Seyla Benhabib, “Isaiah Berlin. A Judaism between Decisionism and Pluralism"

Seyla Benhabib, “Isaiah Berlin. A Judaism between Decisionism and Pluralism"

thanks to all of you for coming out that they're very very busy time of the year I appreciate it I've been a longtime friend of this Center that terrible rotten Santa every 2 or 3 years of a lecture here let me just say a few words before I start this last book that I'm doing which will be coming out in July is a little unusual for me because it is more I think in the tradition of intellectual history it contextualizes thinkers with whose work I have dealt on my life if it more strongly in the historical and existential circumstances of their lives their work as chapters of course on Hannah Arendt Adorno Walter Benjamin judicial our surprise Albert Hirschman which happens to be one of my favorite chapters of the book and Isaiah Isaiah Berlin and as Carol said this is the last from the last chapter that I will be I will be reading it as many of you know I said Roland is not a thinker with whom I have dealt much at all and this is the first time that I have written extensively about him so let's see how it goes okay a monster by turbulence death on November 5 1997 Leon Wiesel here the former literary editor tada discredited editor of the New Republic what an ammonium titled with the Talmudic saying the first quart when a sage dies all are his can we thought he wrote elegy the pluralists are his skin and the was more their brushless are his skin and they must mourn the Democrats are his kin and they must mourn the Nationalists are the skin and they must mourn the Jews were the skin and they was more subsequent commentators on their Dennis work even those most sympathetic to his best-known thesis such as every redeemable florell with your human values two kinds of liberty the Hedgehog and the Foxes styles of political thought have not been quite so sanguine or complimentary whether Berlin can reconcile all his Kenan despite his tongue motive skills women is a vexing question the relationship of liberalism to Berlin's value pluralism remains fraught as does the question whether value pluralism can avoid relativism Judas card was closer to the truth while she wrote in a reviewer said that conflict between loyalties is endemic and that if anything they would increase in the age of nation-states a seamless reconciliation of all these dimensions of one's identity was an illusion in a review of Berlin's work she are stated I'm sorry it'll be done in one cares as Berlin so obviously does about how one behaves as part of the group about such values as loyalty and personal honor then one must accept the fact that in our actual life our moral choices are not unlimited and we more often have to select nuances rather than the old aims she admits however that he seems to have been employed Reagan said in Berlin's work country towards far recommended Isaiah Berlin's views on radio pluralism led him to articulate buildings rather than nuances nor did he attained reconciliation among his conflicting commitment as we saw here presumed let me contextualize this conflicting views of Berlin's work and persona through the prism of Max Weber s doctrine of value corrodes in the first half of my lecture I will distinguish vapors existentialist pluralism from Max Weber as liberal that you clericalism from Berlin's live in Florence mom sorry and both from the epistemic pluralism of John Rawls Berlin I will argue is greatly indebted to paper enhanced the line between existential and liberal value pluralism is quite tenuous in a final part of my lecture I will turn to John Burroughs who cites Berlin generously in his later work roses analysis of the burdens of judgment proposes some new perspectives on the new pluralism and is indirect to Berlin but this concept in turn creates some difficulties for Rawls's own attempt to distinguish reasonable found unreasonable pluralism in this lecture I offer no solution to these puzzles rather my goal is to market trajectory from Weber to Berlin and to us which is rarely noted or anonymous so let's begin with Max Weber on disenchantment and value of thurible self and come quote to on the handout so honor that Stephen loops is is here the influence on Isaiah Berlin's thought of marks papers diagnosis of modernity as a process of Ascension and soldierin characterized by warring dramas and inevitable polytheism has been discussed by his evil looks as well as Peter Osman in his conversation with Berlin printed in salmagundi Stephen Lucas opposite with us code number two there are other writers than yourself whom I could think of for example Max Weber or Nietzsche or Kaufman who have observed the squat between values but have drawn conclusions that are rather different than yours – which Berlin replies and port 3 let me tell you that I first have to admit to something very shaming when I first formulated this idea which is a long time ago I have never read a page of Weber I had no idea that he said these things people often ask me but surely Weber is the first person to send us I answer I'm sure he is but I had no idea of it no the third part is not coming period Osman remarks on this exchange with looks that quote one can excuse Berlin's lapse of memory here but he seems on other occasions to have shown more awareness of vaporous word then he was prepared to admit losberne recalls that in his 1969 introduction to his four essays on Liberty Berlin had remarked and this is not for number three the classical and still it seems to me the best exposition of this state of mind I eat oralism is to be found in max favorites distinction between the ethics of conscience and the ethics of responsibility in politics as a vocation under God so obviously for the new some of his favor but regardless how much of Labor's were Berlin will have familiar with vapors theory of disenchantment and policy ISM is important as a heuristic device by which to explore Berlin's on views by disenchantment as many of you know Weber meant primarily the lost of magic first eg through the eyes of the modern mathematical sciences of nature in the 16th and 17th centuries the loss of magic did not signify only a change in methods and theories for explaining nature and natural phenomena it also signified her Weber the loss of the socially integrated power of worldviews based on religion mythology or cosmology which had functioned as the legitimizing glue of pre-modern societies and sobering for Weber was a process of both rationalization and differentiation in fact he often use the terms rationalization and loss of magic in the same breath but what did they were mean by characterizing maternity not only herself also a magic but also it as a process of