What do you think?
Rate this book
The Great Ages of Western Philosophy #4
The Age of Enlightenment
In this stimulating volume, Sir Isaiah Berlin lucidy and succinctly presents commentaties on, and selections from, the basic writings of the brilliant philosophers Berkeley, Locke, Hume, and others - women who believed that science's achievements in the material world could be translated into philosphical terms. The challenging ideas of these great thinkers - and their equally great critics - remain the classical foundation of liberal humanism and rationsim in the West, so unparalleled for their lucidity, courage, hatred of darkness, and love of truth that they are of vital interest to men and women today.
1 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 1956
6 people are currently reading
318 people want to read
About the author
Isaiah Berlin
189 books757 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 – 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 – 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 - 12 of 12 reviews
August 4, 2020
John Locke’s Theory
(1) Platonic Realism. "Universals" do not exist in the
temporal world. They subsist "outside" it. They can be
apprehended by the intellect but not by sense experience.
Particular objects in the world of sense experience have universal characteristics by virtue of "partaking in," or "imitating" these timeless patterns, set apart.
(2) Aristotelian Realism. Universals in a sense do exist,
but only "in" the particular objects that exemplify them.
They have no independent reality.
These two answers are obviously related to the ontological question of what there is in the world. The remaining three are more obviously concerned with the epistemological question (of how we know what we do know), and have in common their denial of independent existence to universals outside the minds of men.
(3) Conceptualism. Men are able to recognize an entity as blue or as a man by seeing that it "conforms" with, or "fits," a concept or abstract general idea which they have framed in their minds of blueness or humanity.
(4) Imagism. Recognition of something as a man or as blue occurs by comparison with a standard or representative image in our minds (or in a book of standard images) of blue or of a man.
(5) Nominalism. There is only the general word itself,
and the class of particular objects falling under it. These objects are grouped together in the class in virtue of their perceived resemblance to each other, or-the extreme version of this view-in virtue of nothing at all, i.e., arbitrarily.
(1) Platonic Realism. "Universals" do not exist in the
temporal world. They subsist "outside" it. They can be
apprehended by the intellect but not by sense experience.
Particular objects in the world of sense experience have universal characteristics by virtue of "partaking in," or "imitating" these timeless patterns, set apart.
(2) Aristotelian Realism. Universals in a sense do exist,
but only "in" the particular objects that exemplify them.
They have no independent reality.
These two answers are obviously related to the ontological question of what there is in the world. The remaining three are more obviously concerned with the epistemological question (of how we know what we do know), and have in common their denial of independent existence to universals outside the minds of men.
(3) Conceptualism. Men are able to recognize an entity as blue or as a man by seeing that it "conforms" with, or "fits," a concept or abstract general idea which they have framed in their minds of blueness or humanity.
(4) Imagism. Recognition of something as a man or as blue occurs by comparison with a standard or representative image in our minds (or in a book of standard images) of blue or of a man.
(5) Nominalism. There is only the general word itself,
and the class of particular objects falling under it. These objects are grouped together in the class in virtue of their perceived resemblance to each other, or-the extreme version of this view-in virtue of nothing at all, i.e., arbitrarily.
December 25, 2019
First published in 1956 - my copy is a Mentor Books paperback priced at $0.50 - this is a fine collection of key philosophical works from the Eighteenth Century. The longest selections are from the works of Locke, Berkeley, and Hume, but there are intriguing comments on other philosophers of the age. The epistemological bias, or concern, if you will, of these writes is brought to the fore by the selections made by Sir Isaiah Berlin. Berlin's sharp comments help to penetrate to the core of these ideas.
One of the values of this book is that it helps one to understand the arc of philosophical development over several centuries. From Descartes efforts to create a complete understanding of philosophy from a priori and introspective thought, to Hume's conclusion that reason can only confirm hypotheses that have nothing to do with the real world. This leads into Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, which says, in effect, that pure reason can lead only to analytic statements. Statements about the real world must rely on experience.
I should also note that Locke, Berkeley, and Hume are all fine writers. These are enjoyable selections to read.
One of the values of this book is that it helps one to understand the arc of philosophical development over several centuries. From Descartes efforts to create a complete understanding of philosophy from a priori and introspective thought, to Hume's conclusion that reason can only confirm hypotheses that have nothing to do with the real world. This leads into Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, which says, in effect, that pure reason can lead only to analytic statements. Statements about the real world must rely on experience.
I should also note that Locke, Berkeley, and Hume are all fine writers. These are enjoyable selections to read.
July 26, 2012
I read it in high school. Tedious, to be sure, for a 14-year old, but it started my thinking critically about worldview and the gathering of knowledge that can be assembled into worldviews.
February 24, 2017
When people come to me asking where to start a book to become well read, i send them here.
May 7, 2018
Berlin doesn't make this material easy to understand and he left out a lot of important Enlightenment philosophy. But, it's still quite a good introduction to some fundamental Enlightenment ideas.
April 24, 2021
启蒙时期的英国经验主义哲学从自然科学中获取思路，洛克针对观念提出了发生学的问题，并认为观念的来源有两个途径——感觉和反省，继而采用分类学方法，区分了心灵无法制造或毁灭的简单观念与通过理智加工得到的复杂观念，而且每个简单观念都单独作为实体存在于同为实体的心灵之中，与这种理智、知觉的直接对象相对应的是其他主体的性质——包括第一性和第二性的质。
接下来，洛克又讨论了一般名词与抽象的一般观念，从而引出对知识的论断，即由于心灵的思维活动只以自己的观念为对象，因此我们所获得的知识是且只是关于观念的知识，并进一步阐释说明了观念之间的符合/不符合。（这样翻译总觉得容易产生歧义，或者一致/不一致更准确些？）
洛克的理论以一种重要的关于实体的本体论思想为前提，这一点恰恰成为了贝克莱反驳的对象，同时也是休谟怀疑论的起点。不过，贝克莱依旧需要求助于上帝，而休谟则将自己彻底推向理性与逻辑的深渊。
休谟向一切的终极探去，却只能借助于忘记思辨来从无解的痛苦中脱身。虽然休谟之后，也出现了包括康德的物自体在内的种种解释，但似乎都没能顺利得出一个能够说服所有人的结论。人的理性既是知识的缘起也是知识的终结，在后面这一点上，或许我们暂时还无能为力，因为一旦消除了后者的限制，前者也必将摇摇欲坠。
接下来，洛克又讨论了一般名词与抽象的一般观念，从而引出对知识的论断，即由于心灵的思维活动只以自己的观念为对象，因此我们所获得的知识是且只是关于观念的知识，并进一步阐释说明了观念之间的符合/不符合。（这样翻译总觉得容易产生歧义，或者一致/不一致更准确些？）
洛克的理论以一种重要的关于实体的本体论思想为前提，这一点恰恰成为了贝克莱反驳的对象，同时也是休谟怀疑论的起点。不过，贝克莱依旧需要求助于上帝，而休谟则将自己彻底推向理性与逻辑的深渊。
休谟向一切的终极探去，却只能借助于忘记思辨来从无解的痛苦中脱身。虽然休谟之后，也出现了包括康德的物自体在内的种种解释，但似乎都没能顺利得出一个能够说服所有人的结论。人的理性既是知识的缘起也是知识的终结，在后面这一点上，或许我们暂时还无能为力，因为一旦消除了后者的限制，前者也必将摇摇欲坠。
June 17, 2021
This book includes extensive excerpts from the writings of three of the greatest philosophers of the Enlightenment: John Locke, George Berkeley and David Hume. It also includes shorter excerpts from the writings of other Enlightenment luminaries such as Voltaire and Thomas Reid. Sir Isaiah Berlin provides extraordinarily helpful insights and commentaries on all the philosophers whose works appear in the book. Fascinating and engaging.
November 13, 2020
“我被所有这些问题迷惑了，我开始想象自己处于可以想象的最可悲的状态中，被最深沉的黑暗包围着，并且完全被剥夺了每一器官和每一官能的运用能力。”
November 28, 2021
A selection of primary source excerpts with an introduction and useful commentary aimed at the beginner/low intermediate level. Berlin's commentaries are outstanding explanations (for the intended audience) of each thinker's key notions; his explanation of Hume's theory of ideas and the so-called copy principle, as well as "Hume's fork" is one of the best I've ever read. I would highly recommend this little book just for Berlin's discussion of Hume alone, especially if you are just beginning to examine Hume's thought.
While the standard 'big guns' of the period are represented, there are also some obscure thinkers too. The basic ideas of the following thinkers are given in primary source with some commentary: Locke, Berkeley, Voltaire, Hume, Reid, Condillac, Le Mettrie,Haman, and Lichtenberg.
While the standard 'big guns' of the period are represented, there are also some obscure thinkers too. The basic ideas of the following thinkers are given in primary source with some commentary: Locke, Berkeley, Voltaire, Hume, Reid, Condillac, Le Mettrie,Haman, and Lichtenberg.
September 19, 2011
A dense paperback of basic writings of eighteenth century philosophers. From Locke to Lichtenberg, these men tried to prove that the world was a giant, subtle machine—moved by unchangeable and predictable laws. Berlin's introductory passages help opens the world and thoughts of these philosophers to modern minds. A trove of original writings.
Still, when I first read this--and the other Mentor Philosophers volumes--in the 1960s, it opened a world of thought that I didn't then realize existed. These people struggles long and hard making sense of the world in which they lived: a world very different--yet not so different--from ours.
Still, when I first read this--and the other Mentor Philosophers volumes--in the 1960s, it opened a world of thought that I didn't then realize existed. These people struggles long and hard making sense of the world in which they lived: a world very different--yet not so different--from ours.
November 3, 2024
An excellent introduction to the main body of eighteenth-century thought is offered by these quotes from individual enlightenment philosophers. A wide range of the finest enlightened ideas are presented in this collection.
November 23, 2011
This has to be one of the most meaningless books I have ever read. It makes John Locke seem very boring and dry and a little bit not all together there in the head.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews