Human nature!. Review on Proper Study of Mankind, The - Isaiah Berlin

A PROPER STUDY OF MANKIND ? An Anthology of Essays Author: Isaiah Berlin Publication Date:

08/2000 A Proper Study of Mankind includes some of Isaiah Berlin?s most influential essays on humankind. The name of the book does suggest what it unfolds ? probably an in-depth analysis of humankind?s past and it?s present seemingly an historical account.

The Latvia-born, Berlin, one of the most respectable thinkers of the 20th century, clarifies in his essays, ''Radicalism is humanism or it is nothing; the proper study of mankind is man and the ability to laugh is one of the faculties that defines the human and distinguishes the species from other animals.'' This particular thought quite aptly summarises Berlin?s supra-natural analysis of the complexities of human thought and behaviour.

Through this book he puts forward his views relating to a variety of subjects ranging from pluralism to liberty to Winston Churchill. Towards the middle of the book is the essay, ''The Originality of Machiavelli,'' which shows how well Berlin?s ability to categorize intellectual activities into various kinds of significance. ''His distrust of unworldly attitudes, absolute principles divorced from empirical observation, is fanatically strong - almost romantic in its violence; the vision of the great prince playing upon human beings like an instrument intoxicates him.

He assumes that different societies must always be at war with each other, since they have differing purposes. He sees history as an endless process of cut-throat competition, . . .? One of the most interesting aspects of human thought and philosophy described in the book is Berlin?s account on liberty. Berlin writes about the two concepts of liberty - positive liberty and negative liberty. He explains that positive liberty is the freedom to do something while negative liberty is to be free of restrictions. He goes on to say that liberty can be absolute only when a person has complete negative liberty. However, this state of liberty can exist only in an ideal world.

He says that if liberty of the rich and the powerful is used as a tool of oppression of the poor and the weak, then the liberty of the rich and the powerful can be curbed. Immanuel Kant was the first put these two concepts of liberty forward, but Berlin is the first to give a detailed account of the reasoning behind these two concepts of liberty. Berlin goes on to describe his concept of ?Objective Pluralism?. He writes: ?I came to the conclusion that there is a plurality of ideals, as there is a plurality of cultures and of temperaments. I am not a relativist; I do not say ''I like my coffee with milk and you like it without; I am in favor of kindness and you prefer concentration camps'' -- each of us with his own values, which cannot be overcome or integrated.

This I believe to be false. But I do believe that there is a plurality of values which men can and do seek, and that these values differ.

There is not infinity of them: the number of human values, of values that I can pursue while maintaining my human semblance, my human character, is finite. And the difference it makes is that if a man pursues one of these values, I, who do not, am able to understand why he pursues it or what it would be like, in his circumstances, for me to be induced to pursue it?I think these values are objective -- that is to say, their nature, the pursuit of them, is part of what it is to be a human being, and this is an objective given?. pluralism is not relativism -- the multiple values are objective, part of the essence of humanity rather than arbitrary creations of men's subjective fancies.?

If pluralism is a valid view, and respect between systems of values which are not necessarily hostile to each other is possible, then toleration and liberal consequences follow, as they do not either from monism (only one set of values is true, all the others are false) or from relativism (my values are mine, yours are yours, and if we clash, too bad, neither of us can claim to be right). Berlin puts forward an interesting revelation. ?I find Nazi values detestable, but I can understand how, given enough misinformation, enough false belief about reality, one could come to believe that they are the only salvation. Of course they have to be fought, by war if need be, but I do not regard the Nazis, as some people do, as literally pathological or insane, only as wickedly wrong, totally misguided about the facts, for example in believing that some beings are subhuman, or that race is central, or that Nordic races alone are truly creative, and so forth.

I see how, with enough false education, enough widespread illusion and error, men can, while remaining men, believe this and commit the most unspeakable crimes.? In a nutshell, Berlin?s political philosophy is strongly lined up on the side of freedom and the dignity of the individual, which is exactly in favor in these days of extremist bland thinking. Berlin tries to make his reasoning of human thought clear using various examples and by writing in the first person. The language used maybe a little difficult to understand and may require a second reading, but Berlin?s way of structuring his essays does make the reading a worthwhile experience. [900 words]