differentiation as different serum and permit me to go into a vapor in some detail here because the contrast with burden is important differentiation for Weber refers to societal differentiation as well as to value differentiation modernity brings about differentiation processes at the societal level through the dis embedding of the economy to use California's famous phrase from the household and the polity in other words the market emerges as an independent and distinct sphere supposed to be from the state and the intimate sphere of the household furthermore with the separation of the economy from the polity comes the rise of an independent administrative staff in charge of affairs of the state the gradual monetization of relations of political authority and domination that famous word in Max Weber hair shaft changes the nature of political legitimacy there ensues a shift from charismatic to impersonal and bureaucratic moral rule which labor names legal-rational authority now recall that for Weber such developments only designate ideal types drone with brush with broad brushstrokes and not even Western European societies really conform to this model of society of differentiation that he proposed now the path to value differentiation is different from though not unrelated to society of differentiation and this is the dimension that more directly influences either length the intellectual development of modernity not only brings about the rise of the mathematical sciences of nature but with the prestige of this intellectual paradigm other fields of enquiries such as religion ethics aesthetics jurisprudence are obliged to develop alternative methods of inquiry and criteria of evaluation weber is an anti positivist to the extent that he does not believe that the new science of nature alone supplies the valid method of rational inquiry he falls can't and the neo-kantian school of epistemology in arguing that every sphere of knowledge has certain presuppositions in accordance with which it is constituted for example International Sciences we presuppose because the 18th century Natural Sciences that using consequence to nature is the existence of things under laws and our explanation have to inform your government regularities in the social sciences by contrast no matter how distant from us in time and space they may be we have to presuppose that we can understand the meaningful course of action of human beings in other societies as many of you are sure well known Weber called this method question translated as explanatory understanding and contrasted to deductive and inductive reasoning used in other disciplines now these Kantian assumptions about the constitution of separate value spheres let paper to argue that under conditions of modernity this kind of differentiation would result in what he called a police they deserve of values or in the dramatic terms of his essay science is a vocation modernity would give rise to the war on competing promise and now we have point number four many old gods assent from their dreams they are disenchanted and has staked upon of impersonal forces they strive to gain power over our lives and again Davis jr. eternal struggle with one another and it is appropriate to characterize various form of try to the orders of a system instead naturalist I think for the following reason not only to these values complete with one another that is as he puts it something can be true we are being good and very good without being beautiful and this is a reference to but also because not only do these relatives compete but we don't possess overarching and commensurate criteria for choosing among these competing values for Weber it's up to the individual to decide what her ultimate goals in life will be and he states it very dramatically in one of his methodological assess this is quote number pride the fruit of the tree of knowledge which is distasteful to the conflation but which is nonetheless inescapable consistently inside that every single important activity and ultimately why first of all if it is not to be permitted to run on it as an event in nature but is instead to be consciously guided is a series of ultimate decisions through which the soul as employer chooses its own fate I eat the meaning of its activity and existence and of work sociology is not right like that anymore fate was rather dramatic formulations and the existential darkness of this view have led many thinkers from Leo Strauss onward to accuse him of 9% before the famous chapter on Max Weber and natural right and history yet this is not accurate there is a non-negligible rush of this current can home to Weber is vocation as a sociologist he emphasizes that although social science can not tell us which goes to choose it can enlighten us about the consequences of our some policies once such a choice is made for example the social scientists cannot dictate whether we ought to pursue equality for all through full employment or instead of for market competition which will exacerbate inequalities these values goals and policies are for politicians and citizens to determine D says what the social scientists can provide are generalizations to the effect that if you want to pursue full employment you are likely to end up with a certain amount of inflation if you want to pursue social solidarity you may face capital floyd and increased fast resentment etc so the function of social science is to enlighten and inform us about the consequences of social action and this the high-speed mind Labor's ideal type of the two technical orientations and this is my last paragraph on favorite before turning to us after length namely to the ethics of conscience does initiative versus the ethics or responsibility for importance indeed and these are the two kinds of ethics that Berlin himself cites as the exemplary case of value pluralism the one who pursues the ethics of conscience says let the world be done I will pursue my principles and my goals by atmosphere giustizia that justice be done and perish the ethics of responsibility however tries to mediate between the costs and the consequences of the foreseeable was also consumption and one's principles and values Auto vapor admires those who stand firmly on principle it is clear that in his view only those who have a sense of balancing means and ends ie in his view the Statesman and the charismatic politician the ethics of responsibility those are the ones who should put their hands or on the wheels of history the rest are saints and adventures but they are not statesmen forgive them dramatic masculinism off favors favors like when she was well not don't forget but now it's so back to Berlin Berlin shares papers tragic sense of choice among competing values but he does