1. Surname 1
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Subject
DD Month YYYY
Isaiah Berlins Concept of Liberty.
Contacts for help:dorineadalyn@gmail.com
Isaiah Berlin was a philosopher, political theorist, historian of an idealist, and educator.
He opposed political extremists and intellectual fanaticism. The essay, Concept of Liberty led to
the revival of interest in political theory, and it is one of the most discussed texts in the field. In
the essay, he distinguishes positive and negative liberties, which sets the ground for discussing
political liberty. This essay aims at exploring Berlin's concept of liberty and applies those
concepts to the text.
Negative liberty centers on freedom from interference and is usually put forward in
reaction to “What is the area within which the subject – a person or group of persons – is or
should be left to do or be what he can do or be, without interference by other persons? (Berlin
155). According to Berlin, negative liberty is the absence of interferences or coercion with an
agent's possible private actions by an exterior social body. For Berlin, negative liberty presents a
different or contemporary incarnation of liberty concepts that require a careful examination.
Berlin argued that the concept of negative liberty constitutes an alternative concocts of positive
liberty and one which is often nearer to the intrusive contemporary usage of the word. Berlin
2. Surname 2
regards negative liberty as one of the differentiating concepts of contemporary liberalism and
observed that “The fathers of liberalism--Mill and Constant--want more than this minimum: they
demand a maximum degree of non-interference compatible with the minimum demands of social
life. It seems unlikely that this extreme demand for liberty has ever been made by any but a small
minority of highly civilized and self-conscious human beings”.
Positive freedom, according to Berlin, is the freedom to do something rather than
inferences. Berlin notes that both positive and negative liberty are not just descriptions of the
concept of liberty; to a great extent, they are incompatible or rival interoperation of a political
ideal. According to Berlin, positive liberty can carry with it the dangers of authoritarianism. The
only restriction caused by others impacts individual freedom. Berlin explains that positive liberty
focuses on the ways desires are created due to people’s rational reflection on the alternative
available or manipulation, pressure, or ignorance. However, positive liberty does not regard
individual desires. According to Berlin, positive liberty has often proven to be easily abuse. It
has either paternalistically re-drawn from conflated concepts of native liberty and therefore
obscure the underlying value conflicts.
Contemporary political thinkers are often mixed up with positive liberty with rational
actions because of the people like Jean Jacques Rousseau, Aristotle, Plato, W. F. Hegel, and
Immanuel Kant. Their thinking is based on rational knowledge that certain groups or individuals
have access to. Their thinking was open to abuse due to encroachment by negative liberty.
Positive liberty defends social engendering, nationalism, paternalism, collective rational control f
human destiny. Following the influence of the elite of positive liberty demands for freedom
could paradoxically become a form of collective discipline control. Thus, positive liberty does
not involve the claim that there is only one right or answer in regard to how people should live,
3. Surname 3
and thus positive liberty can be promoted in a positive sense without encroaching the individual
sphere of native liberty. Berlin exclaims that the gap between negative and positive freedom and
dangers of abuse are further increasing if people identify with the “higher” or “real” self.
Human being can either react to freedom and negative and positive ways. Often, human
being respond to positively to freedom. , however, the big question is what freedom entails. With
this question mind, old world as if if there are different types of liberty and if there is are
contradictions between these kinds of freedom. Based on Isaiah Berlins, the two concept of
freedom, liberty exist in two forms, the negative and the positive form. The novel, The Grand
Inquisitor explore issue of faith, burden of free will and pervasive of moral obligation. The
philosophical conflict in the novel of Brother Karamazov is between religions and doubt. Thus
essay will apply Isaiah Berlins, Two Concepts of Liberty in the analysis of The Grand Inquisitor.
The encounter between the resurrected Christ and Inquisitor is a parable that shows that
there I mismatch between mundane qualities of liberal thinning and boundless who constitute the
order. As shown by the Grand Inquisitor, the cardinal (inquisitor) uses reasons to mundanely to
build an order that can rescue the citizens clues suffering of God’s freedom while eying the end
happiness that this endeavor will bring to him. On the other hand, a double-symbolism are
represents by Christ that haunts the best option of stability refusing its permanent stabilization
Notably, human desire for a single exceptional solution to the persuasive will eradicate the
conflicts of interest in regard to liberty with something that can offer more security and harmony,
has always been one thing human have wished for. This will enables not less that the promising
harmony of values, clear direction and purpose of life that allows l citizens to be free to choose
without coercion, the kind of freedom they deserve. however, however, when such desire are not
fulfill, the human state of mind one is exposed to mumbo-jumbo, something “grand inquisitor”
4. Surname 4
refers to represented: the religion of miracle, authority and secrets and the spirit flocks replaced
critical thinking. Thus no one can question religion in that state.
Grand inquisitor by Dostoevsky attempt to force Christ to speak and Alyosha is derailed
by Ivan Karamazov from achieving his dream of being priest. It is evident that one can
codetermine what the speaker is saying in the two instances, choosing to be a priest and
provoking Christ to speak. It thus shows there is conflict with aspects, doubting man’s capacity
to handle moral freedom while other freedom is the form of kiss (Dostoevsky 3). When Alyosha
kisses Ivan and grand inquisitor is kissed by Christ, the choice is coauthored that is against
freedom. The “kiss” glows in the heart of the receiver and compel their intellectual idea with
competing spiritual ideals. As explained, the grand inquisitor calls this “represented” freedom
because it is based on authority, secret and miracles. “I too have been in the wilderness, I too
prized the freedom with which Thou hast blessed men, and I too was striving to stand among thy
elect, among the strong and powerful, thirsting “to make up the number (3).” But I awakened and
would not serve madness. I turned back and joined the ranks of those who have corrected Thy
work”. The grand is rationalizing the condemnation of the institutions that Dostoevsky that takes
away people’s spiritual freedom to build a world with no suffering. There is fear of freedom of
choice which is determined by blind obedience, spirit of thought takes way peoples critical
thoughts and striving security in humanity is replaces freedom, happiness and righteousness.
Thus Grand inquisitor agree with Isaiah berlins notion, “the Institutions principle” which
govern thoughts. This is because, just like Berlin, two concept of liberty, the order established by
the church is robbing the poor, destitute and believer the freedom and in turn offer safety,
contentment and security. Berlin Argue that “unflinchingly” even though one knows “the relative
validity of one’s convictions” the liberal core lies outside of the quality of liberty. This because
5. Surname 5
Berlin is a witness to an ideal truth of his liberty that he plays the contrary philosopher thus
calling for unflinchingly by supporting ideal freedom. Dostoevsky understand that the order
established in the church is against the fee will that is God-given.
6. Surname 6
Works Cited
Berlin, Isaiah. Concepts of Freedom. (1969), pp. 121–2; see p. 155.
Dostoevsky, Fyodor. The Grand Inquisitor in Brothers Karamazov. (1880). P.3.
