Had to write a short article review for uni and I figured it's short enough that someone on Sup Forums might actually read it, only 700 words.
The topic is Isaiah Berlin's 1958 essay "Two Concepts of Liberty"
Feel free to laugh at my shit writing.
pastebin.com
And hey, maybe we'll get some ACTUAL political discussion up in this.
Other urls found in this thread:
orwell.ru
twitter.com
Who is this Isaiah Berlin fella? Im too lazy to google him.
He wrote a very influential essay that basically defined liberty:
"[negative libertarians] want to curb authority as such. [positive libertarians] want it placed in their own hands."
He also reintroduced pluralist thought into political philosophy after centuries of people saying "no there is only one good, we just have to find it through reason!"
Also, feel free to suggest me a title for it.
(((Isiah Berlin))) is some genius for pointing out the obvious from his ivory tower.
Merchant tactic:
1) Use nepotism and verbal IQ to get to prestigious institution
2) Rehash what ever is happening in the field using eloquent words
3) ???
4) Get put on the curriculum/literature review/award nominations by fellow merchants.
>(((Isiah Berlin))) is some genius for pointing out the obvious from his ivory tower.
It's only obvious because he pointed it out, dipstick. Pluralism was missing from serious political philosophy for centuries prior to Berlin.
The whole of political theory from Aristotle to Hume to Locke is full of discussion of rights, freedoms, obligations and the ideal balance of them. The difference between being able to do what you want as long as you don't harm someone, and the government having the obligation to take care of you is clear to any child.
Value pluralism is complete bs, and Berlin admits that he got the idea from )))James Stephen(((.It takes no cerebral power to come up with the idea that politically humans operate based on numerous abstract principles which don't always harmonize with one another.
>It takes no cerebral power to come up with the idea that politically humans operate based on numerous abstract principles which don't always harmonize with one another.
That might explain why that's not the concept that Berlin critiques, then.
If you'd actually read his essay you'd see it was a response to the Enlightenment thinkers who wanted to replace the government of people with the administration of things. The idea being that because something that is true cannot conflict with something else that is true it cannot therefore be possible that the statements "it is good to be charitable" and "it is good not to be charitable" are both true. Or, goods cannot conflict. Therefore value pluralism is bullshit and there is only one right way to live, and freedom is making people live correctly - freeing them from their ignorance and saving them from themselves and, in a completely unironic and sincere sense, forcing them to be free.
Isaiah Berlin categorically went through and demolished all of these arguments with his huge Jew dick and fucked the political system to hard that value pluralism came back to life.
Sidenote:
You cannot simultaneously believe that
1. humans operate based on numerous abstract principles which don't always harmonize with one another, and that this is desirable or even acceptable, and
2. value pluralism is bullshit
>Isaiah Berlin’s inaugural lecture to the University of Oxford and associated essay has been credited with much influence
How much, and by whom?
>it is an interesting and worthwhile piece to analyse
>has evident merit
Really? Could that be why you're writing about it?
>the critique contained in the essay is timeless
Critiques become obsolete when the flaws they're criticizing are fixed. A timeless critique is worthless.
>The attack on these thinkers is uncompromising
Unless they were present, he couldn't compromise with them even if he wanted to.
>It would seem
Tell us what you think, not what would seem.
>driving vast segments of American minnows into the dirt while globalist pikes grow ever fatter
Please read this:
orwell.ru
It's longer than 700 words, but it might help improve your writing.
You can postulate that there is an ideal way for a person to behave given their circumstances and what ever definition of good life they are subscribed to, to maximize their subjective utility function. This does not mean that they know what this ideal way of behaving is, or that it can be summarized through principles.
What does 'it is good to be charitable' correspond to in reality? If its not qualified in some way, its an ambiguous and therefore meaningless statement. Once both 'it is good to be charitable' and 'it is good to not be charitable' are contextualized, one can say that they make sense and don't conflict. For instance: being charitable will make people like you and increase your oxytocin and seratonin levels. Not being charitable will increase responsibility within the potential subject of the charity, and conserve your resources (allowing you to avoid life stressors e.g.). Then its simply an optimization problem given your priorities, which has one answer (which you may or may not have access to). Saying that two truths are mutually exclusive is questioning the foundations of knowledge itself by chipping away at the law of the excluded middle, which by definition will not lead to knowledge.
Thank you, but I was looking more for content-related critiques. I know the writing's shit, it's only worth 5% so style won't even be assessed.
>What does 'it is good to be charitable' correspond to in reality?
Nothing, because it's an example not an entire thesis.
>Once both 'it is good to be charitable' and 'it is good to not be charitable' are contextualized, one can say that they make sense and don't conflict.
So what you're saying is that there is no such thing as conflicting goods, but then you say that the answer as to which one is the good depends on your priorities, implying that there are multiple conflicting goods which vary by person.
Which one is it? They are mutually exclusive.
>hurr philosophers are so dumb look i'm just as good at it!!!!
>proceeds to fail in the first sentence
You sound like Marx, by the way, when you call it an optimisation problem.
>Marxists
>Optimizers
>content-related critiques
Here's one: Only one paragraph actually contains anything more than wishy-washy pseudo-intellectual bullshit and space-fillers, and it's the one that's simply describing what the original lecture was about.
You don't appear to have any opinion on this lecture at all. And now you're responding to a post you didn't understand with hurring, exclamation marks, and false dilemmas.
>I know the writing's shit
I think the problem is much deeper than that.
...
>Here's one: Only one paragraph actually contains anything more than wishy-washy pseudo-intellectual bullshit and space-fillers
I'm aware of that too. I was told to write a critical review that was 700 words long worth 5% of my grade, not a detailed piece on the application of Berlin's negative liberty to the American financial sector, which as you can tell is what I wanted to do. So I criticised, because that's what I was told to do, and I even put in a citation other than the assigned reading to show evidence that I had researched my critique (l m a o).
>and it's the one that's simply describing what the original lecture was about.
It's almost as if the entire content of the article review is the review of the article.
>You don't appear to have any opinion on this lecture at all.
"It would seem therefore that the conclusion ought to follow as compellingly, [which it did at the time due to context, but] Today we are faced with an opposite situation [to the original context]... Though Berlin espouses this idea of compromise there has been very little of that."
You can correctly argue my opinion is insufficiently supported, but I don't think you can argue it's not an opinion.
Fuck off we're ...
oh
>"It would seem therefore that the conclusion ought to follow as compellingly, [which it did at the time due to context, but] Today we are faced with an opposite situation [to the original context]... Though Berlin espouses this idea of compromise there has been very little of that."
Buried in that mountain of verbal shit, the only thing you seem to be saying is that people haven't done what Berlin thinks is good. Is that what you think qualifies as an opinion?
When I tell you your writing is empty of meaning, you reply:
>I'm aware of that too.
but then say:
>So I criticised
when in fact you did not criticize at all. Did you not understand what I wrote?
>which as you can tell is what I wanted to do.
One of the consequences of shit writing is that it's actually very difficult to tell what the writer wants to do.
>the only thing you seem to be saying is that people haven't done what Berlin thinks is good
There's no need to be deliberately obtuse, user. The meaning is clear. The conclusions appeared compelling at the time they were written because people wanted to believe them and because a state structured around those principles was still capable of controlling the society that it had to govern, but the distribution of power in society has changed in the intervening half-century and those conclusions are no longer compelling, because a society that is formatted differently requires different government, even when the fundamental principles that Berlin describes in his writing which this government exists to protect have not changed.
>When I tell you your writing is empty of meaning, you reply:
My critique is meaningless because it is less than 350 words and without empirical evidence. However it is still there, in all its watery glory.
The entire second paragraph, the longer paragraph, is devoted in its entirety to the development of the American financial sector and the new class of elites.
Have you considered that, my own skill notwithstanding, you are not a very good reader? What, exactly, are your qualifications, friend?
While I do find your feedback useful, I find you abrasive. Your earlier posts contained good content but I suspect your more recent ones are simply an exercise in asshurt because I'm not licking your balls over scraps. Thank you for the criticism user, it is accurate. I read the piece you linked and I think it is meritorious. If you're looking for someone to wank you off, I'm not going to do it. Being right about a few things doesn't mean that when you make blatantly incorrect statements, statements that you know are incorrect, for the purpose of being abrasive, does not mean I am not going to call you out.
>compelling
You need to figure out what you actually mean and write that instead, because this word isn't saying anything here.
>My critique is meaningless because
Don't make excuses. Your critique is meaningless. That's all that matters.
Re: the rest of this post: Go fuck yourself. I didn't ask you to be polite to me when I shit on your worthless essay, you did that all on your own. I haven't said anything incorrect, and you haven't "called out" anything I've actually done except being abrasive, which is what you should fucking expect when you post slurry like this for anyone to look at.
Fuck off.
>You need to figure out what you actually mean
I mean compelling.
compelling
kəmˈpɛlJŋ/Submit
adjective
evoking interest, attention, or admiration in a powerfully irresistible way.
not able to be refuted; inspiring conviction.
not able to be resisted; overwhelming.
Compelling is a perfectly valid word to use there. Its meaning is clear. If a person makes a compelling argument they make an argument that is sensible, convincing, and practical. "Isaiah Berlin's argument is compelling" is a meaningful statement. In fact it could even form a thesis.
>Don't make excuses
Then show me that it's possible to write a meaningful critique of Isaiah Berlin's essay in 350 words, if you're so brave.
>I haven't said anything incorrect
You are objectively incorrect by saying that there is no opinion contained in my writing. Regardless of the quality of that opinion, the argumentation supporting it, regardless of anything, it is undeniably there. You went too far with your hyperbole, and you were wrong. Now you must scramble for any excuse you can find to avoid admitting that, because your abrasiveness disallows that you admit it.
>which is what you should fucking expect when you post slurry like this for anyone to look at.
I did expect it, which is why I'm not particularly upset.
Don't vote for Trump, he's an idiot.