What do you think?
Rate this book
囟賱毓 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞 丕賱兀毓賵噩: 賮氐賵賱 賮賷 鬲丕乇賷禺 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇
The Crooked Timber of Humanity contains eight of Isaiah Berlin's deservedly influential essays in the history of ideas, all dealing with political thought in the 18th and 19th centuries. One of the essays, "Joseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism," is published here for the first time; this reevaluation of the Savoyard counterrevolutionary occupies almost a quarter of the book, and not a word is wasted.
Although written separately, these essays exhibit a common concern with what Berlin calls pluralism, the idea that there can be different, equally valid but mutually incompatible, conceptions of how to live. Whatever their disagreements, traditional writers on politics have implicitly assumed that there is one best way to live, whether it was in the static utopias of More and Harrington or in the dynamic dramas of Hegel and Marx. But in the 18th century, Vico and Herder embraced pluralism, thus inaugurating the historicist turn in political thought. Berlin adeptly pursues pluralism and its repercussions through history, connecting it to the decline of utopian ideas, the origins of fascism and nationalism, the rise of the discipline of cultural history, and much else.
As always, Berlin's prose is graceful and powerful, but what truly makes The Crooked Timber of Humanity exhilarating to read is the depth and power of his intellect. Berlin credits Vico with realizing that "to exercise their proper function, historians require the capacity for imaginative insight, without which the bones of the past remain dry and lifeless." It is a capacity that Berlin himself amply displays here. --Glenn Branch
299 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1990
166 people are currently reading
2,746 people want to read
About the author
Isaiah Berlin
186听books742听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 鈥� 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 鈥� 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 101 reviews
January 21, 2019
It was absurd to desire to take as prisoners the Emperor, kings, and dukes, since the possession of such prisoners would have greatly enhanced the difficulty of the Russian position, as was recognized by the most clear-sighted diplomatists of the time (J. Maistre and others).
L. Tolstoy, War and Peace
Maistre鈥檚 works are regarded as interesting rather than important, the last despairing effort of feudalism and the dark ages to resist the march of progress. He excites the sharpest reactions: scarcely any of his critics can repress their feelings. He is represented by conservatives as a brave but doomed paladin of a lost cause, by liberals as a foolish or odious survival of an older and more heartless generation. Both sides agree that his day is done, his world has no relevance to any contemporary or any future issue.
Isaiah Berlin
The first quote is from Part XIV, chapter XIX, the second from the longest essay (over 80 pages) in the book here reviewed: 鈥滼oseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism鈥�.
Maistre鈥檚 name is not terribly familiar any more. Given that, here鈥檚 a brief quote from his Wiki article.
The fact is, when I read the passage from War and Peace above, I immediately underlined Maistre鈥檚 name, and drew a long line from it to the bottom of the page, connecting it to a large circled asterisk, with that blob followed by one of these: 鈥�!鈥� Not only did I recognize his name from having read Crooked Timber, but I know for certain why I remembered it.
Berlin writes that Maistre 鈥渓ooked to the Society of Jesus to act as the elite of Platonic Guardians to save the states of Europe from the fashionable and fatal aberrations of his time. But the central figure in it all, the keystone of the arch on which the whole of society depends, is a far more frightening figure than king or priest or general: it is the Executioner. The most celebrated passage in [Maistre鈥檚] Soirees is devoted to him.鈥�
Berlin鈥檚 very long quote of this celebrated passage contains the following, which has thankfully never given me a nightmare, but has more than once kept me from sleep for a while.
As can be guessed by the title of this essay, Berlin attempts to show that the traditional assessment of Maistre, that 鈥渉is day is done, his world has no relevance to any contemporary or any future issue鈥�, is inadequate.
This painting by Vogelstein of Maistre, ca. 1810, seems to me to capture something of the darkness in his outlook.
Original review
This is one of those books that when you are done reading it, you say to yourself "If only I could remember every bit of knowledge & wisdom in that book, my life would be so enriched". Of course you can't.
Hopefully I will take the time during the next few years to dip into this book again and try writing an essay or a real review or a summary of some type. If I do, the first of Berlin's essays that I will revisit are "Alleged Relativism in Eighteenth-Century European Thought" and "The Apotheosis of the Romantic Will: The Revolt against the Myth of an Ideal World".
L. Tolstoy, War and Peace
Maistre鈥檚 works are regarded as interesting rather than important, the last despairing effort of feudalism and the dark ages to resist the march of progress. He excites the sharpest reactions: scarcely any of his critics can repress their feelings. He is represented by conservatives as a brave but doomed paladin of a lost cause, by liberals as a foolish or odious survival of an older and more heartless generation. Both sides agree that his day is done, his world has no relevance to any contemporary or any future issue.
Isaiah Berlin
The first quote is from Part XIV, chapter XIX, the second from the longest essay (over 80 pages) in the book here reviewed: 鈥滼oseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism鈥�.
Maistre鈥檚 name is not terribly familiar any more. Given that, here鈥檚 a brief quote from his Wiki article.
Joseph-Marie, comte de Maistre (1753 鈥� 1821) was a Savoyard philosopher, writer, lawyer, and diplomat. He defended hierarchical societies and a monarchical State in the period immediately following the French Revolution. Maistre was a subject of the King of Piedmont-Sardinia, whom he served as member of the Savoy Senate (1787鈥�1792), ambassador to Russia (1803鈥�1817), and minister of state to the court in Turin (1817鈥�1821).His long sojourn in Russia, during the Napoleonic years, could be assumed as the way he has crept into Tolstoy鈥檚 masterpiece; though Berlin points out several similarities of view between Maistre and Tolstoy, the latter of whom he studied in depth (see his ). I鈥檓 not going to discuss Berlin鈥檚 views of these similarities. But I have brought Tolstoy into this expanded review because I want to relate the rather curious way that I came to add these new words.
The fact is, when I read the passage from War and Peace above, I immediately underlined Maistre鈥檚 name, and drew a long line from it to the bottom of the page, connecting it to a large circled asterisk, with that blob followed by one of these: 鈥�!鈥� Not only did I recognize his name from having read Crooked Timber, but I know for certain why I remembered it.
Berlin writes that Maistre 鈥渓ooked to the Society of Jesus to act as the elite of Platonic Guardians to save the states of Europe from the fashionable and fatal aberrations of his time. But the central figure in it all, the keystone of the arch on which the whole of society depends, is a far more frightening figure than king or priest or general: it is the Executioner. The most celebrated passage in [Maistre鈥檚] Soirees is devoted to him.鈥�
Berlin鈥檚 very long quote of this celebrated passage contains the following, which has thankfully never given me a nightmare, but has more than once kept me from sleep for a while.
鈥� in a public square covered by a dense, trembling mob. A poisoner, a parricide, a man who has committed sacrilege is tossed to him [the Executioner]: he seizes him, stretches him, ties him to a horizontal cross, he raises his arm; there is a horrible silence; there is no sound but that of bones cracking under the bars, and the shrieks of the victim. He unties him. He puts him on the wheel; the shattered limbs are entangled in the spokes; the head hangs down; the hair stands up, and the mouth gaping open like a furnace from time to time emits only a few bloodstained words to beg for death. He has finished. His heart is beating, but it is with joy: he congratulates himself, he says in his heart 鈥楴obody breaks on the wheel as well as I.鈥� He steps down鈥� He sits down to table, and he eats. Then he goes to bed and sleeps.At the end of his more extensive quote of the passage, Berlin writes,
This is not a mere sadistic meditation about crime and punishment, but the expression of a genuine conviction, coherent with all the rest of Maistre鈥檚 passionate but lucid thought, that men can only be saved by being hemmed in by the terror of authority. They must be reminded at every instant of their lives of the frightening mystery that lies at the heart of creation; must be purged by perpetual suffering, must be humbled by being made conscious of their stupidity, malice and helplessness at every turn. War, torture, suffering are the inescapable human lot; men must bear them as best they can. Their appointed masters must do the duty laid upon them by their maker (who has made nature a hierarchical order) by the ruthless imposition of the rules 鈥� not sparing themselves 鈥� and equally ruthless extermination of the enemy.
As can be guessed by the title of this essay, Berlin attempts to show that the traditional assessment of Maistre, that 鈥渉is day is done, his world has no relevance to any contemporary or any future issue鈥�, is inadequate.
Maistre may have spoken the language of the past, but the content of what he had to say presaged the future鈥� His doctrine, and still more his attitude of mind, had to wait a century before they came (as come they all too fatally did) into their own. This thesis 鈥� clearly needs evidence 鈥� This study is an endeavor to provide support for it.鈥� to provide support, that is, for the view that Maistre鈥檚 works and thoughts are closely connected to the development of fascism in the twentieth century.
This painting by Vogelstein of Maistre, ca. 1810, seems to me to capture something of the darkness in his outlook.
Original review
This is one of those books that when you are done reading it, you say to yourself "If only I could remember every bit of knowledge & wisdom in that book, my life would be so enriched". Of course you can't.
Hopefully I will take the time during the next few years to dip into this book again and try writing an essay or a real review or a summary of some type. If I do, the first of Berlin's essays that I will revisit are "Alleged Relativism in Eighteenth-Century European Thought" and "The Apotheosis of the Romantic Will: The Revolt against the Myth of an Ideal World".
May 14, 2023
Lemnul str芒mb al omenirii a fost cea mai complex膬 carte pe care am citit-o anul 膬sta. Pentru a-i putea extrage esen葲a nu se poate citi dec芒t cu o lentoare prin pagini aproape sisific膬. M-am 卯ntors de multe ori asupra pasajelor sau am recitit capitole 卯ntregi, astfel am putut 卯n葲elege mai bine nuan葲ele ideologice, diferendele 葯colilor de g芒ndire, dihotomiile filosofilor sau aporiile iscate. 脦n mod cert nu e o lectur膬 de relaxare. A葯 spune 卯n acela葯i timp c膬 e superioar膬 unei asemenea literaturi, compens芒nd prin satisfac葲ia cunoa葯terii. Isaiah Berlin reu葯e葯te s膬 pun膬 o lumin膬 mai bun膬 asupra istoriei ideilor care au stat la baza transform膬rilor culturale, sociale 葯i economice de-a lungul secolelor, dar mai cu seam膬, structureaz膬 prin erudi葲ia sa - cu adev膬rat fascinant膬- o 卯ntreag膬 schel膬rie, pornind de la primele schi葲e despre societ膬葲ile utopice, p芒n膬 la concretizarea lor 卯n state totalitare.
Pentru a 卯n葲elege conceptele primelor utopii nu se poate 卯ncepe dec芒t 卯n Grecia Antic膬, unde a existat o perioad膬 卯n care filosofii au scris numeroase opere care au avut la baz膬 structura unor astfel de state. 脦ns膬, 卯n antichitatea greac膬, se dezvoltase o puternic膬 credin葲膬 c膬 existase o astfel de lume, o epoc膬 de aur, a societ膬葲ilor care atinseser膬 idealul c芒ndva. Platon vorbe葯te despre Atlantida, iar Vergiliu, 卯n Eneida, descrie Saturnia Regna.
A urmat apoi o alt膬 epoc膬, 卯n care dec膬derea lor a fost din ce 卯n ce mai crunt膬, p芒n膬 卯n prezentul considerat o r膬m膬葯i葲膬 卯ndep膬rtat膬 a ceea ce fusese 卯n trecut. Astfel idea葲ia filosofilor se concentreaz膬 asupra 卯ntoarcerii 卯n paradisul pierdut.
C芒teva exemple de opere utopice 卯ncep芒nd cu cea mai cunoscut膬, ar fi:
鈥epublica lui Platon.
鈥topia lui Euhemeros
鈥topiile satirice ale lui Aristofan.
鈥� Societatea egalitarist膬 a lui Iambulos.
Stoicul Zenon, descris ca primul anarhist utopist, considera c膬 dac膬 oamenii sunt ra葲ionali nu au nevoie de stat sau bani, cur葲i judec膬tore葯ti ori alt膬 form膬 de control. "脦n societatea perfect膬, b膬rba葲ii 葯i femeile vor purta haine identice 葯i se vor hr膬ni de pe aceea葯i p膬葯une dup膬 o lege comun膬 ".
Ceva mai t芒rziu, 卯n perioada roman膬, operele s-au 卯mpu葲inat, disp膬r芒nd aproape complet din imagina葲ia 卯n葲elep葲ilor odat膬 cu ascensiunea cre葯tinismului 葯i viziunea diferit膬 despre om 葯i societate, 葯i anume, c膬 omul nu poate atinge perfec葲iunea 卯n aceast膬 lume. Tr膬ise, de asemenea 卯ntr-un rai pierdut, descris mai 卯nainte de filosofii greci, dar cunoa葯terea p膬catului l-a f膬cut pe om s膬 se pr膬bu葯easc膬 卯n starea sa mizerabil膬.
Din r膬m膬葯i葲ele acestei lumi perfecte, distruse de prostia omului, l膬comie sau neglijen葲膬, tema central膬 a filosofiei europene va fi aceea葯i recompunere a st膬rii umane pierdute c芒ndva.
脦n Rena葯tere operele utopiilor filosofilor greci au fost redescoperite, dar mai presus, au fost considerate ca un adev膬r ascuns timp de at芒tea secole. Va urma o perioad膬 卯n care operele utopice vor suferi timp de secole transform膬ri din ce 卯n ce mai solide 葯i aduse 卯n concret.
Istoria ideilor aflate 卯n funda葲ia sistemelor totalitare ar fi incomplet膬 f膬r膬 a-l aminti pe Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821). A fost un filosof reac葲ionar, care a stat 卯mpotriva ra葲ionali葯tilor ca unul dintre ultimele bastioane ale unei lumi aflate 卯n schimbare. Cei doi piloni ideologici ai s膬i au avut bazele 卯n monarhie 葯i catolicism. 脦i desconsidera pe naturali葯ti, fiind de p膬rere c膬 oamenii trebuie constr芒n葯i prin autoritate 葯i disciplin膬. Sus葲inea r膬spicat c膬 maselor nu trebuie s膬 li se dea dreptul la autoguvernare. Oamenilor de r芒nd nu le poate fi 卯ncuviin葲at膬 cunoa葯terea, c膬ci, pe l芒ng膬 c膬 nu sunt capabili de a g芒ndi liber, mai important, vor folosi gre葯it puterea dob芒ndit膬 din aceasta.
Ideile lui, refractare unei epoci 卯nnoitoare, cea a Iluminismului, vor intra 卯n conflict cu g芒nditorii vremii, pe care 卯i dispre葲uia sincer; acei filosofi care aveau idealul comun de a scoate omul din bezna g芒ndirii, ce-i guverna mintea.
脦n epoc膬 descoperirile din domeniul 葯tiin葲elor au pus 卯ntr-o ordine 卯n葲elegerea asupra materiei. Apoi, 卯ndeosebi filosofii naturali葯ti, s-au 卯ntrebat dac膬 nu s-ar putea aplica o asemenea 葯tiin葲膬 葯i asupra omului pentru a-l scoate din barbarie 葯i supersti葲ii 葯i a-l a葯eza, studiat 葯i catalogat pe m膬sur膬, acolo unde 卯i este locul, 卯ntr-o ierarhie analizat膬 minu葲ios prin disciplinele ce se dezvoltau tot mai mult.
Astfel, dou膬 lumi, una 卯n schimbare 葯i alta 卯nr膬dacinat膬 卯ntr-o veche certitudine, se vor ciocni inevitabil.
Jacques-Benigne Bossuet spunea la r芒ndul s膬u c膬 dac膬 oamenii refuz膬 s膬 recunoasc膬 autoritatea legitim膬, cea 卯n monarhie 葯i biseric膬, atunci ei vor c膬dea 卯n cea mai rea tiranie dintre toate, cea a poporului. De aceea葯i p膬rere era 葯i Maistre care scria:
"葰es膬tura social膬 葲ine doar 卯ntruc芒t oamenii 卯葯i recunosc superiorii, se supun pentru c膬 simt o autoritate fireasc膬, pe care nici o filosofie ra葲ionalist膬 nu o poate 卯ndep膬rta. Nu poate exista societate f膬r膬 stat, nici un stat f膬r膬 suveranitate."
De altfel, considera democra葲ia ca fiind a celor slabi, libert膬葲ile umane, f膬r膬 sens, iar drepturile omului absurde; 卯n opinia sa ele trebuiau r膬mase nescrise, "intuite doar metafizic, c膬ci oricine tr膬ie葯te potrivit unui text este sl膬bit de acesta".
Numai istoria poate r膬m芒ne singura "politic膬 experimental膬", pe care omul o cuno葯te suficient de bine, cu drepturile divine acordate monarhului, prin domnia lui autoritar膬, care 卯葯i exercit膬 asupra supu葯ilor puterea astfel primit膬. Ea, puterea, trebuie 卯nnobilat膬 numai de Biserica Romei, singura menit膬 a fi stabil膬 葯i dreapt膬, aparte de abominabilul protestantism care a adus scind膬ri, reforme 葯i revolte 卯n s芒nul ei.
Maistre conchidea c膬 " Ludovic XIV a st芒rpit protestantismul 葯i a murit 卯n patul lui, b膬tr芒n 葯i 卯ncununat de glorie. Ludovic XVI a m芒ng芒iat protestantismul pe cap 葯i a murit pe e葯afod".
A locuit cinsprezece ani 卯n Rusia, ca ambasador, unde observa葲iile cu privire la autocra葲ie, ortodoxism 葯i na葲ionalitate au fost 卯nglobate 卯n sistemul de 卯nv膬葲膬m芒nt de c膬tre Contele Uvarov, iar iob膬giei 卯i revenea p膬strarea la locul s膬u 卯n tabloul statal.
"Dac膬 ne trece prin minte s膬 eliber膬m treizeci 艧i 葯ase de milioane de astfel de oameni, 葯i o facem - nu putem insista 卯ndeajuns asupra acestui fapt -, 卯ntr-o clip膬 va izbucni un r膬zboi total,
卯n care Rusia va fi nimicit膬."
Elocvent 卯n exprim膬ri a intuit bine pericolul intelighen葲iei a c膬rei influen葲膬 se va abate la mai bine de un secol distan葲膬 asupra vechii 葯i sl膬bitei or芒nduiri 葲ariste. Din aceast膬 cauz膬, prev膬z膬tor, milita pentru o 卯ncetinire a implement膬rii 葯tiin葲elor 卯n Rusia, care se dezoltau cu av芒nt 卯n Occident.
"Dac膬 ru葯ii, care au o anumit膬 tendin葲膬 de a face orice 卯n glum膬 (nu vreau s膬 spun prin asta c膬 fac glume despre orice), se vor juca 葯i ei cu acest 葯arpe, nici un popor nu va fi mu艧cat mai crud."
Filosofia sa despre societate 葯i politic膬 ocup膬 o parte 卯nsemnat膬 din con葲inutul c膬r葲ii. Sunt deopotriv膬 idei reac葲ionare, dar 葯i fascinante, bine卯n葲eles, v膬zute prin lentilele epocii. Reminiscen葲ele filosofiei lui Maistre, simbiotic unite curentelor ce vor urma, dar mai cu seam膬 romantismului german, vor b膬t膬tori calea c膬tre fascismul ap膬rut la un secol dup膬 moartea sa. Mai mult de at芒t, vor sta la baza tuturor formelor de guvernare totalitare ale secolului XX. Joseph de Maistre a fost un om de geniu, descris ca bl芒nd 葯i de o considerabil膬 elocven葲膬, dar 葯i un reac葲ionar violent, 卯ndeosebi prin scrierile sale, 卯mpotriva unei noi epoci ce 卯葯i insinua ra葲iunea, 葯tiin葲ele 葯i ateismul tot mai puternice prin mijlocirea filosofilor vremii.
A ap膬rat de multe ori dogmatic g芒ndirea ira葲ional膬, natura uman膬 brutal膬 葯i nedreapt膬 卯n care credea, sus葲inea frenetic inalterabilul drept divin care guverna lumea dup膬 principii ne卯mp膬rta葯ite omului de r芒nd. A fost 卯ns膬 un observator lucid 葯i a prev膬zut pericolele ce se abateau 卯n zorii noii epoci, un r膬s膬rit ce lumina drumul totalitarismelor 卯n diversele lor forme.
"Mor odat膬 cu Europa, sunt 卯n bun膬 companie"; scria cu doi ani 卯nainte de moartea sa. Cu siguran葲膬 observa 葯i 卯ntrist膬toarea moarte a lui Dumnezeu, dar poate c膬 n-a 卯ndr膬znit s-o spun膬 primul 葯i, cu siguran葲膬, nu 卯ntr-o manier膬 blasfematoare pentru un catolic 卯nveterat.
Isaiah Berlin scrie mai apoi, 卯ntr-un alt capitol: "aceste iluzii sunt, ele 卯nsele, produsul secundar, inevitabil al cramponarii de o ordine pe care istoria a condamnat-o".
Isaiah Berlin identific膬 bine 葯i resorturile care ac葲ioneaz膬 asupra societ膬葲ilor 卯n momentele c芒nd ra葲ionalismul dep膬葯e葯te un anumit prag, imperceptibil con葯tientului. Spune c膬 "tinde s膬 apar膬 un soi de rezisten葲膬 emo葲ional膬, o reac葲ie ostil膬, care izvor膬葯te din ce e ira葲ional 卯n om". Unul dintre exemple este Grecia secolelor IV 葯i III c芒nd 葯colile socratice au produs sistemele ra葲ionaliste.
"Rareori altc芒ndva, ne spun istoricii cultelor grece葯ti, au 卯nflorit at芒t de bogat religiile, misteriile, ocultismul, ira葲ionalismul, misticismele de orice fel."
