Customer Reviews

Four Essays on Liberty (Oxford Paperbacks)

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Agreed. Berlin's book is not the easiest in the world to read. But, then again, neither is Plato, or John Locke, or even Mill for that matter. He writes in a 19th century style, but one which, I think is beautiful and elegant. This is not a book to be devoured, but to be savored. Each word is carefully crafted. To me, Berlin is like diving into a pool of the english language, and just floating in ideas and language. And the ideas are wonderful. More than any other political philosopher, Berlin has diagnosed the problems, and the dangers, of modern social and political thinking. When he argues that those who advocate limits on liberty, in the name of justice, or equality, or another ideal, are in fact diminishing the amount of liberty in society as a whole it is hard not to agree with him. His analysis of the problems of modern philosophy and political thought is as acute. These are the ideas that I now find most compelling in this book. The essay of the two types of liberty is wonderful, as is the one on Historical Inevitability. But it is the essay on Political Ideas in the 20th Century that has become my favorite over the year, for the simple reason that he was incredibly prophetic. In the 19th century, Berlin argues, conservatives and liberal, even socialists, despite their differences agreed on the fundamental questions of politics; who should rule? What is the basis of authority? Why should I obey? What are the obligations and responsibilities of citizenship? In the 20th century, we no longer even consider the questions to be important, or relevant. All political problems have been reduced to either technical matters, of social or economic engineering, or are treated as psychological disorders, that need theraputic treatment. We accept the lost of liberty because we no longer think of it as important, as a question that needs solving. Problems like poverty, or equality, or a cleaner environment, which are suseptible of technical solutions. Anyone who worried about liberty in the face of all of these problems was, ipso facto, crazy, and a refusal to face reality. Hence, prozac or lithium is the prescribed course of treatment, to remove the source, or at least the feeling, of discontent. It is time to take another look at Berlin, not merely as a defender of liberty, but as an analyst of modern political and social thinking, and the dead ends to which it is leading us.

Do you dislike 20th century totalitarianism and the putrid odor which determinism and the "modern" social sciences have brought to the world? Do you wonder what ever happened to the spirit of J.S. Mill, James Madison and the other lovers of freedom? Do you hate the condescending attitude of "progressives" who would deign to make decisions from on high for the rest of us? - knowing better than we do, of course. If so, then the incredibly erudite and eloquent Sir Isaiah Berline is for you. Political pluralism need not give up the field to Marxists and determinists rampaging like vandals through the modern research university.

I read recently how in today's "advanced" scholarship Berlin only rehashes "ancient" arguments about free will. Well, if you are one of "those who value liberty for its own sake, believe that to be free to choose, and not to be chosen for, is an inalienable ingredient in what makes human beings human," then you want to make Berlin one of your intellectual supports and companions. Maybe we have more to learn from "ancients" like Berlin (still alive today in 1997) than the "modern scholars" who would dismiss him as out of date.

"One belief, more than any other, is responsible for the slaughter of individuals on the altars of the great ideas....This is the belief, that somewhere in the past or in the future, in divine revelation or in the mind of an individual thinker...there is a final solution."

Isaiah Berlin has been somewhat wrongly looked at simply as a historian of ideas. While he is that, this book is fertile with ideas, old, new, original and daring. What start out as four essays on liberty, turn out to reveal an astute world view. The one quoted above is taken from the third essay, his famous "Two Concepts of Liberty." In it he argues that the division between 'freedom from' and 'freedom to' is a subtle intertwine, more delicate than we often suppose. In the end, we must err on the side of 'freedom from' for one important reason; while the abscence of coercion might leave loose ends, by trying to tighten all loose ends, the rope loses all slack. Without the metaphor, by coercing others, we assume that our viewpoint is the only correct one and force others to live uniform to our ideas.

This is the theme that runs through all four essays. The first, "Political Ideas in the Twentieth Century" examines the failure of all the isms then en vogue; communism, fascism, socialism. Same idea. They preached of a graspable absolute truth that in the end, proved not so handleable. The second essay, "Historical Inevitability" tackles the problem at the root; the belief that our actions are determined and that free will is an illusion. Berlin, while not trying to disprove it (try, you can't do it!), exposes it as untenable. Every thought, action, word and concept we evoke is dependant upon belief in human autonomy. This essay is quite long and began to repeat itself a bit. Fight off the urge to skip through it. Very meaty!!

The last essay, "John Stuart Mill and the Ends of Life" is something of a recap of the ideas presented in the book. It is Berlins tribute and critique (Mill would've approved) of Mill, his philosophy and his life which unlike most philosophers, was lived in complete accordance with his views.

Great book. The only problems I had were the length of the second essay and Berlin's annoying habit of turning every sentence into a twenty-one lined, 12 comma, infinitive after split infinitive beast. Although his language is beautiful (a la Barzun), this was hard to get used to. HIs thoughts, though, are classic.

The four essays in this work are 1) Political Ideas in the Twentieth Century 2)Historical Inevitability 3) Two Concepts of Liberty 4) John Stuart Mill and the Ends of Life."

In the first essay Berlin laments the tendency of twentieth century thinking to deprive the great questions of their significance and substitute for them technical questions alone. In the second Berlin argues that the notion of historical inevitabity is untenable and that our everyday life and historical experience require a kind of liberty . In the third he makes his famous contrast between freedom from, and freedom to, or for. And in the last he explores the political thought of John Stuart Mill one of his great predecessors and through Mill's mirror develops some of his own ideas.

