What do you think?
Rate this book
伯林传
以赛亚·伯林有着多重身份和传奇的经历：生于俄国，犹太血统，英国学者。作为20世纪重要的自由主义知识分子，他与各界的许多名人都有交往。这本根据大量资料和伯林自己口述写成《伯林传》，记述了他如何在复杂动荡的历史环境中走出自己的生活道路，并对自由和多元主义等重要问题形成了自己的独特观点。传记作者（亦为著名学者）叶礼庭保持一种平衡的态度，欣赏伯林的思想，但对其弱点也不加回避。正是伯林身上这种人性的真实让这本书和这个人散发出永久的魅力。
自1987年9月始的十年里，叶礼庭定期拜访伯林，同他一起回忆人生，重新经历他在俄国度过的童年、牛津的求学岁月、美国的外交生涯、对苏联的访问，以及不曾远离思想前线的学术生活。这不是一部用文献堆砌而成的人物评述，而是用伯林自己的回忆写成的思想传记。在本书中，你会看到伯林如何经历暴风骤雨的20世纪，度过诚实且负责任的一生，并且从这个世纪的灾难和成就中提炼出他回响至今的原创思想。
自1987年9月始的十年里，叶礼庭定期拜访伯林，同他一起回忆人生，重新经历他在俄国度过的童年、牛津的求学岁月、美国的外交生涯、对苏联的访问，以及不曾远离思想前线的学术生活。这不是一部用文献堆砌而成的人物评述，而是用伯林自己的回忆写成的思想传记。在本书中，你会看到伯林如何经历暴风骤雨的20世纪，度过诚实且负责任的一生，并且从这个世纪的灾难和成就中提炼出他回响至今的原创思想。
504 pages, Hardcover
First published September 17, 1991
52 people are currently reading
731 people want to read
About the author
Michael Ignatieff
75 books151 followersMichael Grant Ignatieff is a Canadian author, academic and former politician. He was the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and Leader of the Official Opposition from 2008 until 2011. Known for his work as a historian, Ignatieff has held senior academic posts at the University of Cambridge, the University of Oxford, Harvard University and the University of Toronto.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews
April 5, 2018
Isaiah Berlin was the Forrest Gump of 20th century geopolitics. A child during the Russian revolution, serving the British Foreign Service in WWII, intimately involved in the formation of the state of Israel, etc, etc. Ignatieff writes a compelling narrative of his life while also doing justice to the ideas. Ignatieff’s pacing is very good (the middle chapters on Berlin’s return to Russia and the importance of Russian literature to his life are the best in the book). My only serious concern is the limitations of his methodology: this is very close to being an “as-told-to” biography. The story is very dependent on Berlin’s recounting. But perhaps the critical distance is for the second biography. In the meantime, Ignatieff has crafted a fine testament to the work of a philosopher in public who, no doubt, was a model for the trajectory of his own career.
December 14, 2017
https://nwhyte.livejournal.com/2916495.html
This biography was published in 1998, the year after Berlin's death, many years before Ignatieff took the Canadian Liberal Party to their worst result ever. I confess that although I have been involved with politics for most of my adult life, I've had very little time for political philosophy. After reading this biography, I'm willing to concede that I may have missed out. Berlin's work on liberal political philosophy in an age of political extremes was of crucial importance to steer between different brands of totalitarianism in the years leading up to the Second World War, and to give the West friendly criticism during the Cold War. His life as an academic was not particularly interesting, but his life as a Russian emigrant who became a loyal British subject (yet always conscious of his origins) it fascinating. The relationship he had with Russian literature was crucial to his philosophy, and his most famous phrase, "The Hedgehog and the Fox" comes from an essay on Tolstoy. His November 1945 meeting with Anna Akhmatova in Moscow had profound effects on them both. Ignatieff clearly admired and loved Berlin, but is not uncritical of his political philosophy which he says looked more at the negative case of illiberalism than the positive case for liberalism; I don't feel qualified to judge.
There is one truly hilarious anecdote which I had not heard before. In the later stages of the Second World War, Berlin was posted to the British Embassy in Washington D.C. and wrote detailed and insightful reports back to Whitehall. Winston Churchill, hearing that Mr Berlin was in London for a few days, invited him for lunch with the Chief of the General Staff and others. But the lunch guest, surprisingly to Churchill, had a strong American accent and yet was only able to give vague and disappointing answers to Churchill's questions about the political and economic situation across the Atlantic. It turned out that there had been a mistake; Churchill had invited not Isaiah Berlin, but the composer Irving Berlin, author of "White Christmas". It seems too good to be true, but it's well documented.
This biography was published in 1998, the year after Berlin's death, many years before Ignatieff took the Canadian Liberal Party to their worst result ever. I confess that although I have been involved with politics for most of my adult life, I've had very little time for political philosophy. After reading this biography, I'm willing to concede that I may have missed out. Berlin's work on liberal political philosophy in an age of political extremes was of crucial importance to steer between different brands of totalitarianism in the years leading up to the Second World War, and to give the West friendly criticism during the Cold War. His life as an academic was not particularly interesting, but his life as a Russian emigrant who became a loyal British subject (yet always conscious of his origins) it fascinating. The relationship he had with Russian literature was crucial to his philosophy, and his most famous phrase, "The Hedgehog and the Fox" comes from an essay on Tolstoy. His November 1945 meeting with Anna Akhmatova in Moscow had profound effects on them both. Ignatieff clearly admired and loved Berlin, but is not uncritical of his political philosophy which he says looked more at the negative case of illiberalism than the positive case for liberalism; I don't feel qualified to judge.