not believe that this has been a problem in modernity alone and the Civic difference Berlin often refers to the thought of Machiavelli to show that even in the 15th and 16th century Florence there were conflicting values the values of Christianity which advocated humility honesty and service stood in contrast to the virtues of the ancient republics with her search for glory civic courage and placing the good of the city above that of one's own Berlin also reminds us that most Greek tragedies are about the clash of incompatible values Antigone is forbidden by three on the king of the city from burying her brother polyneices because he has revolted against the city Creon by contrast is there to defend the integrity of the city-state against those who have taken up arms against it such as for analysis as done for Berlin such clash of values is a fundamental aspect of the human condition throughout human history forms of life different cross time and space and even within our own societies radically different forms of life coexist era strongly different values are advocated by different groups value squash and as he puts it as dramatically as Weber and this is core number six these conclusions of values are of the essence of what they are and what we are if we are told that the contradictions will be solved in some perfect world in which all good things can be harmonized in principle then we must answer to those who save us that the meaning they attach to the names which for us denote conflicting values are not ours and not only can there be no harmony among values there is also no hierarchy and they come in words that do not fail to remind us of weber Berlinda claims some among the great goods cannot live together we are doing two truths and every choice may entail and instead irreparable loss and abroad you know we are familiar with the issue of the anxiety of influence right so many of Berlin's phrases are so much like vapors that you are keep thinking that there's a case of almost psychotic repression here and you just read these sentences and you go what you know but that's an assignment whereas vapers existentialism of values is was suited to the dark times in which he lived Berlin's kind of value pluralism sits uncomfortably with his defense of post-war liberalism and appears to undermine his rational commitment to it as is well documented the origins of Berlin's thesis of value pluralism is in his critique of monastic views on human freedom and history that aim at the realization of augustson go go beat the classical society his stablishment of an aristocracy of talent or in the words of the Goethe program from each according to his mr. each according to his needs such visions of positive Liberty and try to endure the argued public authority to curse ordinary human beings to live up to the force of the idea what Berlin names his anti monism is akin to the anti totalitarianism of Cold War thinkers such as Karl Popper Raymond are nominal Friedrich Hayek the post modernist critique of the ideal of the totality and of Marxist meta directors such as in the work of Jean Francois leotard is not unrelated to Berlin's perspective but how exactly does one justify the value of individual liberty of choice or of liberalism on the basis of this kind of value of pluralism couldn't ich million decision estar gyu that the choice of the political as the most intense and supreme value is the right one such a commitment would necessarily be accompanied by the distinction between friend and foe what would Garland's answer be from a variant perspective there is no compelling answer against ich million view of politics and this is why cosmetics are considered himself a student of Weber and cited him approvingly in his essay on the concept of the political yet Berlin is neither in a relativist norm Annihilus no arty claims maybe he's not a decision as but more importantly Berlin does not accept also the positivist distinction between the scripted versus value judgments and the ascription of rationality all into the first in a brief essay on the rationality of value judgments first published in 1964 and I'm going he gives the example of a man who was in the habit of pushing fins into other people I'm going back to this earlier set because it's about rationality and I really don't think it gets us very far but just listen to her then of course Aaron he engages in an imaginary conversation with this man in the classical style of the analytical philosophy of his time and ask Sam whether what he should do to others what he would try to prevent them from doing to him he says the man says he doesn't understand things driven into him caused him pain and he wishes to prevent this pens driven by him into others do not concentrate but on the contrapositive pleasure and he therefore wishes to continue to do it and right classical you know analytic philosophy of that period upon being pressed by the imaginary interlocutor to explain whether it makes a difference to him whether he prefers pins into tennis balls or human persons demand answers that he cannot respond to the interlocutor strange concern at this point writes berlin i began to suspect that he is in same way in some way deranged I do not say with him here's a man with a very different scale of moral values from my own eye rather inclined to the belief that the pin pusher who is puzzled by my question is to be classified with homicidal lunatics and she'll be confined in asylum and not in more than a prison not in an ordinary prison and abroad there's a lot to be said about this about this passage and it's sort of very smart assumptions about what constitutes sanity insanity and his whole discussion is faintly reminiscent of some of the psychological explanations put forward regarding the behavior of Nazi officers as well as doctors in concentration camps whose normality was likewise question and to whom seekers of our various current health be attributed and I should add that none of these explanations regarding normality or citizen I think ended up illuminating the behavior of these individuals Berlin simply conclude quote this seems to be to show that the recognition of some values however in general and how every fuel enters into the normal definition of what constitutes is sane human being in this sense than the pursuit of or failure to pursue certain ends can be regarded as evidence of irrationality and now what's happening here is this a fall back upon an essentialist conception of human nature or human rationality how can Berlin be so smug if I may use that word about these assumptions but it is neither human nation or human essence nor even the human condition that Berlin has recourse but the concept of the human person in the pursuit of the