Isaiah Berlin: Two Concepts of Liberty

[jhameia]

Definitions:
Positive freedom: to be one's own master, freedom to do as one wants.
negative freedom: to not be compelled by others, freedom from coercion.

rational: self-directed, not acting upon external nature (simply reacting), conceieves and acts upon one's own agenda / goals / purposes / principles.
Life decisions are based on one's own self.
Being responsible for one's own actions, being able to explain those actions with one's own ideas and purposes.

Man may be slave to nature, passions, politics, legalities, spirituality.
But when Man frees himself from these slaveries, he becomes aware of a dominant self (higher nature) that is identified with reason.
This dominant self calculates what will generate long-term happiness - this calculation being the higher self at its best, ideal, autonomous self. The lower self, however, focused on irrational impulse, and immediate happiness.

Oppression is often masked under the idea that:
i) the oppressor is more rational and has the best interests of the oppressed in mind.
ii) the oppressed do not choose the oppressor's POV and opinions because they're not enlightened.
iii) the oppressor represents more than an individual, he is the representative of a social whole & understands the social whole's true self, thus coercing other members of this whole in the farce of looking out for other people's "higher selves".

Problem with positive freedom:
It's one thing to force the greater good on an unenlightened sod.
Quite another to enable him to choose it once he's seen it for himself why it's a good idea.

Two ways of seeing positive freedom:
- a dominant controller (of others) who is beyond and over others.
- an animal who needs to be tamed.

Two ways of being self-directed (identified with positive freedom):
- complete self-negation - seperation from others to be completely self-reliant
- complete self-identification - with something higher / larger than the self

The conception of positive freedom, however, depends on what the conception of a man is.


Isolationism is a type of self-independence usually associated with followers of ideas that promote an escape from any threat in any sphere by withdrawing one's self into self-emancipation using the two following methods:
- eliminating obstacles by abandoning them. In this way, a person has transformed themselves to no longer care for society's values. This works for monks, but it doesn't work for human beings who actually wish to function in society. A person doesn't fix their problems by avoiding them.
- resistance to / control over obstacles, by identifying with the controller to escape being controlled. Freedom = obedience to a law we prescribe to ourselves.
(This is a bit too black and white, because in no way is the controller actually free - as mentioned, in this case freedom is obedience to a law prescribed to, which does not necessarily constitute freedom to others. Also, the position of the controller is no more secure than the position of the controlled: the controller is constantly hounded by the need to control.)
Freedom in this case cannot be applied to nature, as nature cannot be controlled. (Tell that to Greenpeace....)

Humans are defined by their self-autonomy - they can think for themselves and not merely react to external stimuli. To treat us otherwise using threads and manipulation is to treat us as animls or human material, moulded to the controller's purposes, not to the individual's own purpose.

Early utilitarianism use men's passions and weakness to make men a means, in order to extricate happiness for the greatest number of people. This is, says Kant, highly paternalistic and is the greatest form of despotism because it uses a system of reward and punishment (external stimuli) instead of relying on people's own capacity for thought.
(It doesn't matter if it's for their own good. If they didn't ask for it themselves, leave them alone!)

The only justifiable reason to force men to do something is in the name of something higher than themselves.
But, a value is valuable because they are upheld by free men (not coerced ones).
Therefore, the highest value is the individual.
Forcing men would then be in the name of something lower than themselves.

Kant's transcendent being - free individual.
God = rationalism
A person straining to get close to God = person straining to be foverned by reason, not t have his irrational nature engaged.

The ideal of the rational sage withdrawing into himself / detaching from society normally occured when the social/political climate is so bad, avenues of action are blocked off.
Thus, it is not the proper prescription for other times in which life tends to be less violent, and easier. That's why Emo LiveJournal kids are wrong.

THis is why Berlin says that Mil is wrong on the money when he says that negative liberty is defined by the ability to do what one wishes. In case one isn't in a positive to do as one wishes, all one has to do is to not wish, and that pretty much fulfills everything what one wants, and solves the problem.
The idea of feeling free is not the same as political freedom. Self-denial is not the same as liberty.

Retreating into the inner citadel and locking the world out is also a kind of prison. Total security is unattainable while alive, so whilst this sense of negative liberty is still valid, just as valid is the liberty to go out and deal with obstacles through removal, resistance or conquest. It might cause a lot of trouble, but as the saying goes, "if you don't want to be hurt, say nothing, do nothing, be nothing."

Comments

[crissieame.livejournal.com]

Пост неплохой, закину блог в закладки. (http://zimnyayaobuv.ru/) (http://zimnyaya-obuv.ru/)

[khozokuz.livejournal.com]

Прикольный блог, свежая инфа, почитываю (http://zimnyayaobuv.ru/) (http://zimnyaya-obuv.ru/)