There is one truly hilarious anecdote which I had not heard before. In the later stages of the Second World War, Berlin was posted to the British Embassy in Washington D.C. and wrote detailed and insightful reports back to Whitehall. Winston Churchill, hearing that Mr Berlin was in London for a few days, invited him for lunch with the Chief of the General Staff and others. But the lunch guest, surprisingly to Churchill, had a strong American accent and yet was only able to give vague and disappointing answers to Churchill's questions about the political and economic situation across the Atlantic. It turned out that there had been a mistake; Churchill had invited not Isaiah Berlin, but the composer Irving Berlin, author of "White Christmas". It seems too good to be true, but it's well documented.
Read
July 18, 2023I know nothing about philosphy and not enough about history but having read this I'm absolutely certain that in fact “all I know is that I know nothing”.
How can it be that someone, anyone, can succesfully devote their entire life to thinking?
I enjoyed this book. I told my mum I was reading Isaiah Berlin, "ah!" she said "a man that is incomprehensible in at least 7 different languages!"
Well yes but not quite (as my mum would be happy to accept).
A shame that his message for the 21st Century went unheeded.
How can it be that someone, anyone, can succesfully devote their entire life to thinking?
I enjoyed this book. I told my mum I was reading Isaiah Berlin, "ah!" she said "a man that is incomprehensible in at least 7 different languages!"
Well yes but not quite (as my mum would be happy to accept).
A shame that his message for the 21st Century went unheeded.
February 8, 2019
Fantastic
August 31, 2021
I came away from this biography not knowing much more about Isaiah Berlin that when I'd started and with the impression that his principal talents were being a wonderful conversationalist and being in the right place at the right time, repeatedly.
Nevertheless, I quite enjoyed the book, not because of the style of Ignatieff's writing (unexceptional, although easy to read) but rather because Berlin's life was so interesting: born in Latvia, childhood in London, student and teacher at Oxford, then during the war he worked as they eyes and ears of British gov't in Washington. In the succeeding years he seems to have been everywhere and met everyone who was anyone during the course of the 20th century.
He didn't seem to produce a great book or any tremendously original thought, but I came away from it green with envy at the life he lived and the people he'd met. A life less ordinary.
Nevertheless, I quite enjoyed the book, not because of the style of Ignatieff's writing (unexceptional, although easy to read) but rather because Berlin's life was so interesting: born in Latvia, childhood in London, student and teacher at Oxford, then during the war he worked as they eyes and ears of British gov't in Washington. In the succeeding years he seems to have been everywhere and met everyone who was anyone during the course of the 20th century.
He didn't seem to produce a great book or any tremendously original thought, but I came away from it green with envy at the life he lived and the people he'd met. A life less ordinary.
October 15, 2019
Its really the ideas of Berlin's that matter. For me, though I'm not fully in his camp, more left; though the idea that the ideologies of the 20thC were destructive is in line with how my father saw the world: a farm worker, under occupation from Nazis and a frightened teenager in the midst of a civil war, where you cannot be a passive observer. His world view - an uneducated one in terms of book learning, was about the avoidance of extreme views - and when I read Berlin's works and life, I realised that they had reached similar conclusions, using different methods. Extreme politics leads to extreme violence, destruction and instability. I'd still prefer a greater emphasis on the redistribution of resources to benefit all. But that's just me.
August 14, 2016
یک جراحی درخشان و لذتبخش در اندیشههای آیزیا برلین
https://www.instagram.com/p/BJGMwYVBScY/
https://www.instagram.com/p/BJGMwYVBScY/
January 11, 2023
Michael Ignatieff’s biography of Isaiah Berlin was several years in the making. It became, or so it seemed, a shared project where the author did in fact enter into his subject’s life to become more than a friend and certainly an actor in events. All the more credit is due to Michael Ignatieff, therefore, because the tone of this wonderful book is never fawning, never overtly adulatory and sufficiently detached to offer an assessment of the great man’s work, as well as a description of a life.
Isaiah Berlin became over his long life a true and publicly identifiable pillar of the British establishment. He was a member of the Order of Merit, that select band of national treasures that only ever comprises twenty-four members. He was also an Oxford don, from an early age in All Souls of all places, where he didn’t even have to teach. He knew the Freud family, eventually sitting for Lucian for a portrait, founded Wolfson College, Oxford and for good measure befriended Alfred Brendel. And this was only a small taste of Berlin’s achievements. This quintessential Englishman, however, was Jewish, was born in Latvia, spent his childhood in St. Petersburg and spoke fluent Russian.
Born into wealth derived from his father’s timber business in Latvia, he eventually found himself in an English public school and in an Oxford college. War, revolution and antisemitism chased the family across Europe to Britain, where they found stability.
Many of his friends and acquaintances confirmed that Isaiah Berlin had the gift of the gab. He talked a lot and seemed to be able to philosophise ‘off the cuff’. He wrote less, considerably less. Somehow, he secured a position at Oxford. Always a left-leaning liberal with conservative libertarian tendencies, he remained hard to pin down politically. The fluent Russian clearly facilitated various Cold War and wartime roles. He may have been naïve as to the nature of his work, but one doubts it. Teaching roles in the United States brought him into contact also with the establishment and Washington bigwigs.