ideal he tries to elucidate again why this concept of dualism is different from relativism and this is quote number eight I prefer coffee you prefer champagne we have different tastes there's no more to be said that is relativism but what I should describe as dualism is different but Harris view and heat because is not that and his relativism it is what I should describe as pluralism that is the conception that there are many different and men may seek and still be fully rational fully man capable of understanding and sympathizing and deriving the right for each other as we derive it from reading Plato or the novels of medieval Japan world's outlooks very remote for our own of course if we did not have any values in common with these distant figures each civilization would be enclosed in its own impenetrable bubble we could not understand them at all so there is some kind of trance historical continuity some kind of trance historical understanding and like fever Berlin emphasizes not only into likelihood but the actuality of fish in democratic understanding of other cultures now Weber does not appeal to a common humanity arguing that such understanding is possible he only asserts that our social scientists we must find all human action and conduct meaningful and interesting and seek to comprehend it just as sociological inquiry enlightens us about the limits of what can or cannot be done in the social world Soto for Berlin inquiry into fundamental human values should educate us about our shared world this is the vitamin function of political theory and it is why we study human thought values in the first place even if the study of political philosophy may provide neither the doctor nor inductive proof of the proposition that inflicting extremes of suffering are to be avoided this is a principal obligation of a decent society furthermore such a society is one where we can engage in an experimental politics of balance compromise and trade off berlin concludes quote number nine there is no escape the scientists we decide moral risk cannot be avoided or we can ask for it is that none of the relevant factors be ignored that the purposes received to realize should be seen as elements in a total form of life which can be enhanced or damaged by decisions for Berlin himself such a moment of decision came while serving in Washington DC as a British official he got wind that the US and British government would issue a joint statement condemning Zionists agitation in Palestine according to a David called very important historical and that was called Isaiah and Isaac about how several Android share one of the best historical contextualisation of Berlin according to David Cote Berlin leaked the story to a designers publisher who informed intern Henry Morgenthau secretary of the US Treasury having thus tipped off the Jewish lobby Berlin managed to disguise his own more from the very last British ambassador Lord Halifax thus what the chips were down and the time came to act on behalf of one set of values rather than another Berlin did not hesitate to choose his loyalty to Israel and to the Jewish people although he was not able to just Jew trumpet his royalty to the British crown nor was he a Universalist rabbi nationalists like Anna aren the unusual column or Utah Magnus he tended rights David called to refer to the Arabs personally as the Arabs not differentiating between the Palestinian population and the neighboring Arab states his prism was that of a Western politics and personalities poverty challenged the refusal of the US and the UK to welcome Jewish refugees and Holocaust survivors in the required numbers even though privately he was willing to risk his reputation and carrier for the establishment of the State of Israel there was a lot of consternation in the British diplomatic service at the time as to how in fact this consular circular had gotten and I thought not so little considerable considerable risk yes was he put his hands on the wheel of history into the sense of Max Weber but philosophically Berlin left much too much unclear in what sense were running this objective can those who live under certain values be deceived by them what are the limits on constituents for Berlin of the human horizon what and who belongs to the human horizon and or what does not and why not Canha decent society and experimental liberalism of trade-offs be justified without appealing to more robust moral and political principles I believe that despite his a sadistic brilliance and great insights into the history of ideas Berlin's writings leave the relationship of value pluralism to liberal democracies fundamentally unclear and tenuous and let me add that I think in many ways is the facility and his trial estate brilliance as an innocence that has basically living in Hope hampered people from pushing and asking these philosophical questions you know what he was trained as an analytic philosopher in the late 1960s that's where the essay of Russian the girls mom he got very disappointed with this and he moved away from analytical philosophy and became what he called a historian of ideas but the questions that he raised just you know continual continue to our days so now I'm going to turn to John Ramos and I hope this may bring to you something for her surprise but before I go through almost let me just observe that the dilemmas of liberalism haunted judicial are no less than high central and Leo Strauss no less than Hans Kelsen Max Weber econo are and viewed liberalism's crisis through a broader lens as being embedded in the institutional as well as value to them as generated by modernity while the evil was troubled by the weakness of parliamentary institutions in post-world war on germany aren't mourn the passing of the spirit of freedom that had flickered even in briefly in the revolutionary experiments of the rate a Republican of Munich and Berlin the revolutionary councils of workers soldiers of students for these emigrates by arguing the rest of the book now if I'm our syndrome home to their work that is to say how to defend modern constitutional Republic's intellectually and institutionally in an age of class conflict and value pluralism Leo Strauss and Isaiah Berlin would opt for free market societies in post-world War two whereas aren't as well as car proved more sympathetic to social democratic measures of insurance social economic equality among citizens the most courageous and comprehensive it in the second half of the 20th century to reformulate liberalism such as to counter his own version of divine heart syndrome has been John Ross's his contribution provides a fitting conclusion to this discussion I think of the interactivity of the challenges of the pluralism by roses own version of