First and above all Berlin stands against the idea that there is a single system or idea an absolute which all Mankind should be coerced into obedience to. Berlin in his thinking points to the plurality of ends and values in life, and the contradictions between various systems of values. He is a liberal philosopher who connects the dignity of Mankind with this liberty from external coercion and oppression.

His writing is profound and yet somehow conversational and flowing .

This work contains the heart of the thought of one of the great political thinkers of our time.

Sample of Berlin at rhetorical heights -- If you like this you will like this book ---- "One belief, more than any other, is responsible for the slaughter of individuals on the altars of the great historical ideals -- justice or progress or the happiness of future generations, or the sacred mission of emancipation of a nation or race or class, or even liberty itself, which demands the sacrifice of individuals for the freedom of society. This is the belief that somewhere, in the past or in the future, in divine revelation or in the mind of an individual thinker, in the pronouncements of history or science, or in the simple heart of an uncorrupted good man, there is a final solution. This ancient faith rests on the conviction that all the positive values in which men have believed must, in the end, be compatible, and perhaps even entail one another. "Nature binds truth, happiness, and virtue together as by an indissoluble chain," said one of the best men who ever lived, and spoke in similar terms of liberty, equality, and justice. But is this true? It is a commonplace that neither political equality nor efficient organization nor social justice is compatible with more than a modicum of individual liberty, and certainly not with unrestricted laissez-faire; that justice and generosity, public and private loyalties, the demands of genius and the claims of society, can conflict violently with each other.

This is a book that reads easier if pre-read in condensed version (Cliff notes)

Note: For those who wish to pursue this type of issue in more detail --
1) J S Mill & the Utilitarians' 'greatest good / happiness / pleasure for greatest number' proposed a view more sympathetic to 'positive liberties' as freedom of opportunity. (in my opinion) Berlin's championing of negative liberty is probably a response to his time in history - a time when human rights abuses of totalitarian regimes, based upon Nazism & communism, were perpetrated in the name of 'the super-race' or 'the people' or 'classless societies.'

2) Mill & Utilitarians profoundly influenced American pragmatists,i.e., W James, J Dewey etc. American public education, as we know it today, is based upon Dewey's practical reform of curricula. This is an empirical science-based, practice-based, common-sense kind of curricula that Dewey believed befitted a democracy -- as opposed to antiquated, irrelevant British classical education based upon Greek & Roman classics.

Liberty is a very precious and rare quality of a living condition.

As I. Berlin states, `The periods and societies in which civil liberties were respected, and variety of opinion and faith tolerated, have been very few and far between, oases in the desert of human uniformity, intolerance and oppression.'

I. Berlin explains clearly that liberty has two faces: a positive and a negative one.

Positive liberty is the answer to the question: who controls? Am I my own master?

Negative liberty circumscribes the area wherein a third person can prevent anybody to make a free choice.

On these bases, a free society can be organized, with 1) absolute rights (not absolute powers) and 2) frontiers, defined in terms of rules, within which men should be inviolable.

For the author, freedom is not an end, but a means to create `room for personal ends', for happiness. He rightly criticizes E. Fromm: freedom is the opportunity to act, not action itself.

Philosophically, freedom has been ferociously contested by the determinists, the defenders of `historical inevitability' (Hegel, Marx, Bacon, Fourier, Comte). The author remarks judiciously that if the world is ruled by determinism, nobody is responsible: there is no free will, no morality, and no justice. Individual choice is an illusion. Determinism represents the world as a prison.

A more brutal kind of determinism is presented by those who believe that there is a final answer, a unique goal, a central principle that governs our life. This principle and its executioners provoked barbarous consequences.

Isaiah Berlin's reflections on liberty are profound and still very actual.

Not to be missed.

I won't review the four essays, except to state the obvious: They concern liberty, and what liberty entails. But that much one could ascertain from the title.

What the title does not reveal is how penetrating Berlin's analyses of the myriad subjects he comments on. His prose is exemplary, and his style endearing. Many learned people think Lionel Trilling, Erich Auerbach, Jacques Barzun, etc., are the men of letters for the 20th century reader. As enjoyable as many of these and other authors of the 20th century have been, I am amazed at how infrequently Berlin is listed among them. Yet, his mind is keener, his prose more mellifluous, and his ideas more interesting than almost anyone else of his Age.

Berlin is not a difficult read, but he is a challenging one. His weave of ideas and his elaborate critiques will require attention, but give him your attention, and he'll reward you plenteously. He is a genuine philosopher who deals with issues of the common man, not the nuances of linguistics; he is concerned with freedom, the life well-lived, and ideas that are important (not just fasionable). This collection of four essays is as good a place as any to introduce yourself to one of the 20th century's true giants of belle letters.

My professor said that Isaiah Berlin was as big in his circles as Elvis was in his. Berlin's thoughts are outstanding, but his writing is poor. A former editor of _The_New_Yorker_ said to Berlin, "I haven't understood a thing you've said, but if you have something to publish, I'll publish it."

It is unfortunate that such a 'great thinker' would put his ideas out of reach of the masses by making his work so difficult to read. If you want to read this book, or any of Sir Isaiah's work, give it a shot. Be warned, though, you'll have to read it very carefully about four times before you understand what he's trying to say. I would suggest finding a book that presents Berlin's ideas without the bulk of his words.