Undoubtedly, Isaiah Berlin was a thinker. But he himself shied away from the label ‘philosopher’. This passage seems to some of the rational versus emotional dilemmas that seemed to haunt him throughout his life. “The Enlightenment philosophers … assumed that human values could be derived from facts about human nature. They believed that all men wanted the same things and that these things were not in conflict. The entire Western agenda of ameliorative reform derived from this optimistic rationalism. Berlin’s dilemma was how to rescue what was positive in the Enlightenment project from what was tyrannous. What was positive was clear enough: the attack on religious authority and dogma; the campaign for human rights and personal freedom against state tyranny; the faith in human reason itself. In these respects, Isaiah was himself Voltairian to the core. He could see, however, that Enlightenment rationalism was deeply flawed. Human values could not be securely derived from human nature. This was what the Romantic thinkers had understood. Values were created by me in their struggle to master themselves, their society and their natural world. Values, therefore, were historical, relative to the cultures that engendered them and contradictory, since human nature itself was contradictory.”
He was a lover of music, as his passion for concert going illustrated. Music, it seems, allowed him greater emotional stability. “In and through music, he learned emotional pitch, learned to distinguish between true and false feeling. He always had a vivid sense of the difficulty of knowing what one feels and expressing these emotions without sentimentality. This is why his love of music was both aesthetic and ethical. For it was in the concert hall that he grasped the nature of emotional authenticity.”
Until middle age, he seemed to live an arms-length from emotional or physical love. And then, with stunning unpredictability, he fell for a married woman with a family and stayed with her until the end of his long life.
Michael Ignatieff’s biography is finally drawn. The reader may feel that even by the end Isaiah Berlin has not really revealed himself, but then the fundamental point he seemed to make was that we are all jumbled of influences and conflicts. In the end, death is not part of life and life is merely what you live. Starting points, however, as well as ends, do differ.
Isaiah Berlin became over his long life a true and publicly identifiable pillar of the British establishment. He was a member of the Order of Merit, that select band of national treasures that only ever comprises twenty-four members. He was also an Oxford don, from an early age in All Souls of all places, where he didn’t even have to teach. He knew the Freud family, eventually sitting for Lucian for a portrait, founded Wolfson College, Oxford and for good measure befriended Alfred Brendel. And this was only a small taste of Berlin’s achievements. This quintessential Englishman, however, was Jewish, was born in Latvia, spent his childhood in St. Petersburg and spoke fluent Russian.
Born into wealth derived from his father’s timber business in Latvia, he eventually found himself in an English public school and in an Oxford college. War, revolution and antisemitism chased the family across Europe to Britain, where they found stability.
Many of his friends and acquaintances confirmed that Isaiah Berlin had the gift of the gab. He talked a lot and seemed to be able to philosophise ‘off the cuff’. He wrote less, considerably less. Somehow, he secured a position at Oxford. Always a left-leaning liberal with conservative libertarian tendencies, he remained hard to pin down politically. The fluent Russian clearly facilitated various Cold War and wartime roles. He may have been naïve as to the nature of his work, but one doubts it. Teaching roles in the United States brought him into contact also with the establishment and Washington bigwigs.
Undoubtedly, Isaiah Berlin was a thinker. But he himself shied away from the label ‘philosopher’. This passage seems to some of the rational versus emotional dilemmas that seemed to haunt him throughout his life. “The Enlightenment philosophers … assumed that human values could be derived from facts about human nature. They believed that all men wanted the same things and that these things were not in conflict. The entire Western agenda of ameliorative reform derived from this optimistic rationalism. Berlin’s dilemma was how to rescue what was positive in the Enlightenment project from what was tyrannous. What was positive was clear enough: the attack on religious authority and dogma; the campaign for human rights and personal freedom against state tyranny; the faith in human reason itself. In these respects, Isaiah was himself Voltairian to the core. He could see, however, that Enlightenment rationalism was deeply flawed. Human values could not be securely derived from human nature. This was what the Romantic thinkers had understood. Values were created by me in their struggle to master themselves, their society and their natural world. Values, therefore, were historical, relative to the cultures that engendered them and contradictory, since human nature itself was contradictory.”
He was a lover of music, as his passion for concert going illustrated. Music, it seems, allowed him greater emotional stability. “In and through music, he learned emotional pitch, learned to distinguish between true and false feeling. He always had a vivid sense of the difficulty of knowing what one feels and expressing these emotions without sentimentality. This is why his love of music was both aesthetic and ethical. For it was in the concert hall that he grasped the nature of emotional authenticity.”
Until middle age, he seemed to live an arms-length from emotional or physical love. And then, with stunning unpredictability, he fell for a married woman with a family and stayed with her until the end of his long life.
Michael Ignatieff’s biography is finally drawn. The reader may feel that even by the end Isaiah Berlin has not really revealed himself, but then the fundamental point he seemed to make was that we are all jumbled of influences and conflicts. In the end, death is not part of life and life is merely what you live. Starting points, however, as well as ends, do differ.
Read
October 17, 2011Is it too much to ask that America be more like Canada, where people like Trudeau, Charles Taylor, Michael Ignatieff can create good public policy and also be serious thinkers? Do you see Bachmann writing a biography of Kant?
Bought this on liquidation at Borders. They're selling even the fixtures, counters, and shelves. What an abject ending.