divine Mars syndrome I mean his attempt to reformulate values realism as a problem of reasonable disagreement in constitutional liberal democracies number 10 in the priority of Freud and God use of the good and has a from 1998 written near the quarter of the century after a theory of Justice Rose observes quote sir Isaiah Berlin has long maintained and this is one of his fundamental themes that there is no social world without us sorry the court is coming in a second there is no social world that does not exclude someone is employed to realize in special ways certain fundamental values and then he adds in the footnote that accompanies this passage for very few times that Rose evinces that he knows Weber and he gets him right darling I believe that variable is views rest on a form and value skepticism and volunteerism political tragedy arises from the conflicts of subjective commitments and resolve it works for Berlin on the other hand the realm of values may be fully objective the point is rather than the full range of values is too extensive to fit into any one social world and not only are they incompatible with one another it was in completing requirements of institutions but there exists no family of workable institutions with sufficient spaces for them all that there is no social world without loss is rooted in the nature of values in the world and much human tragedy it reflects them and just the growth society may have more space than underworlds but it can never be without loss and report now I think you'll agree with me that this was a rather unusual light on how to frame roses own project of political liberalism and my generation and me have criticized through as far as general blindness for his race blindness many many many other respects but on tracing a different dimension of of roses work ah here it is this Court is a moving acknowledgement of the tragedy of the political with which we Romania identify rules but it's a vision of the political deep we shared by Weber aren't straws as well as for none for goals reasonable pluralism as opposed to pluralism of any kind is what liberal constitutional democracies must accept as a baseline and during disagreement about the good life and the different and incomparable values that will pursue to attain our visions of the world are an aspect of our human condition as late waters we must resist the temptation to avoid this competition by imposing one another in a uniform understanding of the good life whether in the book religion ethics aesthetics or science but it's not only disagreement but also a you know cooperation which characterizes human existence whereas paper and Erland emphasize inevitable conflict of values roses and Phatak that no human society can endure over time that does not enable human cooperation for a philosophical found point of view two fundamental cultural values may be insoluble but in defense of political liberalism cannot be based on a metaphysical doctrine about values alone rather quote it accepts that there exists no family of objective workable and institutions with sufficient space for all values just society is one in which citizens can view the terms of their corporation as being chosen by themselves as free and equal persons capable of both rationality and reasonableness value to realism alone cannot establish conditions for such a just a decent society we need according to all stronger premises about who we are as moral beings as citizens of a polity in order to endure over time social cooperation must be based on reciprocity of fair terms of cooperation through which persons can address one another as moral equals as citizens such cooperation rice rolls is guided by publicly recognized rules and procedures that those cooperating accept and regard as properly regulating the air contact underwater public Rison articulates constitutional essentials that must be an aspect of the basic institutional structure of liberal societies in the nearly half a century that he articulated this project robust as you nam has subjected it to many revisions moving away from the concedes of a theory of justice which claimed to formulate principles of justice subspecies attorney TARDIS to a person in a physical view of political liberalism as providing a contextual articulation of the values and principles eminent in liberal constitutional democracies these issues and transformations in Ross's work are very well known and it's not my intention to recapitulate them in this lecture as ruses theory has become more contextual however the distinction between the reasonable and unreasonable forms of tourism has become more contestant many have questioned whether roses on the theory of reasonable pluralism does not amount to a colossal petechia principie that is to say begging the question in that it's redefines through lism itself to make it compatible with reasonableness thus putting everything that does not agree with this version of reasonable to the outside the realm of discussion many worldviews ideologies and doctrines deemed unreasonable under my left out of the purview of all this framework again is a lot to say here but let me let me try to keep pursuing this line between whatever level yet it is important to note that reasonable rules and four goals is not just a political but an epistemic condition that is part and parcel of a scientifically and mindful in water culture Rose goes farther than his critics acknowledgement in Constitution on the real democracies court the broadness of judgment never cease citizens task in providing each other with reciprocal reasons is interminable it does not help we postulate in constitutional messages where as Weber assumed that science could provide definitive which we are free to accept or not roses epistemology is much more tentative and it is tempered by the fallibilism of the American public is tradition from the third coin to Richard Rorty and Beyond in his remarkable discussion of the burdens of judgment rose-less six sources of epistemic pluralism and force I think at such length but I find that this is not a dimension of forces for because we paid much attention to and it has significant consequences for his theory of justice and also for the problem of value pluralism first he says and this is for a total of the evidence how can we judge is it various on a case in law in medicine in science even when we agree about the evidence we may assess its weight and important differently as every lawyer knows right in courts of law and in medicine once we establish something as evidence we still have to reach a common judgment about the proper way to give to it three all our concepts season is not only our moral and political ones are general they are subject to indeterminacy and we must be lying on judgment and interpretation about their abilities as well as their range how we interpret our concepts the way we assess evidence and weighing moral values and political values is shaped quoted by the totality of our lived experiences it just like you know pretty remarkable you know concessions can right often there are different kinds of normative considerations on both sides of an issue and reasonable people may disagree finally we each bring to bear very different normative considerations to the same body of evidence and at this point Rose once more sites Berlin old as Berlin reminds us any system on institutions has limited social space and only some values can be realized and many hard choices seem to have no clear answer and report some have pondered what are these epistemic conditions of disagreement which was ours burdens of judgment are not so reliable as to throw into question a lot of what Rose has set up in America liberalism in general as evil as monoids or the attempt to separate truism from reasonable disagreement is not compelling if we point to Ross's burden of reasoned argument in order to identify the sources of this agreement then it would appear that his clean separation of the two principles cannot be made as easily as he thought and the world now note Peter last month in this very good book pluralism he makes a mistake or you know he is careless in returning to a burdens of recent project and burdens of judgments Ross is talking about burdens of judgment and this has consequences on more sympathetic tell us- to Rosa's attempt to distinguish burdens of judge principles of public reason and in general in my other work I endorse a morally constructivist account of principles of cooperation and adjust society along the lines of they taught us partnership I'm not going to go into the soul let me try to come to a conclusion now as we can see from this discussion through ism is not relativism each thinker considered in this lecture acknowledges that the multiplicity and increments your ability of values well also said in some the myths on anything goes anything does not go everything is not defensible forever those limits are set by a rational scientific mindset which often inform an ethics of responsibility though science itself can never answer the question about the value of the pursuit of science for the individual what must I do with one in my favor here constant there is little question in this mind that or the politician and the Statesman to ignore the evidence of the sciences would be an act of irrationality and irresponsibility ok in terms of our conflicts global warming exists for bucks favorite this is not an existential choice it's irrational to ignore it for Berlin the boundary so value pluralism are constituted by what he calls the human horizon without much an elaboration but which enables us to understand each other across time and space at the same time German urges us to seek the reduction of human suffering and to strive for the creation of a decent Society although he does not justify his values any further he seems to take for granted that most if not human beings will seek to live by them for most constitutional democracies have to accept through reasonable Islamic values and the inevitable burdens of judgment nevertheless such reasonable pluralism can be practiced only as long as we recognize each other as free people citizens who are both rational and reasonable only thus can we defend permanent toleration the problem of judgment which was Kurds two races late in his work is not one that permits clear-cut theoretical solutions can't distinguish between the term determinative and reflective judgments to remind you briefly in determinative judgment can't assume that the universal or the principle is given and the particular is simply subsumed under it in a reflective judgement the principle or the universe so that needs to be a point to the particular must first be articulated it is reflective judgment the capacity for exercising what Kant also called enlarge mentality in situations when the principles that should guide us are rather neither readily available or have been discredited that comes into progress here Burnett appeals appears to feel no particular merit Discogs in view of this question I think there is a kind of common sense comfort in a lot of Berlin's formulations which probably comes from being basically a very comfortable migrant in a group society that you know that you know he migrated to and he was very successful in that now Weber is completely preoccupied with this problem or judgment for Weber who saw the collapse of kaisers Germany and experienced the emergence of a very uncertain future judgment remains a particular burden upon the individual roses the mine is different than either cut of paper or Berlin the loss does not believe that principles of moral and political thought are unavailable to current judgment okay I mean his whole political philosophy argues to the best that he can for the rationality and reasonableness of these principles but to my mind he gives the most valid vivid and still unsurpassed even though defective defense of political liberalism but the question that arose is whether the burdens of judgment which even these principles have to bear can assume or lead to a common Civic point of view how far can the divergence in burdens of judgement go without their dynamic forces pushing us so far afield that a common Civic conversation is no longer possible at the time in our societies when democratic tolerance the Civic conversation had the value of scientific reason all seem to be up for grabs it may not be unimportant to revisit this discussion about value pluralism that took us from Max Weber to Isaiah Berlin John Rawls so thank you for listening you know I know I read more [Applause] and some other writings but but he came to you that he says he really focused about the very good was did you say nice extension is but there's another big difference it seems mr. Berlin about isn't you rightly said will object so if you thought they would object you something we didn't say that since me there's a strong influence on Weber tynesha and so I think it's so far as you could you could say that it was a sort of model really Vega was not for Weber I mean you know he talked about the country to gods but in that st. Patrick way the books about this in terms of incompatible antigens they the attitudes that's to do it that's what people objective I mean that's how we there it seems to me there's a difference between well in this is something I think we said well in never ever so you know this question about I think it was a mess it remains a mess and and I completely rolls you say you one point said that Berlin was embraced tweet-tweet wanted cavities and you contrast yes that isn't actually so and he didn't like you had very strong so I Thank You Steven thank you for that for that reminder maybe I was going here with all too much you know we have brought us breaststroke at that point because you know identity invoke the distinction between positive and negative Liberty in this paper which is what mainly has been written about and I think that maybe that leads one to think that he is closer to higher ed and in fact you know he may he may have been our conceded that point thank you that's that's important now about the objectivity of values and the labor each other then there again we are in complete agreement one of the earlier says I wrote on Weber which I started in the footnotes that this to this chapter is that Weber is an ominous in the extreme and he really believes that values emerged as a result of the attitude that we have towards what he calls a meaningless space-time continuum and I have argued that what Weber confuses is also very often the attitude of individuals with social origins of meaning is I mean as a sociologist you know he knows this meaning is socially encountered and socially underrated it isn't just the individual who gives or interviews meaning to nature by an act of choice right I mean mana is there the gods are there optimist because the individual chooses but she's extreme individualism and nominalism sometimes seen makes it seem as if all social meaning and value emerges as a result of the subjective attribution I think it's you know if you wish he never goes into satisfaction you know he does and in fact I am familiar with the you know Bernard Williams of you as you if they collaborated they wrote some articles together and Bernard Williams is interesting and important in this respect because he raises also the historical the historical question are all values at all times not only actually are but are they are they possible and he distinguishes between the relativism of you know distance and that there were some some values for us or some funds are no longer are now over on the table that's saying you know the question of slavery and so so you're right and I should say that I myself am sympathetic to the tea thesis about the fragmentation of values I mean I don't put my cards on the table in this lecture because I'm trying to be constructive thoughts of someone else but I you know I know you're early as saying this respect that Hubbard was what you were you were pushing our bus and on this question I would want to agree with the fragmentation of values without necessarily saying that no comparison is there all possible but that's that's a really big discussion listen to both of you sort of both is a clarification I mean I think he's even more investment you did probably brother because I don't see how but anyway but he does want to give a priority to good review how is that is there a principled argument for it I'm not sure well the only defense that could possibly do okay was that that acknowledging freedom would be compatible with acknowledging the value of charging choice and it wanted emotional and one receive a bonus value of honest instead of a fool of us one would not be able to acknowledge either the necessity or in other kind of the inherent tragedy you know in in choosing one or other done right but that would be like like morality approaches to the goods so I would see her need to get back with interruption if freedom itself value he sometimes talks about free money versus equality as an example of you don't know the Senate right in nearly freedom has a priority well that's that's something you know the whole concept of you know negative versus positive liberties formulated there on that but that does get us back to the question of markets it does get us back to questionable government and I think it was small so said hey somebody's this very contrast is it's our focus what is the meaning of freedom without the Equality is made understand how could have such a priority worth considering cover so more questions to share so should I thank you very much that was great I need before we do the intellectual historian 600 years why you at this time come up with this topic but one the answer that comes to mind is that you might think that the signal was of the term your coin which i think is great is so that we are perhaps near to a situation where that might come up again and then you think about the thinkers and if we take that as a mystic diode then the question is what kind of answers do we have and actually even the look into all these it in a certain sense open because he what also another let's the good many do you think that there is an ultimate foundation that gives us a secure foundation from which we can kind of derive the right principles to bring him into they came here as in that sense the same so it's a base but then it's not as well we it also starts with the idea I guess I would say was free and equal people a time persons and then actually said to up to the actual dialogue what comes out of it so what I wanted to point out is in both cases that the last thinkers they have kind of you search on but that's what as a whole that people will come to agreement on if the conditions are right and if they reflect on them but it's only two they can't panel give us a few foundational movies and that is the question that I want to pitch what are going to do namely what does that give us in a situation of Obama syndrome I mean that's do we have to hopefully that would be cut into the solution to what what is your take on this I'm not quite sure why I took this u-turn in my thinking you know the gospel that I did was on human rights and I'm still working on asylum and Refugee cosmopolitanism because I'm not just an intellectual historian I do constructive and reconstructive political force being part of part of it is maybe a little bit a kind of a funeral personal just I wanted to write about these thinkers without without the stress of food proving a systemic point okay I wanted to contextualize their life and salt and play a little bit but the volume our center is clearly clearly oh my on my mind and the book ends with without and the next one should begin with it I mean look Rose in some ways is the best we have of high democratic liberalism that moment may be over I mean if we talk about our sounds I mean there's you know the literature the contemporary political fear is full of literature about you know post democracy the death of the Motor City and of democracy I mean Rose may be really the swan song of a moment that may be ending in our societies not what has been overseen project is a form of authoritarianism autocratic presidential ism and it's not just in this country it's a worldwide threat from Hungary to Turkey to Singapore to Poland Latin America again just just you name it right so there is that anxiety that I have at the end of this book and I go I go to these to these thinker is maybe to really be anything from a constructivist you know point of view of it was awfully constructivist point of view there are a couple of issues that this whole discussion believes me as one is as you know in the communicative and ethics discourse ethics framework as well that are defended we have assumed somehow distinction between Norman earlier and I tend to agree with roles that you know norms are rules of action and interaction embedded given in some cases embedded in other cases in one of the present in societies but norms must be able to sustain variety of values even if they do not sustain or are compatible with all so you know that distinction somewhere there is a systematic distinction that I myself would be committed to I'm not doing it in this in this book right and so that would be I think you know the answer the second would be at what level are we committed at all to the concept of a kind of reasonable agreement are in the I'm inclined to say that the question is not agreement but the question is to have constitutional essentials such that the disagreement can continue in civil fashion and that's what's not happening right now that's where you know that's what's no longer what what seems to be politically are increasingly increasingly absent right and I'm you know I knew what this question was going to come up and for a philosophy it should come out go on it's on but the problem of class inequality is not very far from any office and I should just say and I understand losses political control ISM not to be economically elusive as many of you know he said my framework is only true about the question of the market and increasingly you know we know that most basically is comparable with a farm or redistributed and social egalitarian framework that we have ever so in that sense I think political realism is not at all incompatible with their commitment to every distributive social agenda and democracy is not compatible with the levels of inequality that we have right now in this country and I was a worldwide so it's not just conditions of rational rational communication it's also traditions of the interrelationship of equality and freedom right well thank you for that for that question I knew I deserved ask last of it it's a historical question it's not awful at all but on why did brulee not acknowledge knowing favorite like was there any reason did you like uncover any justification on why like he said I don't know the work of favor even though clearly he did oh gosh I mean again you know Stephen is more as I suggested some some formulations are so alike like if you look at them on on the page but sometimes it's also really happens done you read someone notices collared us it invokes our menu but you know you really may have been I mean I did it in anxiety of influence but you know what's funny he takes from favorite this distinction between an ethics of conscience in ethics of responsibility right that is very important but it's not over favor the more interesting parts on paper are in the essay sciences a vocational course for politics is Stephen did you raise this issue in the interview with him I don't remember because as a vocation is that and I remember when I went to see my buddy whose claim that you've never had any girl although he didn't he purported to have he was not worried about that I really about the seaming echoes yeah I think those are so crucial look there is another thing you know this one not one chapter and this word obscure governor I mean who formulated the concept or the horizon for us as the horizon of trans historical understanding that will always only understand the past from the standpoint of we are at the present and understanding the past is always a conversation between us and resin and you know as just like diamond gives the best those of the person who's that method to this model of fresh in and what Berlin himself was into it was going towards right Vico and Harry heard the pinko is crucial to all of them you know recode the critique you know the critic or Cartesian you know the event the articulator of this I I'm curious I was up a little bit more maybe context or elaboration of regarding the State of Israel and what it was at the time of Berlin's decision and also perhaps as a contemporary like Israel's own unsustainability as a pluralist as a pluralistic democracy would seem to be sort of an interesting case study both in Turkey know not just in terms of Berlin's own identity of decision-making but also about this very these very same tensions and looking and thinking specifically about that Rawls from the Rawls quote that there is no social world without lost right and that much human tragedy reflects that it seems as though that seems like the very underpinning of the state of Israel's founding in its negotiations of its adult sort of pluralistic Democratic self so I'm just wondering if there's if you see yourself going in that direction or where you how you might there is a lot there is a lot about Israel Palestine in this new book because one of my chapters is a critical discussion of Judith Butler or parting ways and so I I don't go with burden at all on this though I think that at that point in time Underland impetus and history the refugees or Europe needed a place and the UK decision not to admit more Jewish immigration to Palestine was in my opinion problem I know there are all artists in Ian's colleagues who would say to me but in arguing that you are supporting the knock pub and what I have to say to that is I hope not but we cannot forget the British behavior at that time that led to many shifts I notice personally even off the coast of Istanbul you know being leading to the drowning of civilians etc so that is a specific historical moment but even in that specific historical moment and this is why I respect Hannah Arendt so much it was possible to ask to be a guest British decision or interpretation and yet at the same time to seek modes of coexistence and there was a very strong by nationalist movement at that time and our attention belonged to this they came to part from each other much later around the right month affair but this by nationalist movement continued maybe for another ten years maximum after the foundation of the State of Israel and we just got swallowed completely by the Zionist project okay so there were I mean Butler is absolutely right you know to talk about this other chapter in the book in trying to create