برای آزادی های فردی ایجاد میشود را مورد بحث قرار میدهد. بخش آخر به دیدگاههای جان استوارت میل در این خصوص و نقدهای وارد شده به او میپردازد.
“آنان که دست به انقلاب میزنند معمولا از آزادی جز آن نمیخواستند که پیروان آیین، طبقه یا گروه اجتماعی معینی قدرت را به دست گیرند. پیروزی انقلاب به زیان آنانی تمام میشود که از قدرت فروافتادند و آنانی که به پیروزی رسیدند شمار بسیاری از انسانها را به یوغ بردگی کشاندند”.
“آنان که دست به انقلاب میزنند معمولا از آزادی جز آن نمیخواستند که پیروان آیین، طبقه یا گروه اجتماعی معینی قدرت را به دست گیرند. پیروزی انقلاب به زیان آنانی تمام میشود که از قدرت فروافتادند و آنانی که به پیروزی رسیدند شمار بسیاری از انسانها را به یوغ بردگی کشاندند”.
October 13, 2024
Do I agree with everything written here? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Either way, I can't help rating this book so highly just for how forcefully and eloquently Berlin draws out some of the fundamental questions that have persisted through some 24 centuries of Western philosophy. Some writers have this kind of "no bullshit" style of exposition that is deserving of applause for the clarity which it brings to its chosen questions if not precisely the provided answers. At times I became concerned at Berlin's tendency to flatten the differences between myriad thinkers' ideas, and the nuances within each thinker's system, but those specific details are rather less important than the overall thrust of his argument. I'll be coming back to these texts in the future.
May 22, 2019
The last chapter cemented rating 4.
It is a quick essay about thoughts of the John Stuart Mill, not the biggest fan of the analyzing other works, more so, when you close the book with it, even furthermore, the best chapter was penultimate so the book reached its peek 60 pages before the ending.
What I did really like was a division of the liberties on the "positive" and "negative" didn't really have that categorizing before and kinda crystalize something for me.
An overall good book about liberty and supporting its cause.
It is a quick essay about thoughts of the John Stuart Mill, not the biggest fan of the analyzing other works, more so, when you close the book with it, even furthermore, the best chapter was penultimate so the book reached its peek 60 pages before the ending.
What I did really like was a division of the liberties on the "positive" and "negative" didn't really have that categorizing before and kinda crystalize something for me.
An overall good book about liberty and supporting its cause.
February 12, 2022
This is a must read in these times of disputed freedoms and liberties and balancing the rights of the individual vs the well-being of the masses. Covers a variety of perspectives, including a close examination of the 5Ws and comparative historical analysis. It gave me a clearer understanding of why we are where we are at as a society and why the struggles we are engaged in now are so important to the big picture. Hint: read the appendices, as they provide additional context, as well as clarity.
November 11, 2025
Leí solo dos de los ensayos: Las ideas políticas en el sXX y Dos conceptos de libertad. La crítica al monismo racionalista (iluminista), el elogio del pluralismo y la crítica al determinismo historicista (hegeliano y soviético) me parecen ideas fundamentales, tanto para el siglo pasado como para el presente, en que estamos amenazados por radicalismos de derecha e, irónicamente, liberales. Sin embargo, el estilo de redacción de Berlin -monológico, bordeando la corriente de la conciencia- hacen muy poco probable que llegue a leer los dos ensayos restantes.
September 12, 2019
Intelligent, cogent, and oppressively redundant in its efforts to establish unassailable logic. In other words, this is very much a philosophy book. Berlin would have me on board and engaged and then spend 10 more pages reiterating the same exact argument 20 more times in 20 subtly different ways.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 65 reviews