Talk:Isaiah Berlin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Trivia

Regarding the trivia point about Ronald Reagan. I heard the exact same story but for Winston Churchhill. Could they have both happened or is one a mistake of the other?

"Isaiah Berlin was once confused with Irving Berlin by Winston Churchill who invited the latter for lunch, thinking he was the former."

The way I heard the story it was the other way around, i.e. as it was before 24.128.151.54 "fixed" it -- Churchill wanted Irving but got Isiah. Somehow that rings truer actually. Does anyone know for certain? Flapdragon 03:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, he wanted Isaiah (sic) but got Irving. [1] Henry Hardy 18:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of Churchill's intended recipient of the invitation, it was doubtless an invitation "to" lunch, rather than "for" lunch. I shall change the page.

There seems to be a geographic confusion in this article: Note "He spent his childhood in Riga, Latvia and St Petersburg (then called Petrograd),". St Petersburg is simply the English form of Petrograd, but I understood that the USSR called the city Leningrad (St Leninsburg, if you like). Should somebody verify and edit?

The city was called St Petersburg, Petrograd and Leningrad at different times. "St Petersburg" and "Petrograd" are not quite the same name. Henry Hardy 18:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Narrative lapses into 1st person and contains a typo!

"In my mind, the question remains though whether he ment abuse against all humanity or against a particular group within the totality of the human race." I've removed it.... 199.171.52.20 17:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Benjamin Constant

I think it would be great to point that the idea of two kinds of liberty was developed before by Benjamin Constant after the french revolution.

-- It is not the same distinction that Constant made. He made a distinction between freedom of the Ancients and freedom of the Moderns, and the links that can be made with Berlin's two liberties are(in my opinion) really weak

The similarity of course lying in the fact that they both dichotomized liberty into two different camps. Perhaps it's worth a mention but a very brief one at that. b_cubed 19:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

St Paul's School in London is one of the most famous and prestigious schools in the world, and there is no need to call it 'a private school.' I have remedied this.86.129.140.218 16:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

The quotes section doesn't really belong to Wikipedia, it should be migrated to Wikiquote... I realise we need more content first, but once we do, the quotes ought to go IMO. Thoughts? Mikker ^(...) 23:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty more quotes at [2] Henry Hardy 18:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved; quotes now at q:Isaiah Berlin

Nbarth (email) (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Birth date

So, he was born in the Russian Empire, which was using the Julian calendar at that time. We have the date "6 June 1909". Is this the Julian date (= 19 June 1909 Gregorian), or has it already been converted to Gregorian (= 24 May 1909 Julian)? -- JackofOz (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Date of move

I. Berlin is said to have moved to Britain in 1921 at the age of ten. He is also said to have been born in 1909. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC) The article is now more consistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.108.96 (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Topics to add

Brief mention ought to be made of Berlin's Jewishness, which is referred to in Michael Ignatieff's biography. He said, "I am a Jew in exactly the same sense in which I have two arms, legs, eyes, etc. - it is just an attribute, which I take for granted as belonging to me, part of the minimum description of me as a person." (The UJS Haggadah, London, Union of Jewish Students, 1996, p.68) He described his attitude to religion as equivalent to tone-deafness, it simply did not register with him; nevertheless, he was an occasional synagogue attender. More important is his Zionism.

Berlin's role in the Cold War is also important. His 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. Marshall46 (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Adam Curtis

His "Power of Nightmares" documentary has been added as a source on the supposed distinction between positive and negative conceptions of liberty. As I recall, it was about Islamism and Neo-Conservatism. Does it really belong here? Marshall46 (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it should be "The Trap", especially part 3. Wiki crashed while I was trying to change it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.248.40 (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Dominant scholar of his generation?

"thought by many to be the dominant scholar of his generation"

He wrote a number of essays about various European thinkers who prepared the way for, were examples of, or followed in the wake of, what can broadly be described as "Romanticism". Berlin could fairly be described as one of the best known scholars of his generation, but there were numerous far more distinguished scholars. To describe him as the dominant scholar of his generation is absurd.

"He excelled as an essayist, conversationalist and raconteur; and as a brilliant lecturer"

Berlin was a fair writer and lecturer, but if you listen to him or read him he is often very long winded, and his ideas (such as they are) were unoriginal. Again the praise is over the top.

"the world's greatest talker, the century's most inspired reader, one of the finest minds of our time"

More ridiculous exaggeration. Few would dispute that Berlin liked to talk, to claim he was the century's most inspired reader is laughable.

"Berlin's work on liberal theory and on value pluralism has had a lasting influence."

Value pluralism is not a new idea. His contribution was to remind us of the writings of some of the C18th and C19th advocates of this idea.

"Wittgenstein rejected the argument of his paper in discussion but praised Berlin for his intellectual honesty and integrity."

Berlin cut his cloth according to the prevailing wind. It put food on his table, and he liked to live well, to view him as heroic is absurd.

"Berlin's argument was partly grounded in Wittgenstein's later theory of language"

Wittgenstein was drawing on the same tradition as Berlin, except that Berlin did it explicitly because he knew far more about the history of ideas than Wittgenstein.

(ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)).

The first three of these are referenced, admittedly to obituaries. The next two points are quibbles frankly. If you have better references by all means adjust the article, though your assessment seems a tad mean-spirited frankly. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Was he the "dominant scholar of his generation" or not? A reference to one of his friends saying that hardly settles the issue. Frankly it is a ridiculous claim. The whole entry reads like a PR piece written by his publisher. Lasting influence? I think history will decide that don't you? The rest of the article is packed with superlatives. You think that pointing this out is mean spirited? Wikipedia articles should be factual not puff pieces. If you think you are more fair minded then change it to whatever you consider to be factual. I have no intention of having edit wars with his publishers and/or former pupils and/or his fans. I am simply drawing attention to hyperbole and suggesting that his publishers and/or former pupils and/or fans provide a more factual summary.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The quote from the BBC at the head of the article and the assessment of the ODNB ("Berlin was one of the most important historians of ideas in the twentieth century") does seem to suggest that the scholarly consensus is that Berlin was one of the most important scholars of his age. However I do find it hard to disagree with your estimate of him.--Britannicus (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I almost broke out in laughter at the overblown description of Berlin in the summary paragraphs. Obituaries always exaggerate the positive and eliminate the negative -- and the obits are sources for most of the superlatives. Let's get some balance in this description and cut out the POV words. Or let's tag it as a puff piece. 21:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC) Sorry, I just noticed I didn't sign this comment. Smallchief (talk 07:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)