"That summer he paid a visit to the most famous refugee from Nazi Europe, Sigmund Freud. Freud's wife was a relative of a family friend, Oscar Phillip. Through his intermediary, Isaiah arranged a call at Maresfield Gardens one Friday afternoon in October 1938. Freud himself answered the door-bell and ushered Berlin into the famous study with the Egyptian and Greek statuettes and figurines already displayed on every free space of the desks, cabinets, and bookcases. When Freud asked Berlin what he did, and Isaiah replied in German that he attempted to teach philosophy, Freud replied sardonically ,'Then you must think me a charlatan.'. This was close to the mark but Berlin protested, 'Dr. Freud, how can you think such a thing?'. Freud then pointed to a figurine on the mantelpiece. 'Can you guess where it is from?'. When Berlin said he had no idea, Freud replied,'It comes from Megara. I see you are not pretentious.'. Then he explained he had reached London thanks to the intercession of Princess Marie Bonaparte and asked whether Isaiah was familiar with other members of the Greek royal family. When Berlin said he wasn't, Freud replied, 'I see you are not a snob.'.
This part of the interrogation completed, Freud began musing aloud about whether he might set up practice in Oxford. Berlin said there was bound to be a lot of demand for his services in a place like Oxford and in his mind's
eye imagined a burnished brass plaque in an Oxford doorway reading 'Dr. Freud, 2pm-4pm', and a queue of neurotics stretching back a mile."
****************************
Berlin had a liberal temperament and an expansive, independent cast of mind that's very appealing. He could criticize the "technocratic busy bodying" foibles of left progressivism, and find an "adamantine firmness of purpose" admirable in Churchill, but still put into circulation ideas from neglected controversial writers like Holbach or Sorel .
What makes Berlin particularly attractive in Ignatieff's description is that he never believed in the consolations of philosophy and was deeply skeptical about reaching for ultimate questions, of grasping the meaning of life in ten easy steps. "If history had no libretto why should an ordinary life have one?"
Bought this on liquidation at Borders. They're selling even the fixtures, counters, and shelves. What an abject ending.
"That summer he paid a visit to the most famous refugee from Nazi Europe, Sigmund Freud. Freud's wife was a relative of a family friend, Oscar Phillip. Through his intermediary, Isaiah arranged a call at Maresfield Gardens one Friday afternoon in October 1938. Freud himself answered the door-bell and ushered Berlin into the famous study with the Egyptian and Greek statuettes and figurines already displayed on every free space of the desks, cabinets, and bookcases. When Freud asked Berlin what he did, and Isaiah replied in German that he attempted to teach philosophy, Freud replied sardonically ,'Then you must think me a charlatan.'. This was close to the mark but Berlin protested, 'Dr. Freud, how can you think such a thing?'. Freud then pointed to a figurine on the mantelpiece. 'Can you guess where it is from?'. When Berlin said he had no idea, Freud replied,'It comes from Megara. I see you are not pretentious.'. Then he explained he had reached London thanks to the intercession of Princess Marie Bonaparte and asked whether Isaiah was familiar with other members of the Greek royal family. When Berlin said he wasn't, Freud replied, 'I see you are not a snob.'.
This part of the interrogation completed, Freud began musing aloud about whether he might set up practice in Oxford. Berlin said there was bound to be a lot of demand for his services in a place like Oxford and in his mind's
eye imagined a burnished brass plaque in an Oxford doorway reading 'Dr. Freud, 2pm-4pm', and a queue of neurotics stretching back a mile."
****************************
Berlin had a liberal temperament and an expansive, independent cast of mind that's very appealing. He could criticize the "technocratic busy bodying" foibles of left progressivism, and find an "adamantine firmness of purpose" admirable in Churchill, but still put into circulation ideas from neglected controversial writers like Holbach or Sorel .
What makes Berlin particularly attractive in Ignatieff's description is that he never believed in the consolations of philosophy and was deeply skeptical about reaching for ultimate questions, of grasping the meaning of life in ten easy steps. "If history had no libretto why should an ordinary life have one?"
May 17, 2012
"We are doomed to choose and every choice may entail an irreparable loss. The world we encounter in ordinary experience is one in which we are faced with choices between ends equally ultimate and claims equally absolute, the realization of some of which must inevitably involve the sacrifice of others...If, as I believe, the ends of men are many, and not all of them are in principle compatible with each other, then the possibility of conflict — and of tragedy — can never wholly be eliminated from human life, either personal or social. The necessity of choosing between absolute claims is then an inescapable characteristic of the human condition. This gives its value to freedom as Acton conceived of it — as an end in itself, and not as a temporary need, arising out of our confused notions and irrational and disordered lives, a predicament which a panacea could one day put right."
-- Isaiah Berlin
-- Isaiah Berlin
December 6, 2008
Okay, I'm only a hundred or so pages into this book, but I love it love it love it.
I like Berlin's and Ignatieff's writing - each of them, so I figured I'd enjoy something that merged both their thinking...and it is wonderful.
Ignatieff has a wonderful forward where he links Berlin's personality to his philosophy and values....absolutely fascinating idea, and once you think about it, it makes a lot of sense.
More to come!
I like Berlin's and Ignatieff's writing - each of them, so I figured I'd enjoy something that merged both their thinking...and it is wonderful.
Ignatieff has a wonderful forward where he links Berlin's personality to his philosophy and values....absolutely fascinating idea, and once you think about it, it makes a lot of sense.
More to come!
February 16, 2018
لذت پایان ناپذیر همنشینی با بسیار از مشاهیر فرهنگ و فلسفه و ادب و سیاست و ... از روزنهی نگاه تیزبین آیزایابرلینی که به نوشتن تاریخ اندیشهها شهره است. از دیگر سو سالهای بسیار مهمی چون ۱۹۴۰ تا ۱۹۴۴ را که بحبوبحهی جنگ دوم جهانی است و رپرپهی شکلگیری دولت یهودی در فلسطین را باز منظر نیروی اطلاعاتی وزارت خارجه بریتانیا در امریکا که یهودی خوش قریحه و پر ارتباطی به نام آیزایابرلین است به تماشا مینشینیم
July 14, 2022
Despite Berlin not publishing a philosophical treatise that would solidify his legacy in the philosopher hall of fame, something that Berlin was apparently insecure about during his life, I think his fragmented writing nevertheless puts him at the top of that hall. I'm too thankful to his editors for obstinately insisting on organising and publishing his work which would otherwise never have seen the light of day. Isaiah's philosophical ideas have been profoundly influential on my own life. My understanding of his theory of value pluralism for one thing has made me more accepting and empathetic to other views, much less dogmatic, more understanding of the contingencies that lead to my own beliefs and that of others. And that people have many different values and ends, some of which disagree with one another, others are entirely incommensurable—and yet each of which can be equally correct, valid, and 'rational'.
Berlin’s political philosophy is also profound for our own times. Throughout reading much of Berlin's work, I was pushed to reevaluate my position on political doctrines that espouse eternal, ahistorical Truths, claiming to be able to explain everything and be applied to everyone everywhere at all times. Berlin rejected all forms of historicism and their millenarianist preachings, whether religious or secular (always having Marx in his crosshairs); the belief that we ought to bracket our freedom temporarily in order to reach a future utopia. Rather, to him, life was an ends in itself and not an instrumental means to some future felicity.
He staunchly rejected the idea of a 'libretto of history', a phrase he borrows from the Russian thinker Alexander Herzen whom he also admired. There, Berlin often quotes the Bishop Joseph Butler when he remarked that "Every thing is what it is, and not another thing", in that, we are what we are, and not separate individuals that may wholly transcend our contemporary time. We are what we are and live where we live, and we can't simply transform ourselves and be part of some idyllic past which no longer exists or a utopian future which does not yet exist—that was Berlin's dictum.
I think what most leads me to adore Berlin is his brilliantly eloquent prose style which read as if he is conversing with the reader in real time (apparently most of his publications are collections of lecture transcripts). He was also endowed with such an exceptional capacity in presenting the thoughts of others in a such a clear and digestible yet brilliantly entertaining and at times ironic, satirical and somewhat exaggerated way, to the extent where I find myself at times pausing to remind myself that Berlin is describing someone else's ideas (occasionally, I admit, a crude and simplified caricature of them) and not what he actually thinks. Indeed he has the talent of presenting ideas better and more convincing than its original progenitor could have ever intended.
Berlin's oratory skills are unmatched. One could easily imagine him in another possible world employed as a defence barrister, fervently arguing in defence of a murderer, utterly unconvinced of his innocence but nonetheless showing immense passion and gusto for his client's case anyway, as though it was his own and more than his client could originally ever have done or cared to do. Or even more so he would have made for an excellent Greek sophist, defending specious philosophies he is totally unconvinced of in the Agora squares. When, for instance, Berlin writes about the otherwise despicable philosophy of Joseph de Maistre—his ultramontane, extremely conservative and fascistic doctrines—he has me almost convinced sheerly by his articulateness.
On top of this, his ability to biographically portray the convictions and presuppositions of historical figures—Tolstoy, Herzen, Bakunin, Belinsky Turgenev, Stankevich, De Maistre, Marx, Holbach, the Romantics; Herder, Fichte, Schelling, Schlegel, Vico and others—in such a vivid manner as to in some sense psychoanalyse their own lives and personalities and link them to some fundamental axiom that that particular figure held, and then extend that to the zeitgeist and general attitude that is paradigmatic of the age in which they had lived. It would seem to me that Berlin borrowed this methodology from the Russian thinker Belinsky whom he greatly admired, and I'm purely judging this by his own testament while writing about Belinsky himself. Berlin writes about these thinkers as if he was personally acquainted with them even though they lived centuries before his own time. And he always shows solemn care to understand them in relation to their social, economic and environmental context; to put himself in their perspective and live through their experiences, beliefs and convictions. These talents, I think, require a huge deal of ingenuity and imagination as well as an exceptionally open-minded outlook and honesty of mind.
This biography is a just portrayal of this great man life—as a philosopher, historian of ideas and probably most of all, a socialite. I always thought that a person's life experiences and upbringing are shaped by and to a certain extent reflective of their philosophical ideas and thoughts; their convictions and why they held them, their presuppositions and so on.
I guess this is why I was somewhat surprised to come to learn that Isaiah Berlin was a Zionist, a revelation which was at first disappointing; the 'broken pedestal' and 'never meet your heroes' tropes seemed to ring too true. It struck me as particularly interesting that Berlin upheld value pluralism—which at least to be seems to entail some sort of empathy to other groups—while simultaneously believing that the colonialisation of Palestine by his own group was justified—two 'incommensurable' principles of which he preached. Values held by two people may indeed be incommensurable and yet remain equally valid, but two incommensurable values held by the same person is the quintessence of hypocrisy. Berlin might not be a fox but a hedgehog, after all?
But this also perhaps gives us a glimpse into his affinity for romantic sentiments—particularly those related to national identity embraced by the likes of Fichte and Herder—and its connection to his Zionism and Jewish heritage and religion, of which he kept close to heart throughout his life despite being an atheist. I don't want to make too many inferences but this might also denote that Isaiah identified with some of the conservative attitudes and beliefs of the Romantic movements concerning the preservation of religion, culture and heritage and the importance of a shared identity. But this again might just be a symptom of Berlin's ability to portray the beliefs of others in such an acute way that could comes off as his own.
Nevertheless, these things must be viewed from the context and time in which he lived—a time where Jews were being exterminated in Nazi Germany and disenfranchised elsewhere. Moreover, we may be relieved to read in the final passages that, upon reaching old age, Berlin at least regretted ignoring the Palestinians’ right to self-determination all the while calling for the Jewish right for a nation state at the expense of the former, as well as his later espousal of a two state settlement and etc. As fallible as he was as a human—as much as any human is—his tremendously positive influences on his own age and posterity vastly eclipse whatever faults that he might have had. To me, he remains the most interesting thinker in the 20th century!
Berlin’s political philosophy is also profound for our own times. Throughout reading much of Berlin's work, I was pushed to reevaluate my position on political doctrines that espouse eternal, ahistorical Truths, claiming to be able to explain everything and be applied to everyone everywhere at all times. Berlin rejected all forms of historicism and their millenarianist preachings, whether religious or secular (always having Marx in his crosshairs); the belief that we ought to bracket our freedom temporarily in order to reach a future utopia. Rather, to him, life was an ends in itself and not an instrumental means to some future felicity.
He staunchly rejected the idea of a 'libretto of history', a phrase he borrows from the Russian thinker Alexander Herzen whom he also admired. There, Berlin often quotes the Bishop Joseph Butler when he remarked that "Every thing is what it is, and not another thing", in that, we are what we are, and not separate individuals that may wholly transcend our contemporary time. We are what we are and live where we live, and we can't simply transform ourselves and be part of some idyllic past which no longer exists or a utopian future which does not yet exist—that was Berlin's dictum.
I think what most leads me to adore Berlin is his brilliantly eloquent prose style which read as if he is conversing with the reader in real time (apparently most of his publications are collections of lecture transcripts). He was also endowed with such an exceptional capacity in presenting the thoughts of others in a such a clear and digestible yet brilliantly entertaining and at times ironic, satirical and somewhat exaggerated way, to the extent where I find myself at times pausing to remind myself that Berlin is describing someone else's ideas (occasionally, I admit, a crude and simplified caricature of them) and not what he actually thinks. Indeed he has the talent of presenting ideas better and more convincing than its original progenitor could have ever intended.
Berlin's oratory skills are unmatched. One could easily imagine him in another possible world employed as a defence barrister, fervently arguing in defence of a murderer, utterly unconvinced of his innocence but nonetheless showing immense passion and gusto for his client's case anyway, as though it was his own and more than his client could originally ever have done or cared to do. Or even more so he would have made for an excellent Greek sophist, defending specious philosophies he is totally unconvinced of in the Agora squares. When, for instance, Berlin writes about the otherwise despicable philosophy of Joseph de Maistre—his ultramontane, extremely conservative and fascistic doctrines—he has me almost convinced sheerly by his articulateness.
On top of this, his ability to biographically portray the convictions and presuppositions of historical figures—Tolstoy, Herzen, Bakunin, Belinsky Turgenev, Stankevich, De Maistre, Marx, Holbach, the Romantics; Herder, Fichte, Schelling, Schlegel, Vico and others—in such a vivid manner as to in some sense psychoanalyse their own lives and personalities and link them to some fundamental axiom that that particular figure held, and then extend that to the zeitgeist and general attitude that is paradigmatic of the age in which they had lived. It would seem to me that Berlin borrowed this methodology from the Russian thinker Belinsky whom he greatly admired, and I'm purely judging this by his own testament while writing about Belinsky himself. Berlin writes about these thinkers as if he was personally acquainted with them even though they lived centuries before his own time. And he always shows solemn care to understand them in relation to their social, economic and environmental context; to put himself in their perspective and live through their experiences, beliefs and convictions. These talents, I think, require a huge deal of ingenuity and imagination as well as an exceptionally open-minded outlook and honesty of mind.
This biography is a just portrayal of this great man life—as a philosopher, historian of ideas and probably most of all, a socialite. I always thought that a person's life experiences and upbringing are shaped by and to a certain extent reflective of their philosophical ideas and thoughts; their convictions and why they held them, their presuppositions and so on.
I guess this is why I was somewhat surprised to come to learn that Isaiah Berlin was a Zionist, a revelation which was at first disappointing; the 'broken pedestal' and 'never meet your heroes' tropes seemed to ring too true. It struck me as particularly interesting that Berlin upheld value pluralism—which at least to be seems to entail some sort of empathy to other groups—while simultaneously believing that the colonialisation of Palestine by his own group was justified—two 'incommensurable' principles of which he preached. Values held by two people may indeed be incommensurable and yet remain equally valid, but two incommensurable values held by the same person is the quintessence of hypocrisy. Berlin might not be a fox but a hedgehog, after all?