"脦n Evul Mediu T芒rziu a existat, 卯n mod similar, o reac葲ie la marile construc葲ii logice ale scolasticilor. Ceva nu foarte diferit a survenit 卯n timpul Reformei; 葯i 卯n sf芒r葯it, 卯n urma triumfurilor spiritului 葯tiin葲ific 卯n Occident, o contrami葯care puternic膬 a ap膬rut 卯n urm膬 cu dou膬 secole".
Deseori 卯n istorie popoarele considerate 卯napoiate au dezvoltat o rezisten葲膬 cultural膬 din m芒ndrii na葲ionale. Romantismul german s-a n膬scut ca un astfel de contra-curent al Iluminismului, reactiv acelor filosofi francezi 卯nfumura葲i, cu ra葲ionalismul 葯i materialismul lor.
Curentele romantice promovau printre altele suferin葲a, eroismul sau chiar martiriul, ocultul 葯i misticul cu accentele sale 卯n ira葲ionalismul ce amintesc de Maistre. Vor contura dihotomiile ulterioare 葯i crea noi ramuri 卯n g芒ndirea european膬.
Sistemul filosofic creat de Karl Marx comport膬 卯ns膬 at芒t influen葲e din Iluminismul Francez, Romantismul German, dar 葯i din Socialismul Utopic teoretizat de Henri de Saint Simon 葯i Charles Fourier. Cele dou膬 curente vor duce la na葲ionalism, populism, militarism 葯i socialismul egalitar; drumul statelor absolutiste n-a mai fost dec芒t unul normal, culmin芒nd cu r膬zboaiele ce vor m膬tura continentul.
O concluzie personal膬.
Filosofia a 卯nnobilat g芒ndirea 葯i a conturat cu greu drumul c膬tre ra葲iune, dar cu c芒t citesc mai mult despre ideile 葯i diferendele 葯colilor de g芒ndire de-a lungul secolelor, cu at芒t realizez c膬 ciocnirea dintre aceste structuri ideatice, pe l芒ng膬 progresul evident, las膬 unele cratere la grani葲a impactului dintre ele. Mai mult de at芒t, sunt intrinsec incomplete 葯i dispun de nervuri firave, de intersti葲ii prin care se pot insinua cangrenele 卯n葲elegerilor eronate ori ale interpret膬rilor r膬uvoitoare.
葮i, de葯i e posibil ca un anumit sistem filosofic s膬 nu fie nociv per se, el poate deveni periculos prin 卯ns膬葯i umplerea acelor goluri din pu葲in膬tatea min葲ilor sau din mali葲iozitatea 葯i voin葲a de putere a celor ce preiau precar sau dogmatic principiile de baz膬. Aceste caren葲e arat膬 limitele oric膬rei filosofii 葯i imperfec葲iunile min葲ii umane, dac膬 mai era nevoie de 卯nc膬 o banal膬 aser葲iune pe aceast膬 tem膬.
G芒nditorii nu de pu葲ine ori s-au 卯ndr膬gostit de ideile 卯n care au crezut. De aici a葯 remarca sus葲inerea cu fervoare sau indiferen葲a cinic膬 a unor intelectuali de seam膬 卯n fa葲a hitlerismului, leninismului, stalinsimului, maoismului, ba chiar a pol potismului. Au conceput sacrificiul uman ca o purificare a lumii lor ideale, o lume 卯n care credeau mai mult dec芒t 卯n mizeria 葯i durerile le concrete, din moment ce nu erau suferin葲ele lor. E cert c膬 structurile societale perfecte nu pot fi dec芒t ni葯te himere. O societate care a atins idealul nu mai poate fi una a dezvolt膬rii, este edenul pe p膬m芒nt, plin膬 de pace 葯i prosperitate. O astfel de societate a atins finalitatea. Isaiah Berlin o descrie ca fiind static膬. Din moment ce e des膬v芒r葯it膬, nimic nu se mai transform膬, nu mai e nevoie de 卯nnoire 葯i schimbare.
脦ns膬 o asemenea lume aduce o l芒ncezire a fizicului, spiritului 葯i min葲ii. Cunosc芒nd natura uman膬, nu poate fi dec芒t o c膬dere 卯n ludic 葯i ira葲ional, sau 卯n abisul altor state hiper-militarizate.
Ce poate fi mai 卯nfior膬tor? Coeziunea firav膬 nu se poate destructura dec芒t 卯ntr-o nou膬 dezordine social膬, menit膬 s膬 creeze 葯i mai mult膬 entropie 卯n paradisul ob葲inut, o dezordine a min葲ii sau haosul r膬zboiului, tocmai pentru c膬 "din lemnul str芒mb al omenirii n-a ie葯it niciodat膬 ceva drept."
Pentru a 卯n葲elege conceptele primelor utopii nu se poate 卯ncepe dec芒t 卯n Grecia Antic膬, unde a existat o perioad膬 卯n care filosofii au scris numeroase opere care au avut la baz膬 structura unor astfel de state. 脦ns膬, 卯n antichitatea greac膬, se dezvoltase o puternic膬 credin葲膬 c膬 existase o astfel de lume, o epoc膬 de aur, a societ膬葲ilor care atinseser膬 idealul c芒ndva. Platon vorbe葯te despre Atlantida, iar Vergiliu, 卯n Eneida, descrie Saturnia Regna.
A urmat apoi o alt膬 epoc膬, 卯n care dec膬derea lor a fost din ce 卯n ce mai crunt膬, p芒n膬 卯n prezentul considerat o r膬m膬葯i葲膬 卯ndep膬rtat膬 a ceea ce fusese 卯n trecut. Astfel idea葲ia filosofilor se concentreaz膬 asupra 卯ntoarcerii 卯n paradisul pierdut.
C芒teva exemple de opere utopice 卯ncep芒nd cu cea mai cunoscut膬, ar fi:
鈥epublica lui Platon.
鈥topia lui Euhemeros
鈥topiile satirice ale lui Aristofan.
鈥� Societatea egalitarist膬 a lui Iambulos.
Stoicul Zenon, descris ca primul anarhist utopist, considera c膬 dac膬 oamenii sunt ra葲ionali nu au nevoie de stat sau bani, cur葲i judec膬tore葯ti ori alt膬 form膬 de control. "脦n societatea perfect膬, b膬rba葲ii 葯i femeile vor purta haine identice 葯i se vor hr膬ni de pe aceea葯i p膬葯une dup膬 o lege comun膬 ".
Ceva mai t芒rziu, 卯n perioada roman膬, operele s-au 卯mpu葲inat, disp膬r芒nd aproape complet din imagina葲ia 卯n葲elep葲ilor odat膬 cu ascensiunea cre葯tinismului 葯i viziunea diferit膬 despre om 葯i societate, 葯i anume, c膬 omul nu poate atinge perfec葲iunea 卯n aceast膬 lume. Tr膬ise, de asemenea 卯ntr-un rai pierdut, descris mai 卯nainte de filosofii greci, dar cunoa葯terea p膬catului l-a f膬cut pe om s膬 se pr膬bu葯easc膬 卯n starea sa mizerabil膬.
Din r膬m膬葯i葲ele acestei lumi perfecte, distruse de prostia omului, l膬comie sau neglijen葲膬, tema central膬 a filosofiei europene va fi aceea葯i recompunere a st膬rii umane pierdute c芒ndva.
脦n Rena葯tere operele utopiilor filosofilor greci au fost redescoperite, dar mai presus, au fost considerate ca un adev膬r ascuns timp de at芒tea secole. Va urma o perioad膬 卯n care operele utopice vor suferi timp de secole transform膬ri din ce 卯n ce mai solide 葯i aduse 卯n concret.
Istoria ideilor aflate 卯n funda葲ia sistemelor totalitare ar fi incomplet膬 f膬r膬 a-l aminti pe Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821). A fost un filosof reac葲ionar, care a stat 卯mpotriva ra葲ionali葯tilor ca unul dintre ultimele bastioane ale unei lumi aflate 卯n schimbare. Cei doi piloni ideologici ai s膬i au avut bazele 卯n monarhie 葯i catolicism. 脦i desconsidera pe naturali葯ti, fiind de p膬rere c膬 oamenii trebuie constr芒n葯i prin autoritate 葯i disciplin膬. Sus葲inea r膬spicat c膬 maselor nu trebuie s膬 li se dea dreptul la autoguvernare. Oamenilor de r芒nd nu le poate fi 卯ncuviin葲at膬 cunoa葯terea, c膬ci, pe l芒ng膬 c膬 nu sunt capabili de a g芒ndi liber, mai important, vor folosi gre葯it puterea dob芒ndit膬 din aceasta.
Ideile lui, refractare unei epoci 卯nnoitoare, cea a Iluminismului, vor intra 卯n conflict cu g芒nditorii vremii, pe care 卯i dispre葲uia sincer; acei filosofi care aveau idealul comun de a scoate omul din bezna g芒ndirii, ce-i guverna mintea.
脦n epoc膬 descoperirile din domeniul 葯tiin葲elor au pus 卯ntr-o ordine 卯n葲elegerea asupra materiei. Apoi, 卯ndeosebi filosofii naturali葯ti, s-au 卯ntrebat dac膬 nu s-ar putea aplica o asemenea 葯tiin葲膬 葯i asupra omului pentru a-l scoate din barbarie 葯i supersti葲ii 葯i a-l a葯eza, studiat 葯i catalogat pe m膬sur膬, acolo unde 卯i este locul, 卯ntr-o ierarhie analizat膬 minu葲ios prin disciplinele ce se dezvoltau tot mai mult.
Astfel, dou膬 lumi, una 卯n schimbare 葯i alta 卯nr膬dacinat膬 卯ntr-o veche certitudine, se vor ciocni inevitabil.
Jacques-Benigne Bossuet spunea la r芒ndul s膬u c膬 dac膬 oamenii refuz膬 s膬 recunoasc膬 autoritatea legitim膬, cea 卯n monarhie 葯i biseric膬, atunci ei vor c膬dea 卯n cea mai rea tiranie dintre toate, cea a poporului. De aceea葯i p膬rere era 葯i Maistre care scria:
"葰es膬tura social膬 葲ine doar 卯ntruc芒t oamenii 卯葯i recunosc superiorii, se supun pentru c膬 simt o autoritate fireasc膬, pe care nici o filosofie ra葲ionalist膬 nu o poate 卯ndep膬rta. Nu poate exista societate f膬r膬 stat, nici un stat f膬r膬 suveranitate."
De altfel, considera democra葲ia ca fiind a celor slabi, libert膬葲ile umane, f膬r膬 sens, iar drepturile omului absurde; 卯n opinia sa ele trebuiau r膬mase nescrise, "intuite doar metafizic, c膬ci oricine tr膬ie葯te potrivit unui text este sl膬bit de acesta".
Numai istoria poate r膬m芒ne singura "politic膬 experimental膬", pe care omul o cuno葯te suficient de bine, cu drepturile divine acordate monarhului, prin domnia lui autoritar膬, care 卯葯i exercit膬 asupra supu葯ilor puterea astfel primit膬. Ea, puterea, trebuie 卯nnobilat膬 numai de Biserica Romei, singura menit膬 a fi stabil膬 葯i dreapt膬, aparte de abominabilul protestantism care a adus scind膬ri, reforme 葯i revolte 卯n s芒nul ei.
Maistre conchidea c膬 " Ludovic XIV a st芒rpit protestantismul 葯i a murit 卯n patul lui, b膬tr芒n 葯i 卯ncununat de glorie. Ludovic XVI a m芒ng芒iat protestantismul pe cap 葯i a murit pe e葯afod".
A locuit cinsprezece ani 卯n Rusia, ca ambasador, unde observa葲iile cu privire la autocra葲ie, ortodoxism 葯i na葲ionalitate au fost 卯nglobate 卯n sistemul de 卯nv膬葲膬m芒nt de c膬tre Contele Uvarov, iar iob膬giei 卯i revenea p膬strarea la locul s膬u 卯n tabloul statal.
"Dac膬 ne trece prin minte s膬 eliber膬m treizeci 艧i 葯ase de milioane de astfel de oameni, 葯i o facem - nu putem insista 卯ndeajuns asupra acestui fapt -, 卯ntr-o clip膬 va izbucni un r膬zboi total,
卯n care Rusia va fi nimicit膬."
Elocvent 卯n exprim膬ri a intuit bine pericolul intelighen葲iei a c膬rei influen葲膬 se va abate la mai bine de un secol distan葲膬 asupra vechii 葯i sl膬bitei or芒nduiri 葲ariste. Din aceast膬 cauz膬, prev膬z膬tor, milita pentru o 卯ncetinire a implement膬rii 葯tiin葲elor 卯n Rusia, care se dezoltau cu av芒nt 卯n Occident.
"Dac膬 ru葯ii, care au o anumit膬 tendin葲膬 de a face orice 卯n glum膬 (nu vreau s膬 spun prin asta c膬 fac glume despre orice), se vor juca 葯i ei cu acest 葯arpe, nici un popor nu va fi mu艧cat mai crud."
Filosofia sa despre societate 葯i politic膬 ocup膬 o parte 卯nsemnat膬 din con葲inutul c膬r葲ii. Sunt deopotriv膬 idei reac葲ionare, dar 葯i fascinante, bine卯n葲eles, v膬zute prin lentilele epocii. Reminiscen葲ele filosofiei lui Maistre, simbiotic unite curentelor ce vor urma, dar mai cu seam膬 romantismului german, vor b膬t膬tori calea c膬tre fascismul ap膬rut la un secol dup膬 moartea sa. Mai mult de at芒t, vor sta la baza tuturor formelor de guvernare totalitare ale secolului XX. Joseph de Maistre a fost un om de geniu, descris ca bl芒nd 葯i de o considerabil膬 elocven葲膬, dar 葯i un reac葲ionar violent, 卯ndeosebi prin scrierile sale, 卯mpotriva unei noi epoci ce 卯葯i insinua ra葲iunea, 葯tiin葲ele 葯i ateismul tot mai puternice prin mijlocirea filosofilor vremii.
A ap膬rat de multe ori dogmatic g芒ndirea ira葲ional膬, natura uman膬 brutal膬 葯i nedreapt膬 卯n care credea, sus葲inea frenetic inalterabilul drept divin care guverna lumea dup膬 principii ne卯mp膬rta葯ite omului de r芒nd. A fost 卯ns膬 un observator lucid 葯i a prev膬zut pericolele ce se abateau 卯n zorii noii epoci, un r膬s膬rit ce lumina drumul totalitarismelor 卯n diversele lor forme.
"Mor odat膬 cu Europa, sunt 卯n bun膬 companie"; scria cu doi ani 卯nainte de moartea sa. Cu siguran葲膬 observa 葯i 卯ntrist膬toarea moarte a lui Dumnezeu, dar poate c膬 n-a 卯ndr膬znit s-o spun膬 primul 葯i, cu siguran葲膬, nu 卯ntr-o manier膬 blasfematoare pentru un catolic 卯nveterat.
Isaiah Berlin scrie mai apoi, 卯ntr-un alt capitol: "aceste iluzii sunt, ele 卯nsele, produsul secundar, inevitabil al cramponarii de o ordine pe care istoria a condamnat-o".
Isaiah Berlin identific膬 bine 葯i resorturile care ac葲ioneaz膬 asupra societ膬葲ilor 卯n momentele c芒nd ra葲ionalismul dep膬葯e葯te un anumit prag, imperceptibil con葯tientului. Spune c膬 "tinde s膬 apar膬 un soi de rezisten葲膬 emo葲ional膬, o reac葲ie ostil膬, care izvor膬葯te din ce e ira葲ional 卯n om". Unul dintre exemple este Grecia secolelor IV 葯i III c芒nd 葯colile socratice au produs sistemele ra葲ionaliste.
"Rareori altc芒ndva, ne spun istoricii cultelor grece葯ti, au 卯nflorit at芒t de bogat religiile, misteriile, ocultismul, ira葲ionalismul, misticismele de orice fel."
"脦n Evul Mediu T芒rziu a existat, 卯n mod similar, o reac葲ie la marile construc葲ii logice ale scolasticilor. Ceva nu foarte diferit a survenit 卯n timpul Reformei; 葯i 卯n sf芒r葯it, 卯n urma triumfurilor spiritului 葯tiin葲ific 卯n Occident, o contrami葯care puternic膬 a ap膬rut 卯n urm膬 cu dou膬 secole".
Deseori 卯n istorie popoarele considerate 卯napoiate au dezvoltat o rezisten葲膬 cultural膬 din m芒ndrii na葲ionale. Romantismul german s-a n膬scut ca un astfel de contra-curent al Iluminismului, reactiv acelor filosofi francezi 卯nfumura葲i, cu ra葲ionalismul 葯i materialismul lor.
Curentele romantice promovau printre altele suferin葲a, eroismul sau chiar martiriul, ocultul 葯i misticul cu accentele sale 卯n ira葲ionalismul ce amintesc de Maistre. Vor contura dihotomiile ulterioare 葯i crea noi ramuri 卯n g芒ndirea european膬.
Sistemul filosofic creat de Karl Marx comport膬 卯ns膬 at芒t influen葲e din Iluminismul Francez, Romantismul German, dar 葯i din Socialismul Utopic teoretizat de Henri de Saint Simon 葯i Charles Fourier. Cele dou膬 curente vor duce la na葲ionalism, populism, militarism 葯i socialismul egalitar; drumul statelor absolutiste n-a mai fost dec芒t unul normal, culmin芒nd cu r膬zboaiele ce vor m膬tura continentul.
O concluzie personal膬.
Filosofia a 卯nnobilat g芒ndirea 葯i a conturat cu greu drumul c膬tre ra葲iune, dar cu c芒t citesc mai mult despre ideile 葯i diferendele 葯colilor de g芒ndire de-a lungul secolelor, cu at芒t realizez c膬 ciocnirea dintre aceste structuri ideatice, pe l芒ng膬 progresul evident, las膬 unele cratere la grani葲a impactului dintre ele. Mai mult de at芒t, sunt intrinsec incomplete 葯i dispun de nervuri firave, de intersti葲ii prin care se pot insinua cangrenele 卯n葲elegerilor eronate ori ale interpret膬rilor r膬uvoitoare.
葮i, de葯i e posibil ca un anumit sistem filosofic s膬 nu fie nociv per se, el poate deveni periculos prin 卯ns膬葯i umplerea acelor goluri din pu葲in膬tatea min葲ilor sau din mali葲iozitatea 葯i voin葲a de putere a celor ce preiau precar sau dogmatic principiile de baz膬. Aceste caren葲e arat膬 limitele oric膬rei filosofii 葯i imperfec葲iunile min葲ii umane, dac膬 mai era nevoie de 卯nc膬 o banal膬 aser葲iune pe aceast膬 tem膬.
G芒nditorii nu de pu葲ine ori s-au 卯ndr膬gostit de ideile 卯n care au crezut. De aici a葯 remarca sus葲inerea cu fervoare sau indiferen葲a cinic膬 a unor intelectuali de seam膬 卯n fa葲a hitlerismului, leninismului, stalinsimului, maoismului, ba chiar a pol potismului. Au conceput sacrificiul uman ca o purificare a lumii lor ideale, o lume 卯n care credeau mai mult dec芒t 卯n mizeria 葯i durerile le concrete, din moment ce nu erau suferin葲ele lor. E cert c膬 structurile societale perfecte nu pot fi dec芒t ni葯te himere. O societate care a atins idealul nu mai poate fi una a dezvolt膬rii, este edenul pe p膬m芒nt, plin膬 de pace 葯i prosperitate. O astfel de societate a atins finalitatea. Isaiah Berlin o descrie ca fiind static膬. Din moment ce e des膬v芒r葯it膬, nimic nu se mai transform膬, nu mai e nevoie de 卯nnoire 葯i schimbare.
脦ns膬 o asemenea lume aduce o l芒ncezire a fizicului, spiritului 葯i min葲ii. Cunosc芒nd natura uman膬, nu poate fi dec芒t o c膬dere 卯n ludic 葯i ira葲ional, sau 卯n abisul altor state hiper-militarizate.
Ce poate fi mai 卯nfior膬tor? Coeziunea firav膬 nu se poate destructura dec芒t 卯ntr-o nou膬 dezordine social膬, menit膬 s膬 creeze 葯i mai mult膬 entropie 卯n paradisul ob葲inut, o dezordine a min葲ii sau haosul r膬zboiului, tocmai pentru c膬 "din lemnul str芒mb al omenirii n-a ie葯it niciodat膬 ceva drept."
January 7, 2019
韦蟻慰渭蔚蟻维 蔚谓未喂伪蠁苇蟻慰谓 尾喂尾位委慰. 危蠀位位慰纬萎 蔚蟺蟿维 未慰魏喂渭委蠅谓 纬喂伪 蟿慰谓 未喂伪蠁蠅蟿喂蟽渭蠈 魏伪喂 蔚尉苇蟿伪蟽畏 蟿慰蠀 蟽蠀蟽蠂蔚蟿喂蟽渭慰蠉 伪谓蟿喂未喂伪蠁蠅蟿喂蟽蟿蠋谓 渭蔚 蟿慰蠀蟼 蔚胃谓喂魏喂蟽渭慰蠉蟼 蟿慰蠀 20慰蠉 伪喂蠋谓伪. 螣 位蠈纬慰蟼 蟿慰蠀 Berlin 蔚委谓伪喂 蟽蟿喂尾伪蟻蠈蟼 魏伪喂 蟿蔚魏渭畏蟻喂蠅渭苇谓慰蟼. 螘委谓伪喂 蠂伪蟻伪魏蟿畏蟻喂蟽蟿喂魏萎 畏 慰尉蠉蟿畏蟿伪 蟿慰蠀 蟺谓蔚蠉渭伪蟿蠈蟼 蟿慰蠀. 韦慰 蟽蠀谓喂蟽蟿蠋 蟽蔚 蠈蟽慰蠀蟼 蔚谓未喂伪蠁苇蟻慰谓蟿伪喂 纬喂伪 蟿慰 胃苇渭伪.
February 10, 2020
丿乇 卮乇丨鈥屬囏� 賵 乇蹖賵蹖賵賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 丕夭 銆娯池必簇� 鬲賱禺 亘卮乇銆� 禺賵丕賳丿賲貙 毓賲丿鬲丕 亘乇 賵噩賴 囟丿 丌乇賲丕賳鈥屫促囏壁必й屫з嗁� 讴鬲丕亘 鬲丕讴蹖丿 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲. 丌蹖夭丕蹖丕 亘乇賱蹖賳 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 丌乇賲丕賳鈥屫促囏臂� 亘丕 丕氐賵賱 噩賴丕賳鈥屫促呝堎� 賲鬲氐賵乇 卮丿 讴賴 丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 賴賲賴 乇丕 乇丕囟蹖 賳诏賴 丿丕乇丿. 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 丕夭 賵蹖跇诏蹖鈥屬囏й屰� 讴賴 亘賴 賲丨賯賯鈥屫簇嗀簇з� 丿乇 丌乇賲丕賳鈥屫促囏� 丕賲蹖丿賵丕乇蹖賲貙 丕爻丕爻丕 亘丕 蹖讴丿蹖诏乇 賲鬲囟丕丿 賴爻鬲賳丿. 賲丕 亘丕蹖丿 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 讴賳蹖賲. 丕夭 賳馗乇 亘乇賱蹖賳 丕夭 蹖讴 噩丕蹖蹖 亘賴 亘毓丿貙 亘乇丕蹖 鬲丨賯賯 丌夭丕丿蹖 亘丕蹖丿 毓丿丕賱鬲 乇丕 賯乇亘丕賳蹖 讴賳蹖賲 賵 亘乇丕蹖 鬲丨賯賯 毓丿丕賱鬲貙 亘丕蹖丿 丌夭丕丿蹖 乇丕. 丕夭 丕蹖賳 乇賵貙 鬲氐賵乇 丌乇賲丕賳鈥屫促囏臂� 噩賴丕賳鈥屫促呝堎� 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳 賴賲賴 賵蹖跇诏蹖鈥屬囏й� 賲胤賱賵亘 賲賵乇丿 賳馗乇 亘卮乇 亘賴 丨丿 讴賲丕賱 鬲丨賯賯 蹖丕賮鬲賴 亘丕卮賳丿貙 賵 鬲賱丕卮 賵 賲亘丕乇夭賴 丿乇 乇丕賴 丿爻鬲蹖丕亘蹖 亘賴 丌賳貙 丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 亘賴 賮丕噩毓賴 賲賳噩乇 禺賵丕賴丿 卮丿. 亘乇賱蹖賳 亘賴 鬲讴孬乇 賵 鬲賳賵毓 賮乇賴賳诏鈥屬囏� 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲貙 丕賲丕 丕蹖賳 丕毓鬲賯丕丿 乇丕 亘丕 賳爻亘蹖鈥屭必й屰� 蹖讴爻丕賳 賳賲蹖鈥屫з嗀�. 丕賵 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賮乇賴賳诏鈥屬囏й� 賲禺鬲賱賮貙 丕乇夭卮鈥屬囏й� 賲禺鬲賱賮蹖 丿丕乇賳丿貙 丕賲丕 賲丕 亘乇 丨爻亘 丕賵囟丕毓 賵 丕丨賵丕賱 夭賲丕賳賴貙 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗃屬� 丿乇蹖丕亘蹖賲 讴賴 趩乇丕 丕蹖賳 丕乇夭卮鈥屬囏й� 禺丕氐 賵 賳賴 丕乇夭卮鈥屬囏й屰� 丿蹖诏乇 亘賴 賲乇噩毓 蹖讴 賮乇賴賳诏 賲亘丿賱 賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀� 賵 賴賲蹖賳 賲賵囟毓賽 亘乇賱蹖賳 乇丕 丕夭 賳爻亘蹖鈥屭必й屰� 賲鬲賲丕蹖夭 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 賳爻亘蹖鈥屭必й屰� 亘賴 卮讴賱蹖 讴賴 賲孬賱丕 鬲賲丕蹖賱 賮乇丿蹖 亘賴 乇賳诏 丌亘蹖 乇丕 氐乇賮丕 賳丕卮蹖 丕夭 爻賱蹖賯賴 丕賵 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀� 讴賴 丿乇讴 毓賱鬲 丌賳 丕賲讴丕賳鈥屬矩佰屫� 賳蹖爻鬲 蹖丕 丕蹖賳讴賴 丕爻丕爻丕 毓賱鬲 禺丕氐蹖 賳丿丕乇丿.
趩蹖夭蹖 讴賴 丿乇 亘蹖卮鬲乇 乇蹖賵蹖賵賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 丿蹖丿賲貙 賳丕丿蹖丿賴 诏乇賮鬲賴 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲貙 賳賯丿 亘乇賱蹖賳 亘賴 乇賲丕賳鬲蹖爻蹖爻賲貙 賮丕卮蹖爻賲 賵 乇蹖卮賴鈥屬囏й� 卮讴賱鈥屭屫臂� 丌賳 丕爻鬲. 亘乇賱蹖賳 丿乇 毓蹖賳 丕毓鬲賯丕丿 亘賴 鬲賳賵毓 賵 鬲讴孬乇貙 賵噩賴 丿蹖诏乇 賲丕噩乇丕 賵 鬲亘毓丕鬲 丌賳 乇丕 賳蹖夭 賲賵乇丿 賳賯丿 賵 亘乇乇爻蹖 賯乇丕乇 賲蹖鈥屫囏�. 丿乇 賳亘賵丿 丕乇夭卮鈥屬囏й� 噩賴丕賳鈥屫促呝堎勠� 讴賴 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 亘賴 丌賳 趩賳诏 亘夭賳賳丿 賵 亘丕 爻鬲丕蹖卮 氐乇賮 丕乇丕丿賴 亘卮乇蹖 讴賴 亘丕蹖丿 亘賴 卮讴賱蹖 丌夭丕丿丕賳賴 鬲丨賯賯 倬蹖丿丕 讴賳丿貙 丕蹖賳 丕賲讴丕賳 賮乇丕賴賲 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 讴賴 丕賮乇丕丿蹖 亘丕 丕乇丕丿賴 亘乇鬲乇 亘乇 爻丕蹖乇蹖賳 鬲爻賱胤 倬蹖丿丕 讴賳賳丿 賵 丕蹖賳 賲卮乇賵毓蹖鬲 乇丕 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮賳丿 讴賴 亘賴 噩丕賲毓賴 賵 賲乇丿賲 亘賴 賲孬丕亘賴 賲丕丿賴 禺丕賲 蹖讴 丕孬乇 賴賳乇蹖 亘蹖賳丿蹖卮賳丿. 丕孬乇蹖 賴賳乇蹖 讴賴 丿乇 賳亘賵丿 賲毓蹖丕乇賴丕蹖 噩賴丕賳 卮賲賵賱貙 氐乇賮丕 鬲丕亘毓 禺賱丕賯蹖鬲鈥屬囏й� 賮乇丿 賯丿乇鬲賲賳丿蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 鬲賵丕賳爻鬲賴 丕爻鬲 丕乇丕丿賴 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘乇 爻丕蹖乇 丕乇丕丿賴鈥屬囏� 賲爻鬲賵賱蹖 爻丕夭丿. 丕蹖賳 丿賯蹖賯丕 賴賲丕賳 賮乇丌蹖賳丿蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賮丕卮蹖爻賲 丕夭 丿賱 丌賳 乇卮丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�.
趩蹖夭蹖 讴賴 丿乇 亘蹖卮鬲乇 乇蹖賵蹖賵賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 丿蹖丿賲貙 賳丕丿蹖丿賴 诏乇賮鬲賴 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲貙 賳賯丿 亘乇賱蹖賳 亘賴 乇賲丕賳鬲蹖爻蹖爻賲貙 賮丕卮蹖爻賲 賵 乇蹖卮賴鈥屬囏й� 卮讴賱鈥屭屫臂� 丌賳 丕爻鬲. 亘乇賱蹖賳 丿乇 毓蹖賳 丕毓鬲賯丕丿 亘賴 鬲賳賵毓 賵 鬲讴孬乇貙 賵噩賴 丿蹖诏乇 賲丕噩乇丕 賵 鬲亘毓丕鬲 丌賳 乇丕 賳蹖夭 賲賵乇丿 賳賯丿 賵 亘乇乇爻蹖 賯乇丕乇 賲蹖鈥屫囏�. 丿乇 賳亘賵丿 丕乇夭卮鈥屬囏й� 噩賴丕賳鈥屫促呝堎勠� 讴賴 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 亘賴 丌賳 趩賳诏 亘夭賳賳丿 賵 亘丕 爻鬲丕蹖卮 氐乇賮 丕乇丕丿賴 亘卮乇蹖 讴賴 亘丕蹖丿 亘賴 卮讴賱蹖 丌夭丕丿丕賳賴 鬲丨賯賯 倬蹖丿丕 讴賳丿貙 丕蹖賳 丕賲讴丕賳 賮乇丕賴賲 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 讴賴 丕賮乇丕丿蹖 亘丕 丕乇丕丿賴 亘乇鬲乇 亘乇 爻丕蹖乇蹖賳 鬲爻賱胤 倬蹖丿丕 讴賳賳丿 賵 丕蹖賳 賲卮乇賵毓蹖鬲 乇丕 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮賳丿 讴賴 亘賴 噩丕賲毓賴 賵 賲乇丿賲 亘賴 賲孬丕亘賴 賲丕丿賴 禺丕賲 蹖讴 丕孬乇 賴賳乇蹖 亘蹖賳丿蹖卮賳丿. 丕孬乇蹖 賴賳乇蹖 讴賴 丿乇 賳亘賵丿 賲毓蹖丕乇賴丕蹖 噩賴丕賳 卮賲賵賱貙 氐乇賮丕 鬲丕亘毓 禺賱丕賯蹖鬲鈥屬囏й� 賮乇丿 賯丿乇鬲賲賳丿蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 鬲賵丕賳爻鬲賴 丕爻鬲 丕乇丕丿賴 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘乇 爻丕蹖乇 丕乇丕丿賴鈥屬囏� 賲爻鬲賵賱蹖 爻丕夭丿. 丕蹖賳 丿賯蹖賯丕 賴賲丕賳 賮乇丌蹖賳丿蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賮丕卮蹖爻賲 丕夭 丿賱 丌賳 乇卮丿 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�.
March 19, 2019
丌蹖夭丕蹖丕 亘乇賱蹖賳 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 禺賵丕賳賳丿賴 乇丕 亘胤賵乇 賵丕囟丨 丕夭 爻賴 丕賳丿蹖卮踿 爻蹖丕爻蹖- 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 毓亘賵乇 賲蹖 丿賴丿貙 丿賵乇丕賳 爻蹖胤乇踿 丕蹖丿卅賵賱賵跇蹖貙 賮丕卮蹖爻賲貙 賵 賲賱蹖 诏乇丕蹖蹖. 丿乇 賴乇 爻賴 賲乇丨賱賴 丕夭 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳 賵 丕賳丿蹖卮賲賳丿丕賳蹖 诏賲賳丕賲 賵賱蹖 鬲丕孬蹖乇诏匕丕乇 賲孬丕賱 賲蹖 夭賳丿. 讴爻丕賳蹖 趩賵賳貙 賵蹖讴賵貙 賴乇丿乇貙 丿賵 賲爻鬲乇 賵 ...
丿乇 賳诏丕賴 丕賵賱 卮丕蹖丿 賵蹖 乇丕 亘丿亘蹖賳 亘丿丕賳蹖賲. 亘禺氐賵氐 讴賴 亘丕 鬲卅賵乇蹖 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳蹖 丌乇賲丕賳卮賴乇 賵 丌夭丕丿蹖 丕賳爻丕賳 賲禺丕賱賮鬲 賲蹖 讴賳丿 丕賲丕 亘丕 賲胤丕賱毓賴 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 賴丕貙 丨賯 乇丕 亘賴 賵蹖 賲蹖 丿賴蹖賲. 丕賳爻丕賳 賴賲蹖卮賴 亘賴 倬丕蹖诏丕賴蹖 噩賲毓蹖 賳蹖丕夭 丿丕乇丿 賵 丿乇 胤蹖 丕卮鬲乇丕讴 亘賴 丕賳賵丕毓 賳丕亘爻丕賲丕賳蹖 賴丕 賲亘鬲賱丕 賲蹖 卮賵丿 鬲丕 賳賴丕蹖鬲丕 亘賴 賮丕卮蹖爻賲 賵 丕爻鬲亘丿丕丿 賴賲 亘乇爻丿. 賳賯賱 賯賵賱 賵蹖 丕夭 夭亘丕賳 噩丕賳 丕爻鬲賵丕乇鬲 賲蹖賱 讴賴 賴乇 讴爻 讴賴 亘賴 丿賳亘丕賱 丕賳賯賱丕亘 賵 丕氐賱丕丨 卮乇丕蹖胤 丕爻鬲 禺賵丿 亘賴 賳賵毓蹖 賲爻鬲亘丿 鬲亘丿蹖賱 賲蹖 诏乇丿丿 賯丕亘賱 鬲兀賲賱 丕爻鬲.
毓賯賱丕賳蹖鬲 丿乇 胤蹖 亘乇賯乇丕乇蹖 賳馗丕賲 爻蹖丕爻蹖 賳蹖夭 禺胤乇賳丕讴 賵 睾蹖乇 賯丕亘賱 丿爻鬲乇爻 丕爻鬲. 亘禺氐賵氐 噩賵丕賲毓蹖 讴賴 亘賴 倬蹖卮乇賮鬲 毓賱賲蹖 乇爻蹖丿賴 賵 爻毓蹖 丿丕乇賳丿 亘乇丕蹖 賴乇 賲賵賱賮賴 丕蹖 亘丕 讴賲讴 毓賱賲 倬卮鬲賵丕賳賴 賵 鬲賵噩蹖賴蹖 亘鬲乇丕卮賳丿.
丿乇禺卮丕賳 鬲乇蹖賳 爻胤賵乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕 丿乇 倬丕乇丕诏乇丕賮 夭蹖乇 賳賯賱 賲蹖 讴賳賲. 丿乇 亘丨孬蹖 讴賴 丿乇 亘丕亘 賲丕賴蹖鬲 丿蹖賳 賵 鬲賯丕亘賱 丌賳 亘丕 毓賱賲 賵 賲賵囟毓 诏蹖乇蹖 丌賳 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 賳賯丿 丕夭 夭亘丕賳 跇賵夭賮 丿賵 賲爻鬲乇 賳賯賱 賲蹖 讴賳丿:
芦丿蹖賳 亘乇 禺乇丿 亘乇鬲乇蹖 丿丕乇丿貙 賳賴 亘賴 丕蹖賳 丿賱蹖賱 讴賴 倬丕爻禺鈥屬囏й屰� 賯丕賳毓 讴賳賳丿賴鈥屫� 亘賴 賲丕 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 亘賱讴賴 亘賴 丕蹖賳 丿賱蹖賱 讴賴 賴蹖趩 倬丕爻禺蹖 賳賲蹖鈥屫囏�. 丿蹖賳 亘賴 賯丕賳毓 讴乇丿賳 賲丕 蹖丕 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 讴乇丿賳 賳賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏� 鬲賳賴丕 賮乇賲丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫囏�. 丕蹖賲丕賳 賮賯胤 夭賲丕賳蹖 賵丕賯毓蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 讴賵乇讴賵乇丕賳賴 亘丕卮丿貨 丕诏乇 亘賴 丿賳亘丕賱 鬲賵噩蹖賴 亘诏乇丿丿 讴丕乇卮 鬲賲丕賲 丕爻鬲! 丿乇 丿賳蹖丕 賴乇 趩蹖夭 賯賵蹖貙 丕亘丿蹖 賵 賲丐孬乇 賮乇丕鬲乇 丕夭 毓賯賱 賵 亘賴 賲毓賳丕蹖蹖 賲睾丕蹖乇 亘丕 丌賳 丕爻鬲. 丨讴賵賲鬲 爻賱胤賳鬲蹖 賲賵乇賵孬蹖貙 噩賳诏 賵 丕夭丿賵丕噩 亘賴 丕蹖賳 丿賱蹖賱 丿賵丕賲 賲蹖鈥屫①堌辟嗀� 讴賴 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗃屬� 丕夭 丌賳鈥屬囏� 丿賮丕毓 讴賳蹖賲貙 賵 亘賴 賴賲蹖賳 丿賱蹖賱 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗃屬� 丌賳鈥屬囏� 乇丕 丕夭 氐賮丨踿 夭賳丿诏蹖 倬丕讴 讴賳蹖賲. 禺乇丿爻鬲蹖夭蹖 囟賲丕賳鬲 亘賯丕蹖卮 乇丕 亘丕 禺賵丿 丿丕乇丿貙 賵賱蹖 禺乇丿 賴乇诏夭 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 亘賴 丕蹖賳鈥屭堎嗁� 亘賯丕 丕賲蹖丿賵丕乇 亘丕卮丿 . 鬲賲丕賲 倬丕乇丕丿賵讴爻鈥屬囏й� 賴賵賱賳丕讴 賲爻鬲乇 亘賴 賳賵毓蹖 亘爻胤 賴賲蹖賳 賳讴鬲賴鈥屬囏ж池� 讴賴 丿乇 乇賵夭诏丕乇 賵蹖 賮乇囟蹖賴鈥屬囏й屰� 亘爻蹖丕乇 賳賵 亘賵丿賳丿.禄 (氐 189-190)
丿乇 賳诏丕賴 丕賵賱 卮丕蹖丿 賵蹖 乇丕 亘丿亘蹖賳 亘丿丕賳蹖賲. 亘禺氐賵氐 讴賴 亘丕 鬲卅賵乇蹖 丕賮賱丕胤賵賳蹖 丌乇賲丕賳卮賴乇 賵 丌夭丕丿蹖 丕賳爻丕賳 賲禺丕賱賮鬲 賲蹖 讴賳丿 丕賲丕 亘丕 賲胤丕賱毓賴 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 賴丕貙 丨賯 乇丕 亘賴 賵蹖 賲蹖 丿賴蹖賲. 丕賳爻丕賳 賴賲蹖卮賴 亘賴 倬丕蹖诏丕賴蹖 噩賲毓蹖 賳蹖丕夭 丿丕乇丿 賵 丿乇 胤蹖 丕卮鬲乇丕讴 亘賴 丕賳賵丕毓 賳丕亘爻丕賲丕賳蹖 賴丕 賲亘鬲賱丕 賲蹖 卮賵丿 鬲丕 賳賴丕蹖鬲丕 亘賴 賮丕卮蹖爻賲 賵 丕爻鬲亘丿丕丿 賴賲 亘乇爻丿. 賳賯賱 賯賵賱 賵蹖 丕夭 夭亘丕賳 噩丕賳 丕爻鬲賵丕乇鬲 賲蹖賱 讴賴 賴乇 讴爻 讴賴 亘賴 丿賳亘丕賱 丕賳賯賱丕亘 賵 丕氐賱丕丨 卮乇丕蹖胤 丕爻鬲 禺賵丿 亘賴 賳賵毓蹖 賲爻鬲亘丿 鬲亘丿蹖賱 賲蹖 诏乇丿丿 賯丕亘賱 鬲兀賲賱 丕爻鬲.
毓賯賱丕賳蹖鬲 丿乇 胤蹖 亘乇賯乇丕乇蹖 賳馗丕賲 爻蹖丕爻蹖 賳蹖夭 禺胤乇賳丕讴 賵 睾蹖乇 賯丕亘賱 丿爻鬲乇爻 丕爻鬲. 亘禺氐賵氐 噩賵丕賲毓蹖 讴賴 亘賴 倬蹖卮乇賮鬲 毓賱賲蹖 乇爻蹖丿賴 賵 爻毓蹖 丿丕乇賳丿 亘乇丕蹖 賴乇 賲賵賱賮賴 丕蹖 亘丕 讴賲讴 毓賱賲 倬卮鬲賵丕賳賴 賵 鬲賵噩蹖賴蹖 亘鬲乇丕卮賳丿.
丿乇禺卮丕賳 鬲乇蹖賳 爻胤賵乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕 丿乇 倬丕乇丕诏乇丕賮 夭蹖乇 賳賯賱 賲蹖 讴賳賲. 丿乇 亘丨孬蹖 讴賴 丿乇 亘丕亘 賲丕賴蹖鬲 丿蹖賳 賵 鬲賯丕亘賱 丌賳 亘丕 毓賱賲 賵 賲賵囟毓 诏蹖乇蹖 丌賳 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 賳賯丿 丕夭 夭亘丕賳 跇賵夭賮 丿賵 賲爻鬲乇 賳賯賱 賲蹖 讴賳丿:
芦丿蹖賳 亘乇 禺乇丿 亘乇鬲乇蹖 丿丕乇丿貙 賳賴 亘賴 丕蹖賳 丿賱蹖賱 讴賴 倬丕爻禺鈥屬囏й屰� 賯丕賳毓 讴賳賳丿賴鈥屫� 亘賴 賲丕 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 亘賱讴賴 亘賴 丕蹖賳 丿賱蹖賱 讴賴 賴蹖趩 倬丕爻禺蹖 賳賲蹖鈥屫囏�. 丿蹖賳 亘賴 賯丕賳毓 讴乇丿賳 賲丕 蹖丕 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱 讴乇丿賳 賳賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏� 鬲賳賴丕 賮乇賲丕賳 賲蹖鈥屫囏�. 丕蹖賲丕賳 賮賯胤 夭賲丕賳蹖 賵丕賯毓蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 讴賵乇讴賵乇丕賳賴 亘丕卮丿貨 丕诏乇 亘賴 丿賳亘丕賱 鬲賵噩蹖賴 亘诏乇丿丿 讴丕乇卮 鬲賲丕賲 丕爻鬲! 丿乇 丿賳蹖丕 賴乇 趩蹖夭 賯賵蹖貙 丕亘丿蹖 賵 賲丐孬乇 賮乇丕鬲乇 丕夭 毓賯賱 賵 亘賴 賲毓賳丕蹖蹖 賲睾丕蹖乇 亘丕 丌賳 丕爻鬲. 丨讴賵賲鬲 爻賱胤賳鬲蹖 賲賵乇賵孬蹖貙 噩賳诏 賵 丕夭丿賵丕噩 亘賴 丕蹖賳 丿賱蹖賱 丿賵丕賲 賲蹖鈥屫①堌辟嗀� 讴賴 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗃屬� 丕夭 丌賳鈥屬囏� 丿賮丕毓 讴賳蹖賲貙 賵 亘賴 賴賲蹖賳 丿賱蹖賱 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗃屬� 丌賳鈥屬囏� 乇丕 丕夭 氐賮丨踿 夭賳丿诏蹖 倬丕讴 讴賳蹖賲. 禺乇丿爻鬲蹖夭蹖 囟賲丕賳鬲 亘賯丕蹖卮 乇丕 亘丕 禺賵丿 丿丕乇丿貙 賵賱蹖 禺乇丿 賴乇诏夭 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 亘賴 丕蹖賳鈥屭堎嗁� 亘賯丕 丕賲蹖丿賵丕乇 亘丕卮丿 . 鬲賲丕賲 倬丕乇丕丿賵讴爻鈥屬囏й� 賴賵賱賳丕讴 賲爻鬲乇 亘賴 賳賵毓蹖 亘爻胤 賴賲蹖賳 賳讴鬲賴鈥屬囏ж池� 讴賴 丿乇 乇賵夭诏丕乇 賵蹖 賮乇囟蹖賴鈥屬囏й屰� 亘爻蹖丕乇 賳賵 亘賵丿賳丿.禄 (氐 189-190)
January 14, 2020
Andalg谩s az eszm茅k erdej茅ben, csupa sz疟k 枚sv茅ny, n茅melyiket m谩r be is n艖tte az aljn枚v茅nyzet. Berlin professzor mindazon谩ltal magabiztosnak t疟nik, 煤gyhogy rem茅lj眉k, nem t茅ved眉nk el.
Kezdj眉k ott, hogy r茅ges-r茅gen, egy messzi-messzi galaxisban m茅g abban hittek a gondolkod贸k, hogy van egyetlen igazs谩g, amihez egy 煤t vezet. L茅teznek teh谩t v谩laszok a k茅rd茅sekre - legfeljebb nem tudjuk pontosan, mi a k茅rd茅s 鈥�, 茅s ezek a v谩laszok sz眉ks茅gszer疟en 枚sszeegyeztethet艖ek egym谩ssal. Persze az ember gyarl贸, t茅vedni ezerf茅lek茅ppen tud, ak谩r az茅rt, mert nincs kell艖k茅ppen kim疟velve, ak谩r az茅rt, mert s煤jtja az eredend艖 b疟n, de ez a l茅nyegen nem v谩ltoztat: legal谩bbis elm茅letben elk茅pzelhet艖 egy t枚k茅letesen harmonikus, kiegyens煤lyozott j枚v艖, ami mindenki sz谩m谩ra el茅rhet艖, az ut贸pi谩k heged疟sz贸t贸l hangos hona. Jegyezz眉k meg: se Berlin, se 茅n nem 谩ll铆tom, hogy ez a filoz贸fiai aranykor jobb vagy szebb volt. Ugyan煤gy k枚vettek el az univerz谩lis igazs谩gra hivatkozva b疟n枚ket, mint a lok谩lis igazs谩gokra, akit pedig m谩gly谩n 茅gettek meg, val贸sz铆n疟leg nem volt k眉l枚n枚sebben k铆v谩ncsi elpuszt铆t谩s谩nak m茅lyebb motiv谩ci贸j谩ra. Mindenesetre ak谩rhogy is, ez a szeml茅let sok谩ig, a XVIII. sz谩zadig egyeduralkod贸 volt a gondolkod谩sban, 茅s m茅g a felvil谩gosod谩s sem sz眉ntette meg, hisz v茅gt茅re is az sem 谩ll铆tott m谩st, mint hogy az igazs谩g egyetemes, csak 茅pp annyit tett hozz谩, hogy nem a vall谩s spiritualit谩sa 茅s az arisztokr谩cia hierarchikus gondolkod谩sa birtokolja, hanem a j贸zan 茅sz, a r谩ci贸, 茅s a tudom谩nyos vizsg谩l贸d谩s.
Berlin teh谩t nem kevesebbet 谩ll铆t, mint hogy eszmet枚rt茅neti szempontb贸l nem is a francia forradalom volt forradalmi, hanem ink谩bb az, amit v谩laszul r谩 kital谩ltak. M茅gpedig a n茅metek. Merthogy szeg茅ny n茅meteket annyira frusztr谩lta a francia gondolkod贸k egyetemess茅gre t枚rekv茅se, illetve az, hogy saj谩t fejedelems茅geik egyszer疟en kimaradtak a kontinent谩lis szellemi pezsg茅sb艖l, hogy kital谩lt谩k a romantik谩t. A romantika pediglen azt 谩ll铆tja, hogy nem holmi egyetemes maszlag a l茅nyeg, hanem az egy茅n a maga szubjekt铆v mag谩nvil谩g谩val*. A kulcsszava pedig az akarat 鈥� hogy hinnie kell ennek a mag谩nvil谩gnak a mindenek felettis茅g茅ben, sutba kell dobnia a k眉lvil谩g 铆t茅let茅t, 茅s csak saj谩t zsenialit谩s谩val kell t枚r艖dnie. Ilyen a tipikus romantikus h艖s: makacs, szenved艖, tragikus, mag谩nyos, 茅s gyakran velej茅ig irracion谩lis. Ezzel egy眉tt semmi baj nincs vele, am铆g a reg茅nyek lapjain marad... 谩m sajnos nem marad. Tal谩lkozik ugyanis a nacionalizmus ideol贸gi谩j谩val, ami szint煤gy elveti az univerz谩lis igazs谩gokat, abban hisz, hogy a nemzet saj谩t kis szuver茅n igazs谩ga a l茅nyeg, azt kell elfogadni, az茅rt kell k眉zdeni. M谩r nem az a k茅rd茅s teh谩t, hogy mi az az egyetlen igazs谩g, amir艖l meg kell gy艖zn眉nk m谩sokat (hisz egy n茅met bajosan gy艖zhetne meg egy angolt, hogy az 煤n. 鈥瀗茅met igazs谩g鈥� jobb az angoloknak, mint az 鈥瀉ngol igazs谩g鈥�), hanem hogy van-e benn眉nk el茅g akarat ahhoz, hogy a mi igazs谩gunk legy艖zze a m谩sok (茅rdektelen) igazs谩g谩t. Nem az m锟斤拷r a l茅nyeg, hogy mi is az, ami mindannyiunkban k枚z枚s. Hanem hogy mi az, amiben mi m谩sok (t枚bbek?) vagyunk a t枚bbiekn茅l. Ez pedig m谩r a fasizmus** el艖szob谩ja.
(A k枚tet leghosszabb tanulm谩nya egy k谩pr谩zatos essz茅 Joseph de Maistre tanair贸l, akiben Berlin szint煤gy megtal谩lja a protofasiszt谩t. Az 煤riember a felvil谩gosul谩s racionalista tanaira v谩laszul dolgozta ki a maga ultramont谩n v谩lasz谩t, 谩m olyan szenved茅llyel 茅s p谩rtos gy疟l枚lettel, hogy az m茅g a p谩pap谩rtiaknak is gyakran a tork谩n akadt. De Maistre vil谩g谩ban az 茅rtelem a b疟n枚s, mert csak a vil谩g felsz铆n茅t kapargatja, de nem jut el a m茅lys茅gig. A m茅lys茅g igazs谩ga viszont 茅sszel nem felfoghat贸, ez茅rt a legokosabb, ha elfogadjuk, amit a vezet艖 鈥� ebben az esetben a p谩pa 鈥� mond. Tilos teh谩t k茅telkedn眉nk, aki k茅telkedik, az a vil谩g elpuszt铆t谩s谩ra t枚r, 茅s joggal szolg谩ltatjuk ki a h贸h茅rnak. Od谩ig is elmegy elm茅lked茅seiben, hogy azt 谩ll铆tja: az igazi igazs谩got pont arr贸l ismerni fel, hogy nem 茅rtj眉k, hisz pont ez az irracionalit谩s a legfontosabb tulajdons谩ga. Ez a szent d眉h, ami a k茅telked艖ket c茅lozza, valamint a hatalmi tekint茅ly elfogad谩sa m茅g akkor is, ha az irracion谩lisan viselkedik 鈥� s艖t, pont az茅rt, mert irracion谩lisan viselkedik 鈥�, k茅s艖bb a fasizmusban 茅s a n谩cizmusban t谩mad fel 煤jra.)
Sok szempontb贸l zavarba ejt艖 essz茅gy疟jtem茅ny 鈥� nem igaz谩n t枚rekszik line谩ris eszmet枚rt茅net megalkot谩s谩ra, ink谩bb csak arra, hogy 谩br谩zolja, megragadja, 茅rz茅keltesse egy gondolat 谩talakul谩s谩nak megfoghatatlan folyamat谩t. (脡pp ez茅rt 茅rt茅kel茅sem sem t枚rekedhet vele szemben teljess茅gre, ink谩bb csak n茅h谩ny alapvonal megragad谩s谩t k铆s茅reltem meg. Csak hogy menteget艖zzek.) V茅gig azt 茅reztem, 谩thatja az a gondolat, hogy nem is az a l茅nyeg, mi milyen igazs谩gnak vagyunk a birtok谩ban. Hisz az igazs谩gok m谩r csak olyanok 鈥� ma m谩r tudjuk 鈥�, hogy ak谩r ki is z谩rhatj谩k egym谩st. Hihetek abban, hogy a t枚k茅letes egyenl艖s茅g igazs谩gos, 茅s hihetek abban, hogy a t枚k茅letes szabads谩g is k铆v谩natos, de a kett艖t m茅gsem lehet 枚sszeegyeztetni. A l茅nyeg ink谩bb az, hogyan reag谩lok a m谩s v茅lelmezett igazs谩g谩ra. Elfogadom-e azt, mint akcept谩lhat贸 m贸dszert egy j贸 茅let meg茅l茅s茅hez. 脡s ez nem relativizmus, mert a relativizmus azt jelenti, hogy saj谩t 茅letelveinket k茅rd艖jelezi meg az, hogy m谩s 茅letelvek ugyanolyan joggal l茅tezhetnek. Ez ink谩bb pluralizmus: hinni magunkban, a saj谩t moralit谩sunkban, 茅s elfogadni k枚zben a m谩sok茅t is, am铆g az nem vesz茅lyeztet minket. 脡s ez a sz枚vegen v茅gigh煤z贸d贸 mot铆vum, bevallom, nekem nagyon tetszett. Szeretem Berlin gondolkod谩s谩t. Szeretem, hogy elutas铆tja a tot谩lis konzekvenci谩t - mert egy t谩rsadalmi rend sosem lehet tot谩lisan konzekvens, hiszen k眉l枚nb枚z艖, ak谩r az 枚v茅t艖l elt茅r艖 elv谩r谩sok k枚z枚tt kell mozognia. Ami tot谩lisan konzekvens, az csak tot谩lisan diktat贸rikus lehet. Vagy ha az nem, h谩t tot谩lisan halott.
* Alapvet艖en ez a kanti kategorikus imperat铆vusz vil谩ga (鈥瀋selekedj 煤gy, hogy akaratod maxim谩ja mindenkor egyszersmind 谩ltal谩nos t枚rv茅nyad谩s elvek茅nt 茅rv茅nyes眉lhessen鈥�), ugyanakkor fontos k枚zbevetni, hogy maga Kant eg茅sz 茅let茅ben 茅lesen kikelt a romantika t煤lkap谩sai ellen, 茅s esz茅ben sem volt azt 谩ll铆tani, hogy nincsenek univerz谩lis 茅rt茅kek 鈥� egyszer疟en azt 谩ll铆totta, hogy ezeket az embernek mag谩nak, k眉ls艖 k茅nyszer铆t茅s n茅lk眉l kell ellen艖riznie.
** Az ember (m谩rmint 茅n) azt gondoln谩, hogy akkor ez egy l茅nyeges k眉l枚nbs茅g a kommunizmus 茅s a fasizmus k枚z枚tt. Hogy ut贸bbi a romantika gyermeke, el艖bbi viszont a racionalizmus茅. 脕m Berlin okfejt茅se szerint a kommunizmusra is er艖sen hatottak a nacionalista eszm茅k, 茅s alapvet艖en meghat谩rozz谩k a marxista 谩llamok viselked茅s茅t.
Kezdj眉k ott, hogy r茅ges-r茅gen, egy messzi-messzi galaxisban m茅g abban hittek a gondolkod贸k, hogy van egyetlen igazs谩g, amihez egy 煤t vezet. L茅teznek teh谩t v谩laszok a k茅rd茅sekre - legfeljebb nem tudjuk pontosan, mi a k茅rd茅s 鈥�, 茅s ezek a v谩laszok sz眉ks茅gszer疟en 枚sszeegyeztethet艖ek egym谩ssal. Persze az ember gyarl贸, t茅vedni ezerf茅lek茅ppen tud, ak谩r az茅rt, mert nincs kell艖k茅ppen kim疟velve, ak谩r az茅rt, mert s煤jtja az eredend艖 b疟n, de ez a l茅nyegen nem v谩ltoztat: legal谩bbis elm茅letben elk茅pzelhet艖 egy t枚k茅letesen harmonikus, kiegyens煤lyozott j枚v艖, ami mindenki sz谩m谩ra el茅rhet艖, az ut贸pi谩k heged疟sz贸t贸l hangos hona. Jegyezz眉k meg: se Berlin, se 茅n nem 谩ll铆tom, hogy ez a filoz贸fiai aranykor jobb vagy szebb volt. Ugyan煤gy k枚vettek el az univerz谩lis igazs谩gra hivatkozva b疟n枚ket, mint a lok谩lis igazs谩gokra, akit pedig m谩gly谩n 茅gettek meg, val贸sz铆n疟leg nem volt k眉l枚n枚sebben k铆v谩ncsi elpuszt铆t谩s谩nak m茅lyebb motiv谩ci贸j谩ra. Mindenesetre ak谩rhogy is, ez a szeml茅let sok谩ig, a XVIII. sz谩zadig egyeduralkod贸 volt a gondolkod谩sban, 茅s m茅g a felvil谩gosod谩s sem sz眉ntette meg, hisz v茅gt茅re is az sem 谩ll铆tott m谩st, mint hogy az igazs谩g egyetemes, csak 茅pp annyit tett hozz谩, hogy nem a vall谩s spiritualit谩sa 茅s az arisztokr谩cia hierarchikus gondolkod谩sa birtokolja, hanem a j贸zan 茅sz, a r谩ci贸, 茅s a tudom谩nyos vizsg谩l贸d谩s.
Berlin teh谩t nem kevesebbet 谩ll铆t, mint hogy eszmet枚rt茅neti szempontb贸l nem is a francia forradalom volt forradalmi, hanem ink谩bb az, amit v谩laszul r谩 kital谩ltak. M茅gpedig a n茅metek. Merthogy szeg茅ny n茅meteket annyira frusztr谩lta a francia gondolkod贸k egyetemess茅gre t枚rekv茅se, illetve az, hogy saj谩t fejedelems茅geik egyszer疟en kimaradtak a kontinent谩lis szellemi pezsg茅sb艖l, hogy kital谩lt谩k a romantik谩t. A romantika pediglen azt 谩ll铆tja, hogy nem holmi egyetemes maszlag a l茅nyeg, hanem az egy茅n a maga szubjekt铆v mag谩nvil谩g谩val*. A kulcsszava pedig az akarat 鈥� hogy hinnie kell ennek a mag谩nvil谩gnak a mindenek felettis茅g茅ben, sutba kell dobnia a k眉lvil谩g 铆t茅let茅t, 茅s csak saj谩t zsenialit谩s谩val kell t枚r艖dnie. Ilyen a tipikus romantikus h艖s: makacs, szenved艖, tragikus, mag谩nyos, 茅s gyakran velej茅ig irracion谩lis. Ezzel egy眉tt semmi baj nincs vele, am铆g a reg茅nyek lapjain marad... 谩m sajnos nem marad. Tal谩lkozik ugyanis a nacionalizmus ideol贸gi谩j谩val, ami szint煤gy elveti az univerz谩lis igazs谩gokat, abban hisz, hogy a nemzet saj谩t kis szuver茅n igazs谩ga a l茅nyeg, azt kell elfogadni, az茅rt kell k眉zdeni. M谩r nem az a k茅rd茅s teh谩t, hogy mi az az egyetlen igazs谩g, amir艖l meg kell gy艖zn眉nk m谩sokat (hisz egy n茅met bajosan gy艖zhetne meg egy angolt, hogy az 煤n. 鈥瀗茅met igazs谩g鈥� jobb az angoloknak, mint az 鈥瀉ngol igazs谩g鈥�), hanem hogy van-e benn眉nk el茅g akarat ahhoz, hogy a mi igazs谩gunk legy艖zze a m谩sok (茅rdektelen) igazs谩g谩t. Nem az m锟斤拷r a l茅nyeg, hogy mi is az, ami mindannyiunkban k枚z枚s. Hanem hogy mi az, amiben mi m谩sok (t枚bbek?) vagyunk a t枚bbiekn茅l. Ez pedig m谩r a fasizmus** el艖szob谩ja.
(A k枚tet leghosszabb tanulm谩nya egy k谩pr谩zatos essz茅 Joseph de Maistre tanair贸l, akiben Berlin szint煤gy megtal谩lja a protofasiszt谩t. Az 煤riember a felvil谩gosul谩s racionalista tanaira v谩laszul dolgozta ki a maga ultramont谩n v谩lasz谩t, 谩m olyan szenved茅llyel 茅s p谩rtos gy疟l枚lettel, hogy az m茅g a p谩pap谩rtiaknak is gyakran a tork谩n akadt. De Maistre vil谩g谩ban az 茅rtelem a b疟n枚s, mert csak a vil谩g felsz铆n茅t kapargatja, de nem jut el a m茅lys茅gig. A m茅lys茅g igazs谩ga viszont 茅sszel nem felfoghat贸, ez茅rt a legokosabb, ha elfogadjuk, amit a vezet艖 鈥� ebben az esetben a p谩pa 鈥� mond. Tilos teh谩t k茅telkedn眉nk, aki k茅telkedik, az a vil谩g elpuszt铆t谩s谩ra t枚r, 茅s joggal szolg谩ltatjuk ki a h贸h茅rnak. Od谩ig is elmegy elm茅lked茅seiben, hogy azt 谩ll铆tja: az igazi igazs谩got pont arr贸l ismerni fel, hogy nem 茅rtj眉k, hisz pont ez az irracionalit谩s a legfontosabb tulajdons谩ga. Ez a szent d眉h, ami a k茅telked艖ket c茅lozza, valamint a hatalmi tekint茅ly elfogad谩sa m茅g akkor is, ha az irracion谩lisan viselkedik 鈥� s艖t, pont az茅rt, mert irracion谩lisan viselkedik 鈥�, k茅s艖bb a fasizmusban 茅s a n谩cizmusban t谩mad fel 煤jra.)
Sok szempontb贸l zavarba ejt艖 essz茅gy疟jtem茅ny 鈥� nem igaz谩n t枚rekszik line谩ris eszmet枚rt茅net megalkot谩s谩ra, ink谩bb csak arra, hogy 谩br谩zolja, megragadja, 茅rz茅keltesse egy gondolat 谩talakul谩s谩nak megfoghatatlan folyamat谩t. (脡pp ez茅rt 茅rt茅kel茅sem sem t枚rekedhet vele szemben teljess茅gre, ink谩bb csak n茅h谩ny alapvonal megragad谩s谩t k铆s茅reltem meg. Csak hogy menteget艖zzek.) V茅gig azt 茅reztem, 谩thatja az a gondolat, hogy nem is az a l茅nyeg, mi milyen igazs谩gnak vagyunk a birtok谩ban. Hisz az igazs谩gok m谩r csak olyanok 鈥� ma m谩r tudjuk 鈥�, hogy ak谩r ki is z谩rhatj谩k egym谩st. Hihetek abban, hogy a t枚k茅letes egyenl艖s茅g igazs谩gos, 茅s hihetek abban, hogy a t枚k茅letes szabads谩g is k铆v谩natos, de a kett艖t m茅gsem lehet 枚sszeegyeztetni. A l茅nyeg ink谩bb az, hogyan reag谩lok a m谩s v茅lelmezett igazs谩g谩ra. Elfogadom-e azt, mint akcept谩lhat贸 m贸dszert egy j贸 茅let meg茅l茅s茅hez. 脡s ez nem relativizmus, mert a relativizmus azt jelenti, hogy saj谩t 茅letelveinket k茅rd艖jelezi meg az, hogy m谩s 茅letelvek ugyanolyan joggal l茅tezhetnek. Ez ink谩bb pluralizmus: hinni magunkban, a saj谩t moralit谩sunkban, 茅s elfogadni k枚zben a m谩sok茅t is, am铆g az nem vesz茅lyeztet minket. 脡s ez a sz枚vegen v茅gigh煤z贸d贸 mot铆vum, bevallom, nekem nagyon tetszett. Szeretem Berlin gondolkod谩s谩t. Szeretem, hogy elutas铆tja a tot谩lis konzekvenci谩t - mert egy t谩rsadalmi rend sosem lehet tot谩lisan konzekvens, hiszen k眉l枚nb枚z艖, ak谩r az 枚v茅t艖l elt茅r艖 elv谩r谩sok k枚z枚tt kell mozognia. Ami tot谩lisan konzekvens, az csak tot谩lisan diktat贸rikus lehet. Vagy ha az nem, h谩t tot谩lisan halott.
* Alapvet艖en ez a kanti kategorikus imperat铆vusz vil谩ga (鈥瀋selekedj 煤gy, hogy akaratod maxim谩ja mindenkor egyszersmind 谩ltal谩nos t枚rv茅nyad谩s elvek茅nt 茅rv茅nyes眉lhessen鈥�), ugyanakkor fontos k枚zbevetni, hogy maga Kant eg茅sz 茅let茅ben 茅lesen kikelt a romantika t煤lkap谩sai ellen, 茅s esz茅ben sem volt azt 谩ll铆tani, hogy nincsenek univerz谩lis 茅rt茅kek 鈥� egyszer疟en azt 谩ll铆totta, hogy ezeket az embernek mag谩nak, k眉ls艖 k茅nyszer铆t茅s n茅lk眉l kell ellen艖riznie.
** Az ember (m谩rmint 茅n) azt gondoln谩, hogy akkor ez egy l茅nyeges k眉l枚nbs茅g a kommunizmus 茅s a fasizmus k枚z枚tt. Hogy ut贸bbi a romantika gyermeke, el艖bbi viszont a racionalizmus茅. 脕m Berlin okfejt茅se szerint a kommunizmusra is er艖sen hatottak a nacionalista eszm茅k, 茅s alapvet艖en meghat谩rozz谩k a marxista 谩llamok viselked茅s茅t.
November 28, 2018
亘丕 賵噩賵丿 丕蹖賳鈥屭┵� 賳賵毓 讴賳丕乇賴賲 賳卮爻鬲賳 賲賯丕賱丕鬲 亘丕毓孬 鬲讴乇丕乇卮丿賳 亘乇禺蹖 賲囟丕賲蹖賳 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲貙 賵賱蹖 丌賲賵禺鬲賳 丕夭 亘乇賱蹖賳貙 丌賲賵禺鬲賳 丕夭 賲丨囟乇 丨讴蹖賲蹖 丿賳蹖丕丿蹖丿賴 賵 賲賵丕噩賴賴鈥屰� 卮诏賮鬲鈥屫з嗂屫槽� 亘賵丿
亘丕 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賮賴賲蹖丿賲 讴賴 趩乇丕 蹖賵鬲賵倬蹖丕賴丕 丕夭 亘蹖賳 乇賮鬲賳丿貙 丕蹖賳鈥屭┵� 鬲讴孬乇 賮乇賴賳诏蹖 趩蹖爻鬲 賵 賵蹖讴賵 賵 賴乇丿乇 趩賴 讴賲讴蹖 亘賴 丌賳 讴乇丿賴鈥屫з嗀� 賵 賳賴丕蹖鬲丕 趩乇丕 丕乇賵倬丕 丿趩丕乇 趩賳丕賳 噩賳诏鈥屬囏й屰� 卮丿. 囟賲賳丕 賳亘丕蹖丿 丕夭 鬲讴鈥屬嗂ж臂� 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 丿賵賲爻鬲乇 诏匕卮鬲 讴賴 卮禺氐蹖鬲 亘爻蹖丕乇 噩匕丕亘蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丌卮賳丕蹖蹖 亘賵丿
亘丕 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賮賴賲蹖丿賲 讴賴 趩乇丕 蹖賵鬲賵倬蹖丕賴丕 丕夭 亘蹖賳 乇賮鬲賳丿貙 丕蹖賳鈥屭┵� 鬲讴孬乇 賮乇賴賳诏蹖 趩蹖爻鬲 賵 賵蹖讴賵 賵 賴乇丿乇 趩賴 讴賲讴蹖 亘賴 丌賳 讴乇丿賴鈥屫з嗀� 賵 賳賴丕蹖鬲丕 趩乇丕 丕乇賵倬丕 丿趩丕乇 趩賳丕賳 噩賳诏鈥屬囏й屰� 卮丿. 囟賲賳丕 賳亘丕蹖丿 丕夭 鬲讴鈥屬嗂ж臂� 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 丿賵賲爻鬲乇 诏匕卮鬲 讴賴 卮禺氐蹖鬲 亘爻蹖丕乇 噩匕丕亘蹖 亘乇丕蹖 丌卮賳丕蹖蹖 亘賵丿
June 23, 2022
鈥淭he universe is not a jigsaw puzzle of which we try to piece together the fragments, in the knowledge that one pattern exists, and one alone, in which they must all fit. We are faced with conflicting values; the dogma that they must somehow, somewhere be reconcilable is mere pious hope; experience shows that it is false. We must choose, and in choosing one thing lose another, irretrievably perhaps. If we choose individual liberty, this may entail a sacrifice of some form of organization which might have led to greater efficiency. If we choose justice, we may be forced to sacrifice mercy. If we choose knowledge we may sacrifice innocence and happiness.鈥�
By the 1820s the world view of the Age of Reason, of Voltaire, Diderot, and the philosophes, was dying, having become stifling, trifling, and restrictive, no longer responsive to a rapidly changing culture. The Romantic movement came as a powerful new force, emphasizing emotion and personal commitment. Over time, however, it changed into something darker and more narcissistic, moving from 鈥淚 must be true to myself鈥� to 鈥淚 must be true to an idea, whether it is right or wrong, and regardless of what harm it might cause to others or to myself.鈥� Finally, under fascism and communism, it became, 鈥淗ow many people do we need to kill to remake the world? As many as it takes, all of them if necessary, and any show of pity or remorse makes you a traitor to the cause, unworthy to be among the Elect who will inherit our glorious new world.鈥� This book explains the hundred year slide from high-minded idealism to genocidal murder, and reminds us that the murderers never stopped thinking of themselves as high-minded idealists.
To be more precise, this is simply Volume Five of the collected works of Isaiah Berlin, and includes journal articles, correspondence, responses to critics, and even a book review. The heart of the book, however, is in the essays Joseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism and European Unity and Its Vicissitudes.
Joseph de Maistre lives on in the pantheon of conservative thinkers like Friedrich Hayek who are passionately praised by people who haven鈥檛 read him and wouldn鈥檛 understand him if they did. He was nevertheless an influential thinker in his time, an ardent defender of absolutism in religion, government, and society, and a committed enemy of science and progress. He was prepared to die in the last ditch to save the world he could already see passing away, and his writings became a source of inspiration for conservative theorists, as well as communist and fascist polemicists.
This book shows Isaiah Berlin at his best, presenting ideas with clarity and forcefulness, and I can鈥檛 speak for him any better than he speaks for himself, so I am going to quote some of the passages that I found insightful and illuminating.
- Both liberty and equality are among the primary goals pursued by human beings through many centuries; but total liberty for wolves is death to the lambs, total liberty of the powerful, the gifted, is not compatible with the rights to a decent existence of the weak and less gifted....Equality may demand the restraint of the liberty of those who wish to dominate; liberty...may have to be curtailed in order to make room for social welfare, to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to shelter the homeless, to leave room for the liberty of others, to allow justice or fairness to be exercised.
- Revolutions, wars, assassinations, extreme measures may in desperate situations be required. But history teaches us that their consequences are seldom what is anticipated; there is no guarantee, not even, at times, a high enough probability, that such acts will lead to improvement.
- Voltaire said that history 鈥榠s a pack of tricks which we play upon the dead.鈥�
- both the English and the German Romantics looked on mankind without contempt or pessimism, whereas Maistre...is consumed by the sense of original sin, the wickedness and worthlessness of the self-destructive stupidity of men left to themselves.
- Maistre鈥檚 passionate but lucid thought [was] that men can be saved only by being hemmed in by the terror of authority. They must be reminded at every instant of their lives of the frightening mystery that lies at the heart of creation; must be purged by perpetual suffering, must be humbled by being made conscious of their stupidity, malice and helplessness at every turn. War, torture, suffering are the inescapable human lot; men must bear them as best they can.
- [In Maistre鈥檚 view] religion is superior to reason not because it returns more convincing answers than reason, but because it returns no answer at all. It does not persuade or argue, it commands. Faith is truly faith only when it is blind; once it looks for justification it is done for.
- Maistre maintains that all suffering, whether it falls on the heads of the guilty or the innocent, must be expiation of sin committed by someone at some time. Why is this so? Because pain must have a purpose, and since its only purpose is penal, there must, somewhere in the universe, exist a sum of transgression sufficient to cause a corresponding sum of suffering to occur; else the existence of evil could not be explained or justified, and the universe would lack moral government.
- The Fascists and National Socialists did not expect inferior classes, or races, or individuals to understand or sympathise with their own goals; their inferiority was innate, ineradicable, since it was due to blood, or race, or some other irremovable characteristic; any attempt on the part of such creatures to pretend to equality with their masters, or even to comprehension of their ideals, was regarded as arrogant and presumptuous.
- Nationalism is not consciousness of the reality of national character, nor pride in it. It is a belief in the unique mission of a nation, as being intrinsically superior to the goals or attributes of whatever is outside it, so that if there is a conflict between my nation and other men, I am obliged to fight for my nation no matter what cost to other men.
- All men will not be saved: the proletariat, justly intent upon its own salvation, had best ignore the fate of their oppressors; even if they wish to return good for evil, they cannot save their enemies from 鈥榣iquidation鈥�. They are 鈥榚xpendable鈥� 鈥� their destruction can be neither averted nor regretted by a rational being, for it is the price that mankind must pay for the progress of reason itself: the road to the gates of Paradise is necessarily strewn with corpses 鈥�.Although it has been reached by a different road, this conclusion is curiously similar to the nationalist or Fascist point of view, and different from the outlook of previous ages. However bitter the hatreds between Christians, Jews and Muslims, or between different sects within these faiths, the argument for the extermination of heretics always rested on the belief that it was in principle possible to convert men to the truth, which was one and universal.
- presuppositions which had ruled Western thought since classical antiquity, were no longer taken for granted in the first quarter of the nineteenth century. By that time a new and immensely influential image began to take possession of the European Mind. This is the image of the heroic individual, imposing his will upon nature or society: of man not as the crown of a harmonious cosmos, but as a being 鈥榓lienated鈥� from it, and seeking to subdue and dominate it.
- In the sixteenth century Calvin and Luther asked theological questions similar to those asked by, say, Loyola or Bellarmine; because their answers were different, they fought bitter wars against each other. Neither side had, or could have had, any respect for the position of the other 鈥� on the contrary, the more stubbornly and violently the enemy fought, the more deeply damned he was in the eyes of the true believer, who knew that he, and not the other possessed the truth; indeed the more deeply your adversary believed in his heresies, the more hateful he must be in the sight or God and man.
- By, say, 1820 a very different view prevails鈥�.The ideal presents itself in the form of a categorical imperative: serve the inner light within you because it burns within you, for that reason alone...[Romantics] do not state facts, they cannot be verified or falsified, they are not discoveries which you may have made and other can check: they are goals.
- The end of a man [under Romanticism] now is to realise the personal vision within him at whatever cost; his worst crime is to be untrue to this inner goal that is his, and his alone. What the effect of this vision may be on others does not concern him; he must be faithful to his inner light; that is all he knows and all he needs to know.
- What is the common ideal of life? The very notion has lost relevance. Questions of behaviour have no answers, since they are no longer conceived as questions鈥�.the answer lies not in knowledge conceived as reflective but in action itself.
- Are my values compatible with one another? Perhaps not鈥�.Justice and mercy are not compatible, yet I must seek both; must, because I have no choice: to deny either is to lie, to sin against the light. To realize what such values are is at times to recognise that they are both absolute and irreconcilable. In this way tragedy enters into life as part of its essence, not as something which can be resolved by rational adjustment: to hope to eliminate it is merely to cheat oneself.
- So too in my relations with others: I have an ideal to which I consecrate my life, you have another; our lives are not intelligible save in terms each of its own inner pattern; if these ideals come into conflict, it is incomparably better that we fight a duel, in which one of us may kill the other or we both die, than that either of use should compromise his beliefs. I respect you far more for fighting for your ideal, which I detest, that for any form of compromise, reconciliation, attempt to evade your responsibility to your true self.
- Idealism (a word which acquires its modern significance only in the course of this revolution of ideas)...acquired in the early nineteenth century an absolute value of its own, which we still respect: to say of a man the he is an idealist is to say that, although his goals may seem to us absurd or even repellent, if his behaviour is disinterested and he is ready to sacrifice himself in the name of a principle and against his obvious material interests, we think him worthy of deep respect.
- The Romantic outlook condemns success as such as both vulgar and immoral; for it is built, as often as not, on a betrayal of ones鈥� ideals, on a contemptible arrangement with the enemy. A correspondingly high value is placed upon defiance for its own sake, idealism, sincerity, purity of motive, resistance in the face of all odds, noble failure, which are contrasted with...peace bought at morally too high a cost. This is the doctrine of heroism and martyrdom, as against that of harmony and wisdom. It is inspiring, audacious, splendid, and sinister too.
- If self-realisation is aimed at as the ultimate goal, then might it not be that the transformation of the world by violence and skill is itself a kind of aesthetic act?鈥�.The victims of these great creative operations must take comfort, and indeed be exalted, by the consciousness that they are thereby lifted to a height which their own lower natures could never by themselves have achieved. This is the justification of acts which in terms of an older morality might be called brutal interference, imperialism, the crushing and maiming of individual human beings for the glory of a conqueror, or a State, or an ideology, the genius of the race.
- From this to extreme nationalism and to Fascism is but a short step. Once the assumption is made that life must be made to resemble a work of art, that the rules that apply to paints or sounds or words also apply to men, that human beings can be looked on as so much 鈥榟uman material鈥�, a plastic medium to be wrought at will by the inspired creator, the notion of individuals as each constituting an independent source of ideals and goals 鈥� and end in himself 鈥� is overthrown鈥�.Hence the war of all against all, and the end of European unity.
- The tidal wave of feeling rose above its banks, and overflowed into the neighbouring provinces of politics and social life with literally devastating results. All forms of going to the bitter end were thought more worthy of man than peaceful negotiation, stopping halfway; extremism, conflict, war were glorified as such.
- The heroic individual, the free creator, became identified not with the unpolitical artist, but with leaders of men bending others to their indomitable will, or with classes, or races, or movement, or nations that asserted themselves against other, and identified their own liberty with the destruction of all that opposed them.
- In Hegel it is the nation organised as a State. In Marx it is the class organised as a revolutionary force. In both cases a large number of human beings must be sacrificed and annihilated if the ideal is to triumph. Unity may be the ultimate goal of humanity, but its method of attaining it is war and disintegration. The path may lead to a terrestrial paradise, but it is strewn with the corpses of the enemy, for whom no tear must be shed, since right and wrong, good and bad, success and failure, wisdom and folly, are all in the end determined by the objective ends of history, which has 鈥榗ondemned鈥� half mankind 鈥� unhistoric nations, members of obsolete classes, inferior races 鈥� to what Proudhon called 鈥榣iquidation鈥�, and Trotsky, in an equally picturesque phrase, described as the rubbish heap of history.
By the 1820s the world view of the Age of Reason, of Voltaire, Diderot, and the philosophes, was dying, having become stifling, trifling, and restrictive, no longer responsive to a rapidly changing culture. The Romantic movement came as a powerful new force, emphasizing emotion and personal commitment. Over time, however, it changed into something darker and more narcissistic, moving from 鈥淚 must be true to myself鈥� to 鈥淚 must be true to an idea, whether it is right or wrong, and regardless of what harm it might cause to others or to myself.鈥� Finally, under fascism and communism, it became, 鈥淗ow many people do we need to kill to remake the world? As many as it takes, all of them if necessary, and any show of pity or remorse makes you a traitor to the cause, unworthy to be among the Elect who will inherit our glorious new world.鈥� This book explains the hundred year slide from high-minded idealism to genocidal murder, and reminds us that the murderers never stopped thinking of themselves as high-minded idealists.
To be more precise, this is simply Volume Five of the collected works of Isaiah Berlin, and includes journal articles, correspondence, responses to critics, and even a book review. The heart of the book, however, is in the essays Joseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism and European Unity and Its Vicissitudes.
Joseph de Maistre lives on in the pantheon of conservative thinkers like Friedrich Hayek who are passionately praised by people who haven鈥檛 read him and wouldn鈥檛 understand him if they did. He was nevertheless an influential thinker in his time, an ardent defender of absolutism in religion, government, and society, and a committed enemy of science and progress. He was prepared to die in the last ditch to save the world he could already see passing away, and his writings became a source of inspiration for conservative theorists, as well as communist and fascist polemicists.
This book shows Isaiah Berlin at his best, presenting ideas with clarity and forcefulness, and I can鈥檛 speak for him any better than he speaks for himself, so I am going to quote some of the passages that I found insightful and illuminating.
- Both liberty and equality are among the primary goals pursued by human beings through many centuries; but total liberty for wolves is death to the lambs, total liberty of the powerful, the gifted, is not compatible with the rights to a decent existence of the weak and less gifted....Equality may demand the restraint of the liberty of those who wish to dominate; liberty...may have to be curtailed in order to make room for social welfare, to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to shelter the homeless, to leave room for the liberty of others, to allow justice or fairness to be exercised.
- Revolutions, wars, assassinations, extreme measures may in desperate situations be required. But history teaches us that their consequences are seldom what is anticipated; there is no guarantee, not even, at times, a high enough probability, that such acts will lead to improvement.
- Voltaire said that history 鈥榠s a pack of tricks which we play upon the dead.鈥�
- both the English and the German Romantics looked on mankind without contempt or pessimism, whereas Maistre...is consumed by the sense of original sin, the wickedness and worthlessness of the self-destructive stupidity of men left to themselves.
- Maistre鈥檚 passionate but lucid thought [was] that men can be saved only by being hemmed in by the terror of authority. They must be reminded at every instant of their lives of the frightening mystery that lies at the heart of creation; must be purged by perpetual suffering, must be humbled by being made conscious of their stupidity, malice and helplessness at every turn. War, torture, suffering are the inescapable human lot; men must bear them as best they can.
- [In Maistre鈥檚 view] religion is superior to reason not because it returns more convincing answers than reason, but because it returns no answer at all. It does not persuade or argue, it commands. Faith is truly faith only when it is blind; once it looks for justification it is done for.
- Maistre maintains that all suffering, whether it falls on the heads of the guilty or the innocent, must be expiation of sin committed by someone at some time. Why is this so? Because pain must have a purpose, and since its only purpose is penal, there must, somewhere in the universe, exist a sum of transgression sufficient to cause a corresponding sum of suffering to occur; else the existence of evil could not be explained or justified, and the universe would lack moral government.
- The Fascists and National Socialists did not expect inferior classes, or races, or individuals to understand or sympathise with their own goals; their inferiority was innate, ineradicable, since it was due to blood, or race, or some other irremovable characteristic; any attempt on the part of such creatures to pretend to equality with their masters, or even to comprehension of their ideals, was regarded as arrogant and presumptuous.
- Nationalism is not consciousness of the reality of national character, nor pride in it. It is a belief in the unique mission of a nation, as being intrinsically superior to the goals or attributes of whatever is outside it, so that if there is a conflict between my nation and other men, I am obliged to fight for my nation no matter what cost to other men.
- All men will not be saved: the proletariat, justly intent upon its own salvation, had best ignore the fate of their oppressors; even if they wish to return good for evil, they cannot save their enemies from 鈥榣iquidation鈥�. They are 鈥榚xpendable鈥� 鈥� their destruction can be neither averted nor regretted by a rational being, for it is the price that mankind must pay for the progress of reason itself: the road to the gates of Paradise is necessarily strewn with corpses 鈥�.Although it has been reached by a different road, this conclusion is curiously similar to the nationalist or Fascist point of view, and different from the outlook of previous ages. However bitter the hatreds between Christians, Jews and Muslims, or between different sects within these faiths, the argument for the extermination of heretics always rested on the belief that it was in principle possible to convert men to the truth, which was one and universal.
- presuppositions which had ruled Western thought since classical antiquity, were no longer taken for granted in the first quarter of the nineteenth century. By that time a new and immensely influential image began to take possession of the European Mind. This is the image of the heroic individual, imposing his will upon nature or society: of man not as the crown of a harmonious cosmos, but as a being 鈥榓lienated鈥� from it, and seeking to subdue and dominate it.
- In the sixteenth century Calvin and Luther asked theological questions similar to those asked by, say, Loyola or Bellarmine; because their answers were different, they fought bitter wars against each other. Neither side had, or could have had, any respect for the position of the other 鈥� on the contrary, the more stubbornly and violently the enemy fought, the more deeply damned he was in the eyes of the true believer, who knew that he, and not the other possessed the truth; indeed the more deeply your adversary believed in his heresies, the more hateful he must be in the sight or God and man.
- By, say, 1820 a very different view prevails鈥�.The ideal presents itself in the form of a categorical imperative: serve the inner light within you because it burns within you, for that reason alone...[Romantics] do not state facts, they cannot be verified or falsified, they are not discoveries which you may have made and other can check: they are goals.
- The end of a man [under Romanticism] now is to realise the personal vision within him at whatever cost; his worst crime is to be untrue to this inner goal that is his, and his alone. What the effect of this vision may be on others does not concern him; he must be faithful to his inner light; that is all he knows and all he needs to know.
- What is the common ideal of life? The very notion has lost relevance. Questions of behaviour have no answers, since they are no longer conceived as questions鈥�.the answer lies not in knowledge conceived as reflective but in action itself.
- Are my values compatible with one another? Perhaps not鈥�.Justice and mercy are not compatible, yet I must seek both; must, because I have no choice: to deny either is to lie, to sin against the light. To realize what such values are is at times to recognise that they are both absolute and irreconcilable. In this way tragedy enters into life as part of its essence, not as something which can be resolved by rational adjustment: to hope to eliminate it is merely to cheat oneself.
- So too in my relations with others: I have an ideal to which I consecrate my life, you have another; our lives are not intelligible save in terms each of its own inner pattern; if these ideals come into conflict, it is incomparably better that we fight a duel, in which one of us may kill the other or we both die, than that either of use should compromise his beliefs. I respect you far more for fighting for your ideal, which I detest, that for any form of compromise, reconciliation, attempt to evade your responsibility to your true self.
- Idealism (a word which acquires its modern significance only in the course of this revolution of ideas)...acquired in the early nineteenth century an absolute value of its own, which we still respect: to say of a man the he is an idealist is to say that, although his goals may seem to us absurd or even repellent, if his behaviour is disinterested and he is ready to sacrifice himself in the name of a principle and against his obvious material interests, we think him worthy of deep respect.
- The Romantic outlook condemns success as such as both vulgar and immoral; for it is built, as often as not, on a betrayal of ones鈥� ideals, on a contemptible arrangement with the enemy. A correspondingly high value is placed upon defiance for its own sake, idealism, sincerity, purity of motive, resistance in the face of all odds, noble failure, which are contrasted with...peace bought at morally too high a cost. This is the doctrine of heroism and martyrdom, as against that of harmony and wisdom. It is inspiring, audacious, splendid, and sinister too.
- If self-realisation is aimed at as the ultimate goal, then might it not be that the transformation of the world by violence and skill is itself a kind of aesthetic act?鈥�.The victims of these great creative operations must take comfort, and indeed be exalted, by the consciousness that they are thereby lifted to a height which their own lower natures could never by themselves have achieved. This is the justification of acts which in terms of an older morality might be called brutal interference, imperialism, the crushing and maiming of individual human beings for the glory of a conqueror, or a State, or an ideology, the genius of the race.
- From this to extreme nationalism and to Fascism is but a short step. Once the assumption is made that life must be made to resemble a work of art, that the rules that apply to paints or sounds or words also apply to men, that human beings can be looked on as so much 鈥榟uman material鈥�, a plastic medium to be wrought at will by the inspired creator, the notion of individuals as each constituting an independent source of ideals and goals 鈥� and end in himself 鈥� is overthrown鈥�.Hence the war of all against all, and the end of European unity.
- The tidal wave of feeling rose above its banks, and overflowed into the neighbouring provinces of politics and social life with literally devastating results. All forms of going to the bitter end were thought more worthy of man than peaceful negotiation, stopping halfway; extremism, conflict, war were glorified as such.
- The heroic individual, the free creator, became identified not with the unpolitical artist, but with leaders of men bending others to their indomitable will, or with classes, or races, or movement, or nations that asserted themselves against other, and identified their own liberty with the destruction of all that opposed them.
- In Hegel it is the nation organised as a State. In Marx it is the class organised as a revolutionary force. In both cases a large number of human beings must be sacrificed and annihilated if the ideal is to triumph. Unity may be the ultimate goal of humanity, but its method of attaining it is war and disintegration. The path may lead to a terrestrial paradise, but it is strewn with the corpses of the enemy, for whom no tear must be shed, since right and wrong, good and bad, success and failure, wisdom and folly, are all in the end determined by the objective ends of history, which has 鈥榗ondemned鈥� half mankind 鈥� unhistoric nations, members of obsolete classes, inferior races 鈥� to what Proudhon called 鈥榣iquidation鈥�, and Trotsky, in an equally picturesque phrase, described as the rubbish heap of history.
August 29, 2017
賲賯丕賱丕鬲 鬲胤乇丨 賰賷賮賷丞 鬲胤賵賷乇 賵鬲賳賲賷丞 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 賵禺氐賵氐丕 丕賱丕賵乇賵亘賷 .
(丕毓鬲賯丿) 亘兀賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賳丕賱 卮賴乇丞 丕賰孬乇 賲賲丕 賷爻鬲丨賯賴丕
(丕毓鬲賯丿) 亘兀賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賳丕賱 卮賴乇丞 丕賰孬乇 賲賲丕 賷爻鬲丨賯賴丕
July 13, 2013
The Crooked Timber of Humanity is not an ode to conformity as some radicals might describe it, but an attempt to show our complexity as human beings.
Isaiah Berlin has a reputation for being a magnificent essayist but this book has exceeded my expectations.
Basically, you' ll get a good grasp of his value pluralism notion and become more skeptical towards utopian ideologies. Enlightenment was the triumph of reason and logic but the romantics soon showed its flaws, depicting the human condition as a warfield where equally valid but contradictory values are in constant conflict towards one another. Soon though, romantic idealism led to the disastrous events of the 20th century, a century with endless bloodshed and suffering.
Our tragedy as human beings is, that we're forced to make choices sacrificing our unreflectiveness and absolutism and perhaps one part of ourselves in this process. Ideologies offering redemption, while necessary in order to broaden our horizons, offer little else, since they fail to encapsulate what makes us who we are. Berlin draws from the counter-enlightenment tradition (a term which I think he was the first to coin) but deals all historical movements and ideas with the outmost respect. His essay on Joseph De-Maistre for example, while critical and bitter towards some of his conclusions, remains a wonderfully balanced approach to a controversial figure. It also works as a prelude towards this book's last essay-also wonderful-, which discussed the then evident rise of fascism in Europe. I wish Berlin was still alive, offering his calm and insightful thoughts in today's similar landscape. From the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.
Isaiah Berlin has a reputation for being a magnificent essayist but this book has exceeded my expectations.
Basically, you' ll get a good grasp of his value pluralism notion and become more skeptical towards utopian ideologies. Enlightenment was the triumph of reason and logic but the romantics soon showed its flaws, depicting the human condition as a warfield where equally valid but contradictory values are in constant conflict towards one another. Soon though, romantic idealism led to the disastrous events of the 20th century, a century with endless bloodshed and suffering.
Our tragedy as human beings is, that we're forced to make choices sacrificing our unreflectiveness and absolutism and perhaps one part of ourselves in this process. Ideologies offering redemption, while necessary in order to broaden our horizons, offer little else, since they fail to encapsulate what makes us who we are. Berlin draws from the counter-enlightenment tradition (a term which I think he was the first to coin) but deals all historical movements and ideas with the outmost respect. His essay on Joseph De-Maistre for example, while critical and bitter towards some of his conclusions, remains a wonderfully balanced approach to a controversial figure. It also works as a prelude towards this book's last essay-also wonderful-, which discussed the then evident rise of fascism in Europe. I wish Berlin was still alive, offering his calm and insightful thoughts in today's similar landscape. From the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.
August 22, 2023
A very good book from one of the most intellectual thinkers of the 20 century.
September 26, 2016
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 毓亘丕乇丞 毓賳 賲噩賲賵毓丞 賲賯丕賱丕鬲 亘鬲鬲賰賱賲 毓賳 賰賷賮賷丞 鬲胤賵賷乇 丕賱賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱亘卮乇賷 毓丕賲丞 賵 丕賱兀賵乇賵亘賷 禺丕氐丞 賵 兀夭丕賷 賲賲賰賳 賳爻鬲睾賱 丕賱胤丕賯丞 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 賱賱賵氐賵賱 廿賱賶 賲噩鬲賲毓 賲孬丕賱賷 兀賵 賷賵鬲賵亘賷丕 亘賲毓賳賶 兀氐丨 貙 賱賲 鬲丐孬乇 賮賷 廿賱丕 丕賱賲賯丕賱丞 丕賱兀賵賱賶 丕賱賱賷 亘鬲丨賲賱 兀爻賲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賵 丿賴 毓卮丕賳 賴賷 亘鬲丨賱賱 亘卮賰賱 鬲賮氐賷賱賷 兀夭丕賷 賲賲賰賳 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 丕賱毓丕丿賷 賷鬲丨賵賱 賱廿賳爻丕賳 賮丕爻丿 賵 賲丕毓賳丿賵卮 兀丿賳賶 賲卮賰賱丞 賷卮賵賮 丕賱賮爻丕丿 賮賷 亘賱丿賴 賵 賷爻賯賮賱賴 賰賲丕賳 夭賷 丕賱賱賷 亘賷丨氐賱 毓賳丿賳丕 賮賷 賲氐乇 賵 丕賱賲賳胤賯丞 丕賱毓乇亘賷丞 . 賳噩賲鬲賷賳 賱兀賵賱 賲賯丕賱丞 賵 賳噩賲丞 賱亘丕賯賷 丕賱賲賯丕賱丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 賱賲 鬲賯丿賲 兀賷 噩丿賷丿.
March 9, 2022
O carte uluitoare, la fel 葯i autorul care mi-a devenit noua pasiune (prima interac葲iune cu scrierile lui Isaiah Berlin). Fermec膬toare este 卯n prim moment istoria lui: av芒nd origini evreie葯ti 葯i ruse葯ti, 卯葯i formeaz膬 din copil膬rie intui葲ia 葯i ideile despre ce 卯nseamn膬 r膬ul politic tr膬it tr膬ind Revolu葲ia din Octombrie. Mai apoi, se mut膬 cu familia 卯n Marea Britanie, patria individualismului 葯i empirismului 葯i se dezvolt膬 intelectual 卯n cea mai imun膬 cultur膬 la absolutism a vremii. Devine un Socrate care dialogheaz膬 cu g芒ndirea politic膬, fiind admirat 葯i respectat pentru prelegerile sale (ast膬zi celebre).
Ce-i cu lucrarea de fa葲膬? O culegere de texte preponderent din 1972-1981, eseuri 葯i recenzii 卯ntr-o scriitur膬 pur膬, limpede 鈥� iar acesta este punctul forte al lui Berlin: transform膬 informa葲ia, oric芒t de complex膬 ar fi, 卯ntr-un mesaj u葯or de 卯n葲eles, accesibil publicului larg. Eseurile sale se 卯nscriu filosofiei politice 葯i sunt o maturizare a intui葲iei 葯i credin葲elor dob芒ndite 卯n studen葲ie. Pe scurt, 卯ncearc膬 s膬 demonstreze (printre r芒nduri) c膬 orice ideologie care 卯ncearc膬 s膬 explice integral lumea este fals膬 葯i mincinoas膬, c膬ci nu exist膬 un singur adev膬r, iar fiecare 鈥瀎ereastr膬鈥� prin care privim nu este integral curat膬, dar nici integral murdar膬. Subiectul central este monismul (ideologiile unicului adev膬r, cele care cred c膬 exist膬 un r膬spuns adev膬rat la toate 卯ntreb膬rile), iar filosoful arat膬 c膬 sunt false 葯i pledeaz膬 diplomatic pentru pluralism.
Aceste capitole din istoria ideilor ridic膬 卯ntrebarea 鈥濩um s-a putut ca din scrieri aparent angelice ale filosofilor (ilumini葯ti, utopi葯ti, ra葲ionali葯ti, romantici) s膬 se ajung膬 la drama secolului XX (葯i, zic eu, p芒n膬 卯n prezent)?鈥�. Surprinz膬tor, ce face Berlin nu este s膬-i condamne 卯n analiza lor, ci 卯ncearc膬 s膬-i 卯n葲eleag膬 葯i s膬 priveasc膬 prin 鈥瀎ereastra鈥�/ lentila lor. Sunt capitole uimitoare (葯i pe alocuri 葯ocante) prin scriitur膬, analiz膬, intensitatea g芒ndirii, precum 葯i prin compara葲ii 葯i sisteme de asem膬n膬ri. 脦n cazul meu, au fost at芒tea lucruri pe care nu le-am 葯tiut, personaje despre care nu 葯tiam c芒t de mult ne-au influen葲at (卯n r膬u) g芒ndirea 葯i contemporaneitatea. Un must read 卯n zilele acestea 卯nce葲o葯ate.
Ce-i cu lucrarea de fa葲膬? O culegere de texte preponderent din 1972-1981, eseuri 葯i recenzii 卯ntr-o scriitur膬 pur膬, limpede 鈥� iar acesta este punctul forte al lui Berlin: transform膬 informa葲ia, oric芒t de complex膬 ar fi, 卯ntr-un mesaj u葯or de 卯n葲eles, accesibil publicului larg. Eseurile sale se 卯nscriu filosofiei politice 葯i sunt o maturizare a intui葲iei 葯i credin葲elor dob芒ndite 卯n studen葲ie. Pe scurt, 卯ncearc膬 s膬 demonstreze (printre r芒nduri) c膬 orice ideologie care 卯ncearc膬 s膬 explice integral lumea este fals膬 葯i mincinoas膬, c膬ci nu exist膬 un singur adev膬r, iar fiecare 鈥瀎ereastr膬鈥� prin care privim nu este integral curat膬, dar nici integral murdar膬. Subiectul central este monismul (ideologiile unicului adev膬r, cele care cred c膬 exist膬 un r膬spuns adev膬rat la toate 卯ntreb膬rile), iar filosoful arat膬 c膬 sunt false 葯i pledeaz膬 diplomatic pentru pluralism.
Aceste capitole din istoria ideilor ridic膬 卯ntrebarea 鈥濩um s-a putut ca din scrieri aparent angelice ale filosofilor (ilumini葯ti, utopi葯ti, ra葲ionali葯ti, romantici) s膬 se ajung膬 la drama secolului XX (葯i, zic eu, p芒n膬 卯n prezent)?鈥�. Surprinz膬tor, ce face Berlin nu este s膬-i condamne 卯n analiza lor, ci 卯ncearc膬 s膬-i 卯n葲eleag膬 葯i s膬 priveasc膬 prin 鈥瀎ereastra鈥�/ lentila lor. Sunt capitole uimitoare (葯i pe alocuri 葯ocante) prin scriitur膬, analiz膬, intensitatea g芒ndirii, precum 葯i prin compara葲ii 葯i sisteme de asem膬n膬ri. 脦n cazul meu, au fost at芒tea lucruri pe care nu le-am 葯tiut, personaje despre care nu 葯tiam c芒t de mult ne-au influen葲at (卯n r膬u) g芒ndirea 葯i contemporaneitatea. Un must read 卯n zilele acestea 卯nce葲o葯ate.
January 1, 2022
Cartea este o colec葲ie excep葲ional膬 de eseuri 鈥� 葯i a c芒torva r膬spunsuri 葯i scrisori c膬tre critici, prin care Isaiah Berlin 卯葯i formuleaz膬 viziunea asupra unor chestiuni de mare 卯nsemn膬tate contemporan膬 acoperind totodat膬 ideile secolelor XVII 葯i XVIII care au condus la aceste transform膬ri sociale 葯i politice. Cartea este o lentil膬 care trebuie a葯ezat膬 cu grij膬 鈥� l芒ng膬 multe altele ce alc膬tuiesc un adev膬rat obiectiv de privit realitatea 鈥� 卯n fa葲a min葲ii ca s膬 putem vedea mai bine prezentul prin modul 卯n care el ne-a parvenit treptat nou膬, adic膬 prin noianul de idei fr膬m芒ntate de-a lungul mileniilor de mul葲imea de g芒nditori angaja葲i s膬 dea r膬spunsuri proprii la schimb膬rile epocii 卯n care au tr膬it croind noi 葲eluri, pentru c膬, spune Berlin;鈥瀘 cauz膬 a schimb膬rilor continue din istoria omenirii este faptul c膬 tocmai 卯mplinirea (sau 卯mplinirea par葲ial膬) a unei aspira葲ii umane este ceea ce-l transform膬 pe aspirant 葯i na葯te, 卯n timp, noi nevoi, scopuri, perspective ex hypotesis imprevizibile.鈥� A se citi 卯ncet pentru ca informa葲iile despre g芒ndirea trecutului s膬 poat膬 fi raportate corespunz膬tor la prezent. Procesul citirii e mai mult ca o digestie 葯i asimilare dec芒t cu o simpl膬 lectur膬.
Critic al despotismului ira葲ionalist reprezentat de tipul Joseph de Meister, dar 葯i al unei libert膬葲i excesive reprezentate de degener膬ri ale curentului romantic german de la grani葲a secolelor XVIII-XIX 葯i a unui Iluminism exacerbat, Berlin se pozi葲ioneaz膬 de partea unui liberalism pluralist ra葲ional. El neag膬 universalitatea fiin葲ei umane promovat膬 de Iluminismul francez 鈥� 鈥瀗u exist膬 o o fiin葲膬 central膬, pur膬, natural膬 care s膬 ias膬 la iveal膬 dup ce ai r膬zuit toate credin葲ele, obiceiurile, valorile, formele artificiale de via葲膬 葯i comportament care au fost, ca s膬 spunem a葯a, suprapuse peste aceast膬 fiin葲膬 pur膬 葯i natural膬鈥濃€� dar nu neag膬 o anume baz膬 comun膬 uman膬 de nevoi 葯i valori: nevoia de hran膬, ad膬post, siguran葲膬, apartenen葲膬 na葲ional膬, nevoia de un minim de libertate, de a iubi, de a adera la un cult etc., iar f膬r膬 de aceste 卯nsu葯iri comune comunicarea 卯ntre oameni ar fi imposibil膬; 鈥濶u exist膬 o o natur膬 uman膬 fix膬, 卯ns膬 exist膬 o natur膬 uman膬 comun膬鈥�, care a format o serie de valori supreme de la care n-au f膬cut rabat oamenii de foarte departe din trecut p芒n膬 卯n prezent, acestea fiind valorile umane.
Asemenea complexitate a naturii umane confer膬 un grad mare de flexibilitate indivizilor angaja葲i 卯n comunit膬葲i 卯n diverse spa葲ii 葯i timpuri astfel c膬 nu exist膬 un scop comun 葯i unic al umanit膬葲ii 卯n general, ci fiecare grup 卯葯i alege scopul lui de urm膬rit 葯i propria cultur膬, care pot fi incompatibile cu scopurile 葯i culturile altor grupuri. De aceea Berlin consider膬 c膬 impunerea printr-un compromis global al unor reguli unice la care s膬 adere ra葲ional to葲i oamenii este o utopie 葯i o contradic葲ie. Cu toate acestea, culturile 葯i valorile lor diverse se pot 卯n葲elege pe criteriul inteligibilit膬葲ii; pluralismul lui Berlin const膬 卯n faptul de a fi suficient de empatic, 卯nc芒t a-i putea p膬trunde imaginativ 卯n modul de g芒ndire al culturii concurente 葯i totodat膬 de a-i putea 卯n葲elege temeiurile chiar dac膬 nu e葯ti de acord cu ele.
Critic al despotismului ira葲ionalist reprezentat de tipul Joseph de Meister, dar 葯i al unei libert膬葲i excesive reprezentate de degener膬ri ale curentului romantic german de la grani葲a secolelor XVIII-XIX 葯i a unui Iluminism exacerbat, Berlin se pozi葲ioneaz膬 de partea unui liberalism pluralist ra葲ional. El neag膬 universalitatea fiin葲ei umane promovat膬 de Iluminismul francez 鈥� 鈥瀗u exist膬 o o fiin葲膬 central膬, pur膬, natural膬 care s膬 ias膬 la iveal膬 dup ce ai r膬zuit toate credin葲ele, obiceiurile, valorile, formele artificiale de via葲膬 葯i comportament care au fost, ca s膬 spunem a葯a, suprapuse peste aceast膬 fiin葲膬 pur膬 葯i natural膬鈥濃€� dar nu neag膬 o anume baz膬 comun膬 uman膬 de nevoi 葯i valori: nevoia de hran膬, ad膬post, siguran葲膬, apartenen葲膬 na葲ional膬, nevoia de un minim de libertate, de a iubi, de a adera la un cult etc., iar f膬r膬 de aceste 卯nsu葯iri comune comunicarea 卯ntre oameni ar fi imposibil膬; 鈥濶u exist膬 o o natur膬 uman膬 fix膬, 卯ns膬 exist膬 o natur膬 uman膬 comun膬鈥�, care a format o serie de valori supreme de la care n-au f膬cut rabat oamenii de foarte departe din trecut p芒n膬 卯n prezent, acestea fiind valorile umane.
Asemenea complexitate a naturii umane confer膬 un grad mare de flexibilitate indivizilor angaja葲i 卯n comunit膬葲i 卯n diverse spa葲ii 葯i timpuri astfel c膬 nu exist膬 un scop comun 葯i unic al umanit膬葲ii 卯n general, ci fiecare grup 卯葯i alege scopul lui de urm膬rit 葯i propria cultur膬, care pot fi incompatibile cu scopurile 葯i culturile altor grupuri. De aceea Berlin consider膬 c膬 impunerea printr-un compromis global al unor reguli unice la care s膬 adere ra葲ional to葲i oamenii este o utopie 葯i o contradic葲ie. Cu toate acestea, culturile 葯i valorile lor diverse se pot 卯n葲elege pe criteriul inteligibilit膬葲ii; pluralismul lui Berlin const膬 卯n faptul de a fi suficient de empatic, 卯nc芒t a-i putea p膬trunde imaginativ 卯n modul de g芒ndire al culturii concurente 葯i totodat膬 de a-i putea 卯n葲elege temeiurile chiar dac膬 nu e葯ti de acord cu ele.
July 24, 2013
亘乇賱賷賳 丿乇 丕賷賳 丕孬乇 丕夭 爻賵賷賶 亘賴 爻賷乇 鬲丕乇賷禺賶 丕賷賳 丕賳丿賷卮賴鈥� 賴丕賶 丌乇賲丕賳 诏乇丕賷丕賳賴 賳馗乇 丿丕乇丿 賵 丕夭 丿賷诏乇 爻賵 鬲丨賵賱丕鬲 丕賳丿賷卮賴 禺賵丿 乇丕 丿乇 亘丕亘鈥徹ж� 丿賵乇賴 噩賵丕賳賶 鬲丕 乇賵夭诏丕乇 倬賷乇賶 鬲卮乇賷丨 賲賶鈥徺冑嗀�. 亘乇賱賷賳 賳卮丕賳 賲賶鈥徹囏� 賰賴 賴賲丕賳 诏賵賳賴 丿乇 亘丕亘 賲賮賴賵賲 賵 丨賯賷賯鬲 丌乇賲丕賳鈥徻必з娰� 賵 毓丿丕賱鬲鈥徺� 丌夭丕丿賶 賵 丨賯賵賯 賲爻賱賲 丕賳爻丕賳貙 賳馗乇賷賴鈥徺囏з� 賮乇丕賵丕賳 賵 诏丕賴 囟丿 賵 賳賯賷囟賶 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿貙 丕賵 賴賲 亘賴 鬲賳丕爻亘 乇卮丿 賮賰乇賶 賵 毓賯賱賶 禺賵丿 賴乇丿賵乇賴 亘賴 賷賰賶 丕夭 爻賵賷賴鈥徺囏з� 丕賷賳 賲賮丕賴賷賲 賲丕賷賱 亘賵丿賴 丕爻鬲貨 亘賴 丕賷賳 賲毓賳丕 賰賴 乇賵夭诏丕乇賶 賮賰乇 賲賶鈥徺冐必� 丨賯賷賯鬲 亘乇鬲乇賶 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿 賰賴 賴賲賴鈥徹з嗀池з嗏€徺囏� 亘丕賷丿 亘賴 丌賳 乇賵賶 亘賷丕賵乇賳丿貙 丕賲丕 乇賵夭诏丕乇賶 丿乇爻鬲 毓賰爻 丌賳 賲賶鈥徹з嗀娯促娯� 賵 丕诏乇 趩賴 亘賴 賵噩賵丿 丨賯賷賯鬲 賳丕亘丕賵乇 賳亘賵丿賴貙 丕賲丕 丿賷诏乇賳賴 賷賰 丨賯賷賯鬲 亘賱賰賴 亘賴 丨賯丕賷賯 賲鬲賰孬乇 亘丕賵乇 丿丕卮鬲賴 丕爻鬲.
亘乇賱賷賳 丿乇 丕賷賳 丕孬乇 賲賶鈥徹堌з囏� 亘賴 丕賳賷噩丕 亘乇爻丿 賰賴 芦丌夭丕丿賶禄 诏賵賴乇 夭賳丿诏賶 亘卮乇 丕爻鬲 賵 亘賴 賵噩賵丿 丌賳 爻乇卮鬲 乇丕爻鬲賷賳 丕賳爻丕賳貙 丌賳 诏賵賳賴 賰賴鈥徹ㄘз娯� 鬲丨賯賯 賳賲賶鈥徺娯жㄘ�. 丿乇 毓賷賳 丨丕賱 丕賵 丌夭丕丿賶 乇丕 丌夭丕丿賶 賲丨丿賵丿 賲賶鈥徹з嗀� 趩乇丕 賰賴 丌夭丕丿賶 鬲丕賲貙 丌夭丕丿賶 賳賷爻鬲: 芦诏丕賴賶 賱丕夭賲賴 亘乇丕亘乇賶貙賲丨丿賵丿 賰乇丿賳 丌夭丿賶 丌賳 賰爻丕賳賶 丕爻鬲 賰賴 賲賷賱 亘賴 爻賱胤賴 丿丕乇賳丿貨 卮丕賷丿 賱丕夭賲 亘丕卮丿 丌夭丕丿賶 乇丕 賲丨丿賵丿 賰賳賷賲 鬲丕 亘鬲賵丕賳賷賲 亘乇丕賶 丌夭丕丿賶 丿賷诏乇丕賳 賵 亘乇賯乇丕乇賶 毓丿丕賱鬲 噩丕賷賶 亘丕夭 賰賳賷賲.
亘丕 丕賷賳 賰賴 亘乇賱賷賳 趩賴 丿乇 丕賷賳 丕孬乇 賵 趩賴 丿乇 爻丕賷乇 丌孬丕乇卮 賲孬賱 芦趩賴丕乇 乇爻丕賱賴 丿乇 亘丕乇賴 丌夭丕丿賶禄 賷丕 芦賲丨亘賵爻 卮賲丕賱禄 丿乇 賯丕賲鬲 賷賰鈥徺佡娰勜迟堎� 爻賷丕爻賶 亘夭乇诏 賵 噩丕賲毓鈥徺嗂� 噩賱賵賴 賲賶鈥徺冑嗀� 丕賲丕 噩丕賱亘 丕爻鬲 賰賴 禺賵丿 丕賵 鬲毓乇賷賮 禺丕氐賶 丕夭 賮賱爻賮赖 爻賷丕爻賶 丿丕乇丿 芦賮賱爻賮赖鈥徹迟娯ж迟� 趩賷夭賶 賳賷爻鬲 賲诏乇 亘賴 賰丕乇 亘爻鬲賳 毓賱賲 丕禺賱丕賯 丿乇 賲乇賵丿 噩丕賲毓賴.禄 丕夭 賴賲賷賳 噩丕爻鬲 賰賴 賲賶鈥徹堌з� 亘乇賱賷賳 乇丕 賷賰 賮賷賱爻賵賮 賷丕 毓丕賱賲鈥徹ж勜з� 亘賴 卮賲丕乇 丌賵乇丿 賵 丌賲賵夭賴鈥徺囏з� 丕賵 乇丕 丿乇 倬乇鬲賵 毓賱賲 丕禺賱丕賯 禺賵丕賳丿 賵 賮賴賲賷丿. 丕賵 賲賶鈥徻堎娯�: 丕賲賷丿 賲丕 亘丕賷丿 亘乇 丕賷賳 倬丕賷賴 丕爻鬲賵丕乇 亘丕卮丿 賰賴鈥徹� 賷賰 芦丿賳賷丕賶 丕禺賱丕賯賶 賲卮鬲乇賰禄 夭賳丿诏賶 賰賳賷賲 賵 丕賷賳 亘賴 賳賵毓賶 鬲賲丕賲 鬲賱丕卮 亘乇賱賷賳 丕爻鬲 丿乇 鬲賲丕賲 鬲兀賲賱丕鬲 賵 賳賵卮鬲賴鈥� 賴丕賷卮
亘乇賱賷賳 丿乇 丕賷賳 丕孬乇 賲賶鈥徹堌з囏� 亘賴 丕賳賷噩丕 亘乇爻丿 賰賴 芦丌夭丕丿賶禄 诏賵賴乇 夭賳丿诏賶 亘卮乇 丕爻鬲 賵 亘賴 賵噩賵丿 丌賳 爻乇卮鬲 乇丕爻鬲賷賳 丕賳爻丕賳貙 丌賳 诏賵賳賴 賰賴鈥徹ㄘз娯� 鬲丨賯賯 賳賲賶鈥徺娯жㄘ�. 丿乇 毓賷賳 丨丕賱 丕賵 丌夭丕丿賶 乇丕 丌夭丕丿賶 賲丨丿賵丿 賲賶鈥徹з嗀� 趩乇丕 賰賴 丌夭丕丿賶 鬲丕賲貙 丌夭丕丿賶 賳賷爻鬲: 芦诏丕賴賶 賱丕夭賲賴 亘乇丕亘乇賶貙賲丨丿賵丿 賰乇丿賳 丌夭丿賶 丌賳 賰爻丕賳賶 丕爻鬲 賰賴 賲賷賱 亘賴 爻賱胤賴 丿丕乇賳丿貨 卮丕賷丿 賱丕夭賲 亘丕卮丿 丌夭丕丿賶 乇丕 賲丨丿賵丿 賰賳賷賲 鬲丕 亘鬲賵丕賳賷賲 亘乇丕賶 丌夭丕丿賶 丿賷诏乇丕賳 賵 亘乇賯乇丕乇賶 毓丿丕賱鬲 噩丕賷賶 亘丕夭 賰賳賷賲.
亘丕 丕賷賳 賰賴 亘乇賱賷賳 趩賴 丿乇 丕賷賳 丕孬乇 賵 趩賴 丿乇 爻丕賷乇 丌孬丕乇卮 賲孬賱 芦趩賴丕乇 乇爻丕賱賴 丿乇 亘丕乇賴 丌夭丕丿賶禄 賷丕 芦賲丨亘賵爻 卮賲丕賱禄 丿乇 賯丕賲鬲 賷賰鈥徺佡娰勜迟堎� 爻賷丕爻賶 亘夭乇诏 賵 噩丕賲毓鈥徺嗂� 噩賱賵賴 賲賶鈥徺冑嗀� 丕賲丕 噩丕賱亘 丕爻鬲 賰賴 禺賵丿 丕賵 鬲毓乇賷賮 禺丕氐賶 丕夭 賮賱爻賮赖 爻賷丕爻賶 丿丕乇丿 芦賮賱爻賮赖鈥徹迟娯ж迟� 趩賷夭賶 賳賷爻鬲 賲诏乇 亘賴 賰丕乇 亘爻鬲賳 毓賱賲 丕禺賱丕賯 丿乇 賲乇賵丿 噩丕賲毓賴.禄 丕夭 賴賲賷賳 噩丕爻鬲 賰賴 賲賶鈥徹堌з� 亘乇賱賷賳 乇丕 賷賰 賮賷賱爻賵賮 賷丕 毓丕賱賲鈥徹ж勜з� 亘賴 卮賲丕乇 丌賵乇丿 賵 丌賲賵夭賴鈥徺囏з� 丕賵 乇丕 丿乇 倬乇鬲賵 毓賱賲 丕禺賱丕賯 禺賵丕賳丿 賵 賮賴賲賷丿. 丕賵 賲賶鈥徻堎娯�: 丕賲賷丿 賲丕 亘丕賷丿 亘乇 丕賷賳 倬丕賷賴 丕爻鬲賵丕乇 亘丕卮丿 賰賴鈥徹� 賷賰 芦丿賳賷丕賶 丕禺賱丕賯賶 賲卮鬲乇賰禄 夭賳丿诏賶 賰賳賷賲 賵 丕賷賳 亘賴 賳賵毓賶 鬲賲丕賲 鬲賱丕卮 亘乇賱賷賳 丕爻鬲 丿乇 鬲賲丕賲 鬲兀賲賱丕鬲 賵 賳賵卮鬲賴鈥� 賴丕賷卮
December 7, 2009
In this compelling examination of the historical roots of modern thinking Isaiah Berlin occupies himself with the clash of ideas between French Enlightenment thinkers on one side and a small group of irrationalist reactionaries on the other. He primarily focuses on Giambattista Vico, Johann Gottfried Herder, Joseph de Maistre and Johann Georg Hamann and discusses how their reaction against the enlightenment concept of universal truth led to the romantic movement and ultimately to fascism. Berlin's conclusion seems to be in favor of pluralism, rejecting the dangerous idea of man-made utopias as well as the equally damaging moral relativism that led to the nihilistic worship of blood, state and leader; both concepts that resulted in the bloodbaths of the 20th century. He also has some interesting views on the rise of the nation-state as a response to colonialism and the utter failure of Marxist Internationalism. He advocates a middle ground of pluralism and acceptance of differences with the realization that there are certain modals of acceptable behavior that cross cultural divides and make us human.
September 17, 2017
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 毓亘丕乇丞 毓賳 伽 賲賯丕賱丕鬲.
丕賱賲賯丕賱丞 丕賱兀賵賱賶 鬲賳丕賯卮 賲爻兀賱丞 丕賱賷賵鬲賵亘賷丕貙 兀賵 亘丕賱兀氐丨 鬲賳鬲賯丿 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱胤賵亘丕賵賷丞貙 丕賱賯丕卅賲丞 賮賷 丕賱兀睾賱亘 毓賱賶 兀賮賰丕乇 賲賳 賯亘賷賱 兀賳 賴賳丕賰 胤乇賷賯丞 賵丕丨丿丞 賱賱毓賷卮 賴賷 兀賮囟賱 賲賳 賰賱 丕賱胤乇賯 睾賷乇賴丕 賵 鬲賳丕爻亘 賰賱 丕賱賳丕爻貙 賵 兀賳丕 賲賳 丨賷孬 丕賱賲亘丿兀 賯丕亘賱丞 賱兀賳 鬲購毓乇賮貙 賵 兀賳 鬲購胤亘賯貙 丨鬲賶 賵賱賵 賱賲 賳毓乇賮 丕賱廿噩丕亘丞 毓賳 丕賱兀爻卅賱丞 丕賱賲鬲毓賱賯丞 亘賰賷賮賷鬲賴丕 賵賲丕賴賷鬲賴丕 丕賱賷賵賲貙 賱賰賳賴丕 賲賵噩賵丿丞.
丕賱鬲丕賳賷丞 亘鬲賳丕賯卮 賲爻兀賱丞 賯乇賷亘丞 賲賳賴丕貙 賵賴賷 賲爻兀賱丞 賵丨丿丞 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞 賵 賮乇囟賷丞 兀賳 賴賳丕賰 丨賯賷賯丞 賵丕丨丿丞 賱賴丕 賵 丕賴丿丕賮 賵丕丨丿丞 賷賲賰賳 賱賰賱 丕賱亘卮乇 賲賳 賳丕丨賷丞 丕賱賲亘丿兀 廿丿乇丕賰賴丕. 賵 賮乇囟賷丞 賲毓丕賰爻丞貙 丨丿賷孬丞 賳爻亘賷丕賸貙 亘兀賳 "丕賱亘卮乇" 賱賷爻賵 噩賲賷毓丕賸 賲鬲爻丕賵賷賷賳 賮賷 廿賳爻丕賳賷鬲賴賲貙 賵 兀賳 亘毓囟 丕賱賯賵賲賷丕鬲 兀賵 丕賱兀毓乇丕賯 氐丕丨亘丞 賲乇鬲亘丞 兀毓賱賶 賵 兀賴丿丕賮 賵 賯賷賲 賵 賲購孬購賱 兀毓賱賶貙 賵 丕賱亘卮乇 丕賱兀丿賳賶 賲乇鬲亘丞 賱賷爻賵 賯丕丿乇賷賳 毓賱賶 鬲賮賴賲 賴匕賴 丕賱賲孬賱 賵 丕賱賯賷賲貙 賲賲丕 賷禺賵賱賴賲 賵賷亘乇乇 賱賴賲 兀賳 賷賯鬲賱賵賴賲 賲孬賱丕 賮賷 爻亘賷賱 賴匕賴 丕賱賯賷賲 亘丿賵賳 賲毓丕鬲亘丞 囟賲賷乇.
丕賱賲賯丕賱鬲賷賳 丕賱孬丕賱孬丞 賵 丕賱乇丕亘毓丞 鬲賯乇賷亘丕賸 賮賷賴丕 鬲賰乇丕乇 賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱賵丕乇丿丞 賮賷 丕賱賲賯丕賱鬲賷賳 丕賱爻丕亘賯鬲賷賳貙 賲毓 賳賯丕卮 賵鬲丨賱賷賱 賱兀爻亘丕亘 賳卮賵亍 丕賱丨乇賰丕鬲 丕賱賯賵賲賷丞貙 兀賱賲丕賳賷丕 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱孬丕賲賳 毓卮乇 賲孬丕賱丕賸貙 賲賳 卮毓賵乇 亘丕賱丿賵賳賷丞 賵 丕賱丕爻鬲囟毓丕賮 賵 丕賱廿匕賱丕賱 毓賱賶 賷丿 丕賱丨囟丕乇丕鬲 丕賱兀禺乇賶 "丕賱兀賰孬乇 乇賯賷丕賸 賵 鬲丨囟乇丕賸" -丕賱賮乇賳爻賷賷賳 鬲丨丿賷丿丕賸- .
丕賱賲賯丕賱丞 丕賱兀賵賱賶 鬲賳丕賯卮 賲爻兀賱丞 丕賱賷賵鬲賵亘賷丕貙 兀賵 亘丕賱兀氐丨 鬲賳鬲賯丿 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱胤賵亘丕賵賷丞貙 丕賱賯丕卅賲丞 賮賷 丕賱兀睾賱亘 毓賱賶 兀賮賰丕乇 賲賳 賯亘賷賱 兀賳 賴賳丕賰 胤乇賷賯丞 賵丕丨丿丞 賱賱毓賷卮 賴賷 兀賮囟賱 賲賳 賰賱 丕賱胤乇賯 睾賷乇賴丕 賵 鬲賳丕爻亘 賰賱 丕賱賳丕爻貙 賵 兀賳丕 賲賳 丨賷孬 丕賱賲亘丿兀 賯丕亘賱丞 賱兀賳 鬲購毓乇賮貙 賵 兀賳 鬲購胤亘賯貙 丨鬲賶 賵賱賵 賱賲 賳毓乇賮 丕賱廿噩丕亘丞 毓賳 丕賱兀爻卅賱丞 丕賱賲鬲毓賱賯丞 亘賰賷賮賷鬲賴丕 賵賲丕賴賷鬲賴丕 丕賱賷賵賲貙 賱賰賳賴丕 賲賵噩賵丿丞.
丕賱鬲丕賳賷丞 亘鬲賳丕賯卮 賲爻兀賱丞 賯乇賷亘丞 賲賳賴丕貙 賵賴賷 賲爻兀賱丞 賵丨丿丞 丕賱胤亘賷毓丞 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞 賵 賮乇囟賷丞 兀賳 賴賳丕賰 丨賯賷賯丞 賵丕丨丿丞 賱賴丕 賵 丕賴丿丕賮 賵丕丨丿丞 賷賲賰賳 賱賰賱 丕賱亘卮乇 賲賳 賳丕丨賷丞 丕賱賲亘丿兀 廿丿乇丕賰賴丕. 賵 賮乇囟賷丞 賲毓丕賰爻丞貙 丨丿賷孬丞 賳爻亘賷丕賸貙 亘兀賳 "丕賱亘卮乇" 賱賷爻賵 噩賲賷毓丕賸 賲鬲爻丕賵賷賷賳 賮賷 廿賳爻丕賳賷鬲賴賲貙 賵 兀賳 亘毓囟 丕賱賯賵賲賷丕鬲 兀賵 丕賱兀毓乇丕賯 氐丕丨亘丞 賲乇鬲亘丞 兀毓賱賶 賵 兀賴丿丕賮 賵 賯賷賲 賵 賲購孬購賱 兀毓賱賶貙 賵 丕賱亘卮乇 丕賱兀丿賳賶 賲乇鬲亘丞 賱賷爻賵 賯丕丿乇賷賳 毓賱賶 鬲賮賴賲 賴匕賴 丕賱賲孬賱 賵 丕賱賯賷賲貙 賲賲丕 賷禺賵賱賴賲 賵賷亘乇乇 賱賴賲 兀賳 賷賯鬲賱賵賴賲 賲孬賱丕 賮賷 爻亘賷賱 賴匕賴 丕賱賯賷賲 亘丿賵賳 賲毓丕鬲亘丞 囟賲賷乇.
丕賱賲賯丕賱鬲賷賳 丕賱孬丕賱孬丞 賵 丕賱乇丕亘毓丞 鬲賯乇賷亘丕賸 賮賷賴丕 鬲賰乇丕乇 賱賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱賵丕乇丿丞 賮賷 丕賱賲賯丕賱鬲賷賳 丕賱爻丕亘賯鬲賷賳貙 賲毓 賳賯丕卮 賵鬲丨賱賷賱 賱兀爻亘丕亘 賳卮賵亍 丕賱丨乇賰丕鬲 丕賱賯賵賲賷丞貙 兀賱賲丕賳賷丕 丕賱賯乇賳 丕賱孬丕賲賳 毓卮乇 賲孬丕賱丕賸貙 賲賳 卮毓賵乇 亘丕賱丿賵賳賷丞 賵 丕賱丕爻鬲囟毓丕賮 賵 丕賱廿匕賱丕賱 毓賱賶 賷丿 丕賱丨囟丕乇丕鬲 丕賱兀禺乇賶 "丕賱兀賰孬乇 乇賯賷丕賸 賵 鬲丨囟乇丕賸" -丕賱賮乇賳爻賷賷賳 鬲丨丿賷丿丕賸- .
September 20, 2013
丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丌蹖夭蹖丕 亘乇賱蹖賳 爻毓蹖 賲蹖 讴賳丿 鬲丕 亘丕 亘乇乇爻蹖 乇丕亘胤賴鈥� 丕賳丿蹖卮賴鈥屬囏� 亘丕 鬲丕乇蹖禺貙 乇蹖卮賴鈥屬囏й� 乇禺丿丕丿 丕賲乇 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 乇丕 鬲亘蹖蹖賳 讴賳丿 賵 丿乇 丕蹖賳 乇丕賴 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 賱蹖亘乇丕賱蹖爻鬲 亘丕 亘丕夭 诏匕丕卮鬲賳 禺賵丕賳卮 亘乇爻丕禺鬲蹖 丕夭 鬲丕乇蹖禺 睾乇亘 賳賯卮 爻丕夭賴鈥屬囏� 賵 丕賳丿蹖卮賴鈥屬囏� 乇丕 亘蹖卮 丕夭 丌賳趩賴鈥� 讴賴鈥� 倬蹖卮鬲乇 鬲氐賵乇 賲蹖 卮丿 亘賴鈥� 賲孬丕亘賴鈥� 毓丕賲賱蹖 丿乇 丕鬲賮丕賯 鬲丕乇蹖禺蹖 丿禺蹖賱 賲蹖 丿丕賳丿貙 亘乇丕蹖 賲孬丕賱 丕賵 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 讴賴鈥� 鬲賮讴乇蹖 賲丕賳賳丿 賲丕乇讴爻蹖爻鬲 賵賯鬲蹖 賳賯卮 丕賳賯賱丕亘 賵 爻鬲蹖夭 賵 鬲囟丕丿 乇丕 亘乇噩爻鬲賴鈥� 賲蹖 爻丕夭丿貙 夭賲蹖賳賴鈥� 賲賳丕爻亘蹖 亘乇丕蹖 卮讴賱 诏蹖乇蹖 賮丕卮蹖爻賲 賵 爻乇讴賵亘 丿蹖诏乇蹖 賲蹖 卮賵丿貙 賴乇 趩賳丿 禺賵丿 讴鬲丕亘 賯丕亘賱 賳賯丿 賵 亘丨孬賴丕蹖 亘蹖 卮賲丕乇蹖 丕爻鬲 丕賲丕 亘丕 丕蹖賳 丨丕賱 丕乇夭卮 丕乇夭卮 丌賳 乇丕 丿丕乇丿 讴賴鈥� 亘賴鈥� 鬲丕乇蹖禺 丕夭 賲賳馗乇蹖 丿蹖诏乇 賳诏乇蹖爻鬲.
July 29, 2024
One of the better philosophy books I've read, in the sense that you don't have to think about every sentence twice to understand it. Although it is far from all-encompassing, I would recommend this to someone who is just getting into reading philosophy. It gives you some insight into the major paradigm shifts in philosophical thought over the last few centuries.
May 19, 2008
"From the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing was ever made." -- Immanuel Kant
Isaiah Berlin sees human life as necessarily tragic, not because of human depravity in a Christian sense but because of the incompatibility of human goods. Humans will never be able to attain both perfect liberty and perfect equality, for example; they must make a difficult choice between them or seek only a partial measure of each. ("Total liberty for wolves is death to the lambs," in Berlin's famous .) The nineteenth and twentieth centuries saw terrifying ideologies arise either in denial of this fact (utopianism) or in relativistic perversion of it (nationalism) or both (fascism).
Berlin suggests that the best response to the incompatibility of different goods is what he calls pluralism. Unlike relativism, he says, pluralism recognizes common human bonds that make communication -- even debate -- possible among different communities. But pluralism also recognizes that there is no comprehensive solution to human problems, and thus that other people may legitimately pursue different priorities from ours. This solution leaves much to be desired, but it might at least keep us from destroying each other.
The collection seems a bit dated now, insofar as these essays were written to address mid-twentieth-century problems. One need not strain one's mind much, however, to imagine applications to the problems posed by political Islam, the "freedom agenda," European unification, or economic globalization. And Berlin's prose is a pleasure to read.
Isaiah Berlin sees human life as necessarily tragic, not because of human depravity in a Christian sense but because of the incompatibility of human goods. Humans will never be able to attain both perfect liberty and perfect equality, for example; they must make a difficult choice between them or seek only a partial measure of each. ("Total liberty for wolves is death to the lambs," in Berlin's famous .) The nineteenth and twentieth centuries saw terrifying ideologies arise either in denial of this fact (utopianism) or in relativistic perversion of it (nationalism) or both (fascism).
Berlin suggests that the best response to the incompatibility of different goods is what he calls pluralism. Unlike relativism, he says, pluralism recognizes common human bonds that make communication -- even debate -- possible among different communities. But pluralism also recognizes that there is no comprehensive solution to human problems, and thus that other people may legitimately pursue different priorities from ours. This solution leaves much to be desired, but it might at least keep us from destroying each other.
The collection seems a bit dated now, insofar as these essays were written to address mid-twentieth-century problems. One need not strain one's mind much, however, to imagine applications to the problems posed by political Islam, the "freedom agenda," European unification, or economic globalization. And Berlin's prose is a pleasure to read.
September 22, 2011
I鈥檝e been intrigued by Isaiah Berlin ever since I found out that he was the author of the seminal essay on Tolstoy, 鈥淭he Hedgehog and the Fox.鈥� His collection of later essays, The Crooked Timber of History, was equally compelling. The first two essays, 鈥淭he Pursuit of the Ideal鈥� and 鈥淭he Decline of Utopian Ideas in the West,鈥� were interesting in the discussion of the inevitable failure of utopian movements like communism and fascism due to the fact that ideals differ from culture to culture. This concept of cultural pluralism dominates the discourse in his essay, 鈥淕iambattista and Cultural History,鈥� in which he calls Vico the true father of the modern concept of culture and cultural pluralism. The rest of the essays are equally thought provoking and compelling: 鈥淎lleged Relativism in Eighteen-Century European Thought,鈥� Joseph de Mainstre and the Origins of Fascism,鈥� 鈥淓uropean Unity and its Vicissitudes,鈥� 鈥淭he Apotheosis of the Romantic Will,鈥� and 鈥淭he Bent Twig.鈥� More often than not philosophical texts can be quite dry and hard to follow, however, I found Berlin鈥檚 style challenging but accessible.
February 1, 2010
Like The Blank Slate, this book was a life-changer for me. Reading it convinced me that radicalism in politics is ultimately self-defeating, and that irreconcilable political opponents not simply can get along, but they must get along (with some rare exceptions, viz. Nazis). Liberalism isn't acceptance of those boneheads over there, but is rather the idea that failing to give them a voice will lead to something a lot worse.
March 22, 2024
"Out of timber so crooked as that from which Mankind is made, nothing entirely straight can ever be built."-Immanuel Kant.
Isiaiah Berlin was not quite a historian, not quite a philosopher. Instead he styled himself as a Philosopher of the History of Ideas, a role he held at Oxford for many years. He is best known for his widely read and deeply learned analyses of some of the leading Liberal and Reactionary thinkers of the 18th/19th centuries, including Giambattista Vico, Gottfried Herder, J.G Hamann and Joseph de Maistre among others. However he is also known for a couple of his own ideas which have come to be seen as hugely significant contributions to the philosophy of Liberalism. The first is the twin concepts of Positive and Negative Liberty. Simply put, this is the distinction, previously implicit, between 'Freedoms For' and 'Freedoms From'. For example, the right to Freedom of Speech, much heralded nowadays as the chief of our liberties, and the cornerstone of any Constitution, is a positive freedom. It gives the individual the freedom to speak his or her mind, unmolested by violence or fear. Much the same is true for Freedom of Religion, Assembly, Voting and so forth. Conversely, 'Negative Liberty' consists of the Freedom from certain conditions, imposed by external authority. Habeas Corpus for example, the freedom from unlawful and illegal detention, is a classic example of a Negative Liberty. Similarly with the freedom from arbitrary arrest, or the right to a fair trial. This is a useful distinction and one that serves as the crux of the division in Liberalism between those who think that the role of the State is simply to enforce those negative liberties and keep out of the individual's business, and those with a more positive, expanded sense of the role of the State, who may hope to see the Government use its powers to enforce Social Justice.
However Berlin's big breakthrough is his theory of Value Pluralism. This coy little name hides a revolutionary concept and one that I believe, once fully absorbed, entails radical consequences for Political Philosophy. In simple terms, the theory proposes that the Values we hold dear in this world do not naturally cohere and in most cases in fact run up against each other so that we have to choose between them. Whereas Plato had assumed that a natural coherence of values must occur at some level if a Platonic ideal could be conceived, much as the legs support a chair, so it must be with Moral Values. This misunderstanding had led moral philosophers astray for years, in Berlin's view. Perhaps an illustration would serve best here. Liberty and Equality are two of the fundamental values that human beings desire, part of the slogan of the French Jacobins in 1789. However, the two concepts are in some sense contradictory, or at least partial opposition. Total Equality for all would necessarily entail a massive curtailing of individual liberty, while absolute freedom for all would undoubtedly prove destructive of equality. "Total liberty for the wolf means death for the lambs" in Berlin's evocative phrase. Each individual may have their own preference for the ideal balance to be sought between these values, but they cannot eliminate the choice or wish it away. You may prefer more liberty, I, more equality, but some sort of trade off will have to be compromised in order to keep us both happy. The best that any society can do is to manage these trade offs, which will recur with each new individual and each successive generation, who will have to decide for themselves which values they want to live by.
The same is true Berlin argued, with respect to almost all moral values. Justice may be very important to you, but Mercy is more important to your neighbour. Who is to say which of the two is better, and which should predominate? What about Creativity and Discipline? Or Rights vs Responsibilities? Fairness and Merit? Each individual must decide for themselves which values they prefer, and a good society can try to mediate these differences through the rule of Law, but the differences will remain and cannot be dissolved. It follows therefore that all notions of a 'Perfect society' or a world where these conflicts have been perfectly and permanently resolved, is incoherent as a concept. The best that we can do, as Berlin saw it, is to create space for these values to coexist, to honour people's choices and allow them the freedom to choose without imposing on them an external conception of what perfection might look like. The result is a messy, imperfect, scruffy, sometimes unedifying political contest between these values, that must and will play out eternally. As long as there are people, people will disagree over how much freedom should be allowed versus how much equality, or whether Rights or Responsibilities are more important. That is all for the best and the lack of greater perfection that such a society entails is to be greatly preferred to those political solutions which claim to be able to offer us permanent answers to eternal questions but which in in reality offer none.
Isiaiah Berlin was not quite a historian, not quite a philosopher. Instead he styled himself as a Philosopher of the History of Ideas, a role he held at Oxford for many years. He is best known for his widely read and deeply learned analyses of some of the leading Liberal and Reactionary thinkers of the 18th/19th centuries, including Giambattista Vico, Gottfried Herder, J.G Hamann and Joseph de Maistre among others. However he is also known for a couple of his own ideas which have come to be seen as hugely significant contributions to the philosophy of Liberalism. The first is the twin concepts of Positive and Negative Liberty. Simply put, this is the distinction, previously implicit, between 'Freedoms For' and 'Freedoms From'. For example, the right to Freedom of Speech, much heralded nowadays as the chief of our liberties, and the cornerstone of any Constitution, is a positive freedom. It gives the individual the freedom to speak his or her mind, unmolested by violence or fear. Much the same is true for Freedom of Religion, Assembly, Voting and so forth. Conversely, 'Negative Liberty' consists of the Freedom from certain conditions, imposed by external authority. Habeas Corpus for example, the freedom from unlawful and illegal detention, is a classic example of a Negative Liberty. Similarly with the freedom from arbitrary arrest, or the right to a fair trial. This is a useful distinction and one that serves as the crux of the division in Liberalism between those who think that the role of the State is simply to enforce those negative liberties and keep out of the individual's business, and those with a more positive, expanded sense of the role of the State, who may hope to see the Government use its powers to enforce Social Justice.
However Berlin's big breakthrough is his theory of Value Pluralism. This coy little name hides a revolutionary concept and one that I believe, once fully absorbed, entails radical consequences for Political Philosophy. In simple terms, the theory proposes that the Values we hold dear in this world do not naturally cohere and in most cases in fact run up against each other so that we have to choose between them. Whereas Plato had assumed that a natural coherence of values must occur at some level if a Platonic ideal could be conceived, much as the legs support a chair, so it must be with Moral Values. This misunderstanding had led moral philosophers astray for years, in Berlin's view. Perhaps an illustration would serve best here. Liberty and Equality are two of the fundamental values that human beings desire, part of the slogan of the French Jacobins in 1789. However, the two concepts are in some sense contradictory, or at least partial opposition. Total Equality for all would necessarily entail a massive curtailing of individual liberty, while absolute freedom for all would undoubtedly prove destructive of equality. "Total liberty for the wolf means death for the lambs" in Berlin's evocative phrase. Each individual may have their own preference for the ideal balance to be sought between these values, but they cannot eliminate the choice or wish it away. You may prefer more liberty, I, more equality, but some sort of trade off will have to be compromised in order to keep us both happy. The best that any society can do is to manage these trade offs, which will recur with each new individual and each successive generation, who will have to decide for themselves which values they want to live by.
The same is true Berlin argued, with respect to almost all moral values. Justice may be very important to you, but Mercy is more important to your neighbour. Who is to say which of the two is better, and which should predominate? What about Creativity and Discipline? Or Rights vs Responsibilities? Fairness and Merit? Each individual must decide for themselves which values they prefer, and a good society can try to mediate these differences through the rule of Law, but the differences will remain and cannot be dissolved. It follows therefore that all notions of a 'Perfect society' or a world where these conflicts have been perfectly and permanently resolved, is incoherent as a concept. The best that we can do, as Berlin saw it, is to create space for these values to coexist, to honour people's choices and allow them the freedom to choose without imposing on them an external conception of what perfection might look like. The result is a messy, imperfect, scruffy, sometimes unedifying political contest between these values, that must and will play out eternally. As long as there are people, people will disagree over how much freedom should be allowed versus how much equality, or whether Rights or Responsibilities are more important. That is all for the best and the lack of greater perfection that such a society entails is to be greatly preferred to those political solutions which claim to be able to offer us permanent answers to eternal questions but which in in reality offer none.
May 20, 2024
I do enjoy reading Berlin - and I separate this for any sympathy I have for what he says. He is just such a lucid writer who is a pleasure to read even when dealing with complex concepts.
This volume is definitely well titled and volume in the history of ideas. It focuses on topics that are familiar areas for those who have read much Berlin - the ideal, utopias, romanticism and the way this lead to nationalism.
He focuses on thinkers less familiar now, unless perhaps you are deeply involved in the history of political ideas, De Maistre, Ficte, Herder and others.
The essays here were written between 1959 and 1990. A fine collection. I feel I formed and educated through reading them.
This volume is definitely well titled and volume in the history of ideas. It focuses on topics that are familiar areas for those who have read much Berlin - the ideal, utopias, romanticism and the way this lead to nationalism.
He focuses on thinkers less familiar now, unless perhaps you are deeply involved in the history of political ideas, De Maistre, Ficte, Herder and others.
The essays here were written between 1959 and 1990. A fine collection. I feel I formed and educated through reading them.
August 10, 2016
A collection of essays from the renown historian Isaiah Berlin, who essentially offers an entirely reasonable and nuanced argument for abandoning Platonic ideals, absolute ethical values, categorical imperatives, and quests for Utopia. Berlin offers a pluralistic, cultural approach to understanding human affairs, not unlike the Italian historian Vico. As humans, we are capable of understanding other humans, and their values, actions, and customs. We can criticise and condemn other cultures, but we must not pretend that we are incapable of understanding why different peoples act differently. To Berlin, the search for perfection is a recipe for bloodshed. One culture cannot foist values upon another, for the very reason that one cannot legislate unintended consequences, changing values, and the diversity of equally valid human ends.
So it's value pluralism. But aren't there at least a few things which are universal? What are human rights?
So it's value pluralism. But aren't there at least a few things which are universal? What are human rights?
June 5, 2014
丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賰鬲丕亘 氐睾賷乇 亘丨噩賲賴, 賵賰亘賷乇 噩丿丕賸 亘賲囟賲賵賳賴, 賮賴賵 賷鬲囟賲賳 賲賳 丕賱賮賰乇 丕賱賰孬賷乇, 賵賰賱賴丕 賲賵囟賵毓丕鬲 賲賴賲丞 賵毓馗賷賲丞 賲賳賴丕貨
賲賯丕氐丿 丕賱丨賷丕丞 毓賳丿 毓丿丿 賲賳 丕賱賲賮賰乇賷賳, 賵丕賱兀爻卅賱丞 丕賱鬲賷 賷噩亘 胤乇丨賴丕 賱賱賵氐賵賱 廿賱賶 鬲賱賰 丕賱賲賯丕氐丿, 賵賲丕賴賷丞 丕賱廿噩丕亘丕鬲 賵胤乇賯 丕賱賵氐賵賱 廿賱賷賴丕 - 廿匕丕 賰丕賳 賷賲賰賳 賱賱亘卮乇 丕賱鬲賵氐賱 廿賱賷賴丕 賲賳 丨賷孬 丕賱賲亘丿兀 - 賵賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱胤賵亘丕賵賷丞 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賮賷 丕賱睾乇亘, 賵賴賳丕賰 賵氐賮 賲孬賷乇 賱賱丕賴鬲賲丕賲 賱賲爻丕乇 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 毓亘乇 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺, 賰賲丕 賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱賵丨丿丞 丕賱兀賵乇亘賷丞 賵賳卮賵亍 丕賱賯賵賲賷丕鬲, 賵毓賳 丕賱賯賷賲 賵丕賱賲孬賱 丕賱毓賱賷丕 賱賱亘卮乇貨 賲丕匕丕 鬲毓賳賷, 賵賰賷賮 鬲鬲氐丕丿賲, 賵賷鬲丨丿孬 兀賷囟丕賸 毓賳 丕賱賴賵賷丞 賵睾賷乇賴丕.
丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賲賱賲 亘丕賱賰孬賷乇 賵賴賵 賵丕爻毓 丕賱丕胤賱丕毓, 鬲鬲賮丕噩兀 賰賷賮 鬲鬲爻毓 丕賱氐賮丨丕鬲 丕賱賯賱丕賱 賱賰賱 賴匕賴 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 賵賴匕丕 丕賱賮賰乇.
賲賯丕氐丿 丕賱丨賷丕丞 毓賳丿 毓丿丿 賲賳 丕賱賲賮賰乇賷賳, 賵丕賱兀爻卅賱丞 丕賱鬲賷 賷噩亘 胤乇丨賴丕 賱賱賵氐賵賱 廿賱賶 鬲賱賰 丕賱賲賯丕氐丿, 賵賲丕賴賷丞 丕賱廿噩丕亘丕鬲 賵胤乇賯 丕賱賵氐賵賱 廿賱賷賴丕 - 廿匕丕 賰丕賳 賷賲賰賳 賱賱亘卮乇 丕賱鬲賵氐賱 廿賱賷賴丕 賲賳 丨賷孬 丕賱賲亘丿兀 - 賵賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱兀賮賰丕乇 丕賱胤賵亘丕賵賷丞 丕賱賲禺鬲賱賮丞 賮賷 丕賱睾乇亘, 賵賴賳丕賰 賵氐賮 賲孬賷乇 賱賱丕賴鬲賲丕賲 賱賲爻丕乇 丕賱亘卮乇賷丞 毓亘乇 丕賱鬲丕乇賷禺, 賰賲丕 賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 丕賱賵丨丿丞 丕賱兀賵乇亘賷丞 賵賳卮賵亍 丕賱賯賵賲賷丕鬲, 賵毓賳 丕賱賯賷賲 賵丕賱賲孬賱 丕賱毓賱賷丕 賱賱亘卮乇貨 賲丕匕丕 鬲毓賳賷, 賵賰賷賮 鬲鬲氐丕丿賲, 賵賷鬲丨丿孬 兀賷囟丕賸 毓賳 丕賱賴賵賷丞 賵睾賷乇賴丕.
丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賲賱賲 亘丕賱賰孬賷乇 賵賴賵 賵丕爻毓 丕賱丕胤賱丕毓, 鬲鬲賮丕噩兀 賰賷賮 鬲鬲爻毓 丕賱氐賮丨丕鬲 丕賱賯賱丕賱 賱賰賱 賴匕賴 丕賱賲毓乇賮丞 賵賴匕丕 丕賱賮賰乇.
April 17, 2020
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 7, 2012
鬲乇噩賲賴 賱蹖鈥屬勜� 爻丕夭诏丕乇 亘爻蹖丕乇 禺賵亘 丕爻鬲. 賮氐賱 丿賵賲爻鬲乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘爻蹖丕乇 噩匕丕亘 丕爻鬲 賴乇 趩賳丿 馗丕賴乇丕 亘乇賱蹖賳 丿乇 丕賵丕禺乇 毓賲乇 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賮氐賱 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 丕賳鬲賯丕丿蹖 丿丕卮鬲.
March 3, 2015
賰鬲丕亘 賮賱爻賮賷 賷鬲丨丿孬 毓賳 亘毓囟 孬賵丕亘鬲 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞 亘賳馗乇丞 賳賯丿賷丞貙 爻丕卅賳賷 氐毓賵亘丞 兀爻賱賵亘 丕賱賰丕鬲亘 賮賷 丕賷氐丕賱 丕賱賲毓賱賵賲丞 賵賵噩賴丞 賳馗乇丞 亘丕賱卮賰賱 丕賱賲胤賱賵亘 丕賱賶 丕賱賯丕乇卅
June 9, 2022
O filosofie... rezonabila, decenta, genul care nu starneste pasiuni prea mari (Berlin insusi e constient de asta, dar o considera o alternativa de preferat extremismelor seducatoare, dezinvolte, sigure pe ele).
La un moment dat ideile devin repetitive, iar asta a mai atenuat din placerea initiala a lecturii, iar unele argumente sunt de o validitate mai... discutabila; diferentierea pe care o face Berlin intre relativism si pluralism mi se pare artificiala, de conjunctura, numai pentru a se potrivi argumentelor lui. Altii probabil ca vad cei doi termeni altcumva.
Cireasa de pe tort a volumului e un lung text despre Joseph de Maistre, foarte bine si elegant scris; mi-au placut de asemenea mentionarile la Vico si Herder, niste filosofi de care nu auzisem inainte.
Per total, o lectura placuta, nu foarte solicitanta, dar nici impresionanta, un mestesug al vorbei, al rationamentului, o etalare a flerului de eseist al lui Iasiah Berlin.
La un moment dat ideile devin repetitive, iar asta a mai atenuat din placerea initiala a lecturii, iar unele argumente sunt de o validitate mai... discutabila; diferentierea pe care o face Berlin intre relativism si pluralism mi se pare artificiala, de conjunctura, numai pentru a se potrivi argumentelor lui. Altii probabil ca vad cei doi termeni altcumva.
Cireasa de pe tort a volumului e un lung text despre Joseph de Maistre, foarte bine si elegant scris; mi-au placut de asemenea mentionarile la Vico si Herder, niste filosofi de care nu auzisem inainte.
Per total, o lectura placuta, nu foarte solicitanta, dar nici impresionanta, un mestesug al vorbei, al rationamentului, o etalare a flerului de eseist al lui Iasiah Berlin.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 101 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.