Pupils:
John (J),
Alexis (A),
David (D),
Viki (V),
Howard (H),
Ray (R)
Scribe:
Gavin (G)
Apologies:
Patricia (P),
Margie (M),
Colin (C)
The homework set
Moving on from our lively and productive discussion of Karl Popper, we decided to focus on another (relatively) contemporary philosopher, Isaiah Berlin, at our next meeting.
Isaiah Berlin was born in Latvia in 1909; his family moved to Russia and witnessed the Social Democratic and Bolshevik revolutions. In 1921 they moved to England where Isaiah had a classical education at St Paul's and Oxford. He published work across a wide range of philosophical areas, including reflections on the Romantic movement and how it differed from the preceding Enlightenment.
To prepare for our next meeting let's cast the net widely over Berlin's lifetime output, trying to capture the key themes, as we did successfully with Popper, and then focus a bit more on his views on Romanticism.
We hope that you're enjoying finding all about Isaiah Berlin and his work. The interview with Bryan Magee is certainly illuminating, and there are lots of other easy to access resources, including a shortYouTube video by Dr Laurie Johnson at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKeOQcfTCtM . Berlin's book Roots of Romanticism, an edited version of his extempore Mellon Lectures, is far from dry, reflecting his preference for communicating orally, nineteen to the dozen…you can sense his passion. He was apparently a very social, likeable man with a developed sense of humour, despite attending Arundel House prep school in Surbiton which was known for its harsh corporal punishment regime!
But his philosophical perspective can feel somewhat hard to pin down. In the Bryan Magee interview he appears something of a radical; keen to challenge established, common sense assumptions, whilst looking to establish creative bridges between conflicting philosophical traditions and ideologies. Maybe overall he saw his primary role as a philosopher as an elucidator; creating understanding of philosophical concepts to enable people to take actions, and the civic responsibility that goes with this. He was certainly not a dogmatist; he enjoyed challenge and debate.
A key focus of his work was his comparison of the Enlightenment and Romantic movements. He characterised the Enlightenment in terms of its claims to provide all the answers, by someone, sometime, somewhere, through the application of reason, rooted primarily in science and mathematics, but ultimately extendable to all areas of life, including ethics and politics. He compares this with the Romantic view that some questions are unanswerable in any universal sense. The notion that only you can decide; and having the responsibility to do that as a unique human being. Not delegating to others.
Berlin essentially challenges the broad Enlightenment assumption that the application of reason, based on induction in science, and deduction in mathematics/logic, can be extended to political philosophy, ethics and art. He draws the distinction between empirical and 'formal/absolute' questions.
He believed that the use of language is what differentiates humans from other beings and that this use of language still fails to provide answers to questions such as: 'What is the good?'. 'Should we pursue pleasure?' 'What is the difference between appearance and reality?'. Even: 'What is knowledge?' Can we ever have (Cartesian) 'clear and distinct ideas?
Obviously, clarification of terms can help, but can only go so far. He believed that ultimately it was up to the individual to work things out; and that philosophy has a key role in helping people do this, by clarifying the alternatives, and not, as Marx, and Plato, did, tell people how to live…
And so for Berlin the role of philosophy was primarily one of elucidation, shedding light…and for me this ambition is achieved in 'The Roots of Romanticism'. It is an example of how philosophy evolves by the development of different models based on growing knowledge of the nature of the human condition.
So Berlin is a great explainer. But is he more than this? He was recently described by Timothy Snyder, the American historian in his latest book, 'On Freedom', as the 'greatest liberal of the 20th century'. It could be argued that he took up a distinctive and helpful position on liberalism, as described in his Four Essays on Liberty, in which he distinguishes between 'freedom from' and 'freedom to', and adopts a position which in some ways supports the Hobbesian view and expresses concern about the consequences of unrestricted freedom. He also seeks creatively to reconcile the views of moral universalists and moral relativists.
In exploring his work, some new (to us) and thought-provoking philosophers have been discovered. For example, Johann Hamann, a Königsberg-based philosopher friend of Kant who could be described as a Romantic hardliner… well worth a look, as is Johann Herder who took a more nuanced approach. Kant himself adopts an interesting position: very Enlightenment on science, reflecting his cosmology background, but far more 'romantic' when it comes to his moral outlook, and his focus on the individual developing his own morals and acting on them, according to his version of the Golden Rule…
Some questions you may wish to ponder:
How does Berlin come across to you, both as a human being and as a philosopher? Is he more of a 'hedgehog' or a 'fox'. according to his definition, in his book ' The Hedgehog and the Fox'?
Any similarities with Popper—e.g. views on the dangers of utopianism?
Should what he reports re the views of the counter-Enlightenmentists make us more or less concerned about the development of AI?
What can we learn from the distinction he draws between negative and positive liberty/freedom?
Does he support cosmopolitanism or instead some sort of local 'belonging'? What about you?
Is the division drawn between the Enlightenment and the Romantic Movement unhelpful? Can one philosopher, e.g. Kant, maybe Rousseau, have a foot in both camps?
Is a thing just a thing…? Every thing is what it is…? Implications?
Introduction(S)
Berlin was passionate about debate, but he applied rigour to all he did, yet believed nothing is certain.
He was a great talker, humorous yet humble. (Humour enables issues to be explored in a more open way.)
He was a thoughtful liberal—progressive rather than libertarian.
He believed we should exercise our freedom to choose between multiple outcomes, even if all are expected to be tragic.
He was very similar to Popper in outlook.
He said that wars create a blasted heath, in which the perils of fascism, totalitarianism or communism could spread.
He rejected the theistic approach.
He believed that imposed utopias constituted a huge danger.
He thought the 20th century the worst century in human history.
Applying his own Fox and Hedgehog characterisations, he remained a fox but became a hedgehog focussed on preventing the spread of totalitarianism.
He applauded the achievements of maths and science, but deprecated the notion that the answers to all questions could co-exist in a single, consistent big picture. There is a danger in looking for clearcut answers, he believed, and doing so may miss what makes us human.
Berlin put emphasis on the process of philosophy as means of explaining ideas and cross-fertilisation.
He had some similarities in perspective to Kant, who began as a cosmologist, but in exploring morals and ethics was a Romantic.
He saw philosophy as a means of clarifying the alternatives that exist.
Discussion
Philosophy cannot provide certainty
In his own terms, Berlin was very much a fox. He defined positive and negative freedom. The readings inspired DR to look for the origins of Romanticism. Russell traced them back to Rousseau.(D)
One of the sources suggested that the Romantic movement had its roots in Germany after the Thirty Years War. Johann Herder suggested that it tapped into the internal spirit of man. Did Hitler draw on these threads? There was a contrast with French egalitarianism.(S)
Both Popper and Berlin lived through the Second World War and saw there were no easy answers to human problems.(A)
Popper was against ideology. Berlin was also against dogmatism. Philosophers don’t try to obtain the answer to philosophical questions. Normative theory in social sciences aims to set hard rules. For example, if applied to the methods used by Swedish farmers, the farmer would need all possible knowledge and data available to him.(R)
That is one of the strengths of Berlin: he hived off empiricism, then mathematics, then the rest. The role of philosopher, he said, is to get people to think about each issue again. We should abandoned the idea that if we keep working at philosophical problems, we will come up with the answer. the moral decision is down to you. It’s about the process.(V)
It’s the social contract. That enables a wide range of people to input their views.(L)
There's been a shift towards totalitarianism. People want certainty.(R)
Trump simplifies things.(D)
The biggest worry about voters in USA is the gender divide. Many men in the US seem to have an Andrew Tate mentality.(S)
It is said that militias will be on standby during the US election. There could be flare-ups on both sides.(H)
Vice-president hopeful JD Vance admits he lies to generate publicity, and says he will continue to do so.(L)
Both Democrats and Republicans seem to want a culture war resulting from the US election.(H)
Berlin was a little like Socrates, in that he didn’t like writing. They both asked many questions without providing answers.(G)
More people should be prepared to say "I cannot disagree with you more" and if necessary, get up and walk away.(V)
In the training to be an advisor, you are told that you must challenge extreme views.(A)
Use of Language
Berlin had so many languages at his disposal. We need to be observant of the words others use. For instance, when a region of Lebanon is described as a 'stronghold', that’s Israel’s language.(L)
We continue to use French expressions to describe some situations because we don't have as accurate an English word to do the job.(V)
Many words tap into a huge cultural history. That's why philosophers talk of εὐδαιμονία rather than happiness.(L)
Expressionism is one of the three aspects of Romanticism.(S)
SW was reminded of Robert Macfarlane.
Berlin considered himself a Russian Jew rather than an English philosopher.(S)
The 18C philosopher Joseph Butler remarked that 'Everything is what it is, and not another thing'. There is no one table.(S)
But there is a bulk of knowledge we can agree and rely on to get through each day to save time. Berlin said world needs a few philosophers[1], but many more carpenters, plumbers etc.(V)
Philosophy, Ethics and the Arts
In the past academia has tried to make the social sciences more scientific. Science needs philosophy to handle the moral and ethical aspects.(V)
As do cultures which destroy art they disagree with.(L)
Books are being censored by public libraries. Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin by Susanne Bösche (1981) was removed by some.
Young children can ask good philosophical questions. They are unaffected by social pressures.(S)
The more industrialised society becomes, the more mental health problems arise.(V)
In the past, most people read a reasonable newspaper. Now many people get their news from smartphones. It often doesn't give them a balanced viewpoint. RT is lucky if he can find a single programme he wants to watch on terrestrial TV.(R)
Consumption versus Saving versus Production
Making versus buying: there's a pride to be had in the process of knitting a jumper or picking one's own flowers.(V)
Life was hard in the past; people recognised the need to save. Now children don’t see need to save.(J)
In the past, saving was agreed to be a virtue. But for the past 30-40 years, we have been trained by the media to regard consumption as a virtue. So the poor feel aggrieved because they cannot participate in this virtue.(G)
Allotments give you a peaceful sense of continuity. It's like child-rearing.(J)
Other Topics Touched On
The quality of broadcasting on BBC4..
BBC News 24. The Context presented by Christian Fraser. Treated to an extended debate of three people.
Amol Rajan's interview with John Major.
The constraints on personal freedom in Norway and Switzerland compared to France and the UK.
Topics we could have discussed
There is a lot more material on Berlin that we haven’t yet touched on—for example, negative and positive liberty.(D)