But this also perhaps gives us a glimpse into his affinity for romantic sentiments—particularly those related to national identity embraced by the likes of Fichte and Herder—and its connection to his Zionism and Jewish heritage and religion, of which he kept close to heart throughout his life despite being an atheist. I don't want to make too many inferences but this might also denote that Isaiah identified with some of the conservative attitudes and beliefs of the Romantic movements concerning the preservation of religion, culture and heritage and the importance of a shared identity. But this again might just be a symptom of Berlin's ability to portray the beliefs of others in such an acute way that could comes off as his own.
Nevertheless, these things must be viewed from the context and time in which he lived—a time where Jews were being exterminated in Nazi Germany and disenfranchised elsewhere. Moreover, we may be relieved to read in the final passages that, upon reaching old age, Berlin at least regretted ignoring the Palestinians’ right to self-determination all the while calling for the Jewish right for a nation state at the expense of the former, as well as his later espousal of a two state settlement and etc. As fallible as he was as a human—as much as any human is—his tremendously positive influences on his own age and posterity vastly eclipse whatever faults that he might have had. To me, he remains the most interesting thinker in the 20th century!
July 18, 2024
excerpts :
In 1997,Blair wrote to Berlin about his doubts about the future of the left. “Where, Berlin asked, are the new ideas?” Blair favored positive liberty to the idea of negative liberty, Berlin’s plea for human freedom against even the best-intentioned socialist paternalism.
Distaste for philosophy of ‘60s (Marcuse, Arendt). Marcuse remark : “ the world of the concentration camps was not an exceptionally monstruos society”. I.B.:”(…) because they are crippled, recognise nothing pure and firm in this world. I.B. met H.A. in ’42 when she was working with a zionist relief organization and than in early ‘50s when she was part of the “Partisan Review” circle. She had recanted zionism, so that he distrusted her. He also thought that certain of her ideas – eq, the classical greeks did not respect work – were wrong and thus weakened much praised books as “The Human Condition”. Dislike reached a peak with “Eichmann in Jerusalem”, he also had been struck by the banality of evil, but was genuinely infuriated by her argument that European Jewry might have resisted the Holocaust more effectively. The thought that his own people should be criticised from the safety of new York for having failed to stand up to the SS struck him as a piece of monstruos moral conceit
In 1997,Blair wrote to Berlin about his doubts about the future of the left. “Where, Berlin asked, are the new ideas?” Blair favored positive liberty to the idea of negative liberty, Berlin’s plea for human freedom against even the best-intentioned socialist paternalism.
Distaste for philosophy of ‘60s (Marcuse, Arendt). Marcuse remark : “ the world of the concentration camps was not an exceptionally monstruos society”. I.B.:”(…) because they are crippled, recognise nothing pure and firm in this world. I.B. met H.A. in ’42 when she was working with a zionist relief organization and than in early ‘50s when she was part of the “Partisan Review” circle. She had recanted zionism, so that he distrusted her. He also thought that certain of her ideas – eq, the classical greeks did not respect work – were wrong and thus weakened much praised books as “The Human Condition”. Dislike reached a peak with “Eichmann in Jerusalem”, he also had been struck by the banality of evil, but was genuinely infuriated by her argument that European Jewry might have resisted the Holocaust more effectively. The thought that his own people should be criticised from the safety of new York for having failed to stand up to the SS struck him as a piece of monstruos moral conceit
September 15, 2018
A very interesting exposure of Berlin's life and thought, done delicately by Mr. Ignatieff.
I feel like re-reading some of Berlin's essays now that I learned more about his personal life.
This reading only came to reaffirm the congruence of my own views in relation to those of Berlin's, a middle-way, rational liberal, but not an over-rational capitalist, a social socialist, but not an over-socialist, and above all a true humanist.
I also liked his connection with and admiration of the Russian intelligentsia of soviet times, since I also read many writers and poets of this period, finding them fascinating.
I was pleasantly surprised to discover he really liked Turgenev (and even translated to English one of his plays), since I also, after recently reading one of Turgenev's books, have chosen to place him as an author in front of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky.
All in all, had our personal histories been different, I genuinely believe Berlin and I would have been able to become fast friends and talk about philosophy, history, poetry, literature and ideas in general for hours on end...
I feel like re-reading some of Berlin's essays now that I learned more about his personal life.
This reading only came to reaffirm the congruence of my own views in relation to those of Berlin's, a middle-way, rational liberal, but not an over-rational capitalist, a social socialist, but not an over-socialist, and above all a true humanist.
I also liked his connection with and admiration of the Russian intelligentsia of soviet times, since I also read many writers and poets of this period, finding them fascinating.
I was pleasantly surprised to discover he really liked Turgenev (and even translated to English one of his plays), since I also, after recently reading one of Turgenev's books, have chosen to place him as an author in front of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky.
All in all, had our personal histories been different, I genuinely believe Berlin and I would have been able to become fast friends and talk about philosophy, history, poetry, literature and ideas in general for hours on end...
July 7, 2019
Pluralism leads to liberalism, and liberalism leads to conflicts. Freedom and empathy are the required aptitudes. Negative Freedom is the prerequisite for positive freedom. The Russian speaking, right-leaning, Oxford Jew who regularly lived and worked in the US understood that we all need to choose and choosing is costly to ourselves and to others. We shouldn't look to politics to help us..."politics is not emancipatory, merely necessary", but he declined to say what was truly emancipatory. Was it choice? Was it choice in the light of values? He flirts with an adoration of the self "Where is the song before it is sung? Where indeed! 'Nowhere' is the answer - one creates the song by singing it, by composing it. So too, life is created by those who live it, step by step" (a quote from one of his heroes Herzen). But it the song nowhere before it is sung? And is it truly made complete by the singing of it? Do we emancipate ourselves? A great book, well crafted.
December 9, 2019
i think a pretty good predictor about how you'd feel about this book (and how you feel about Berlin generally) is how you feel about someone like adam gopnik or michael ignatieff today.
three things:
1. Berlin was a hedgehog about the value of foxes: value pluralism was his one big idea. and his argument for prioritizing negative liberty is really just an empirical claim about how best to manage irreducible value conflicts (and his empirical claim isn't very good).
2. he abandoned academic philosophy after getting embarrassed by wittgenstein and realizing he wasn't cut out for it, then pioneered the study of "history of philosophical ideas" at oxbridge mostly through his force of personality.
3. he thought through conversations, and did very little sit-down-and-think intellectual work. the reader is left to decide whether the lesson there is that thinking through conversations is underrated or whether berlin is overrated.
three things:
1. Berlin was a hedgehog about the value of foxes: value pluralism was his one big idea. and his argument for prioritizing negative liberty is really just an empirical claim about how best to manage irreducible value conflicts (and his empirical claim isn't very good).
2. he abandoned academic philosophy after getting embarrassed by wittgenstein and realizing he wasn't cut out for it, then pioneered the study of "history of philosophical ideas" at oxbridge mostly through his force of personality.
3. he thought through conversations, and did very little sit-down-and-think intellectual work. the reader is left to decide whether the lesson there is that thinking through conversations is underrated or whether berlin is overrated.
March 23, 2024
An extremely well written biography about an influential figure about whom I knew shamefully little.
It was a fascinating life starting in middle class but oppressive Riga and ending in highest echelons of British Society with the Order of Merit and on persona terms with presidents and prime ministers.
Berlin was obviously the most interesting conversationalist you would ever meet and was always near people who mattered so much so that he mattered himself. This included the arts as welt as politics. He was a good friend and a devoted son.
He was hugely hard working. Yet the central paradox for a historian of ideas was how little he wrote. His two ideas of liberty have become central to political thought but it seems a surprisingly short bibliography.
It was a fascinating life starting in middle class but oppressive Riga and ending in highest echelons of British Society with the Order of Merit and on persona terms with presidents and prime ministers.
Berlin was obviously the most interesting conversationalist you would ever meet and was always near people who mattered so much so that he mattered himself. This included the arts as welt as politics. He was a good friend and a devoted son.
He was hugely hard working. Yet the central paradox for a historian of ideas was how little he wrote. His two ideas of liberty have become central to political thought but it seems a surprisingly short bibliography.
October 14, 2018
A book of two halves. The first is fascinating and absorbing from early childhood to just after the Second World War. From Riga to London to Oxford then Washington and Russia to the formation of the state of Israel. The people he meets and the lives they and he lead. The time in Stalin's USSR and the terrible strain of those who had survived the purges is gripping in how those who lived in fear attempted to be true to their artistic convictions.
The second half is taken up with marriage, contentment and the glittering prizes, but is not nearly as interesting. Well worth reading.
The second half is taken up with marriage, contentment and the glittering prizes, but is not nearly as interesting. Well worth reading.
December 19, 2017
Warm, personal literary biography of a fascinating man. Ignatieff brings Berlin to life and expertly addresses the life experiences and influences that helped engender in him his unique perspective on the past and the present.
December 8, 2019
not really illuminating at all about his ideas and thoughts, mostly about his upbringing and his clinging to the aristocracy, as if this was more important fact that his contribution to the world of ideas.
November 25, 2024
Tremenda biografía de uno de los liberales más importantes del s.XX. Hay que volver a leer a Isaiah Berlin y leer esta biografía de Ignatieff nos permite poner en contexto las etapas del pensamiento de Berlin.
November 25, 2017
อ่านแล้ววางไม่ลงเลยทีเดียว ชีวประวัติชั้นเยี่ยมแห่งปี
ขอยืมคำของ Canada Post ที่เคยกล่าวถึงหนังสือเล่มนี้มาตรงนี้
What a mind, what a life, what a book!
ขอยืมคำของ Canada Post ที่เคยกล่าวถึงหนังสือเล่มนี้มาตรงนี้
What a mind, what a life, what a book!
March 17, 2018
Hyvä elämänkerta mielenkiintoisesta elämästä ja ajattelijasta. Kettua ja siiliä, positiivista ja negatiivista vapautta yksinkertaisempia ja toimivampia tiivistyksiä on vaikea ylittää.
November 14, 2020
当我在伯林的身上找到了不少自己的影子时，我才终于发现了他的书会那么合我胃口的真正原因。
February 4, 2022
A good, thoughtful biography of a man who saw and did much.
April 2, 2023
Not sure why I read this, but it was fluidly written and a decent introduction to the sort of centrist that seems evermore precious and may be my philosophical spirit animal.
March 25, 2024
Worth reading.
August 30, 2025
حوصلهسربر
October 18, 2025
Ignatieff es un gran biógrafo y ensayista. Y Berlin es un figura intelectual muy interesante. Como libro me ha resultado un poco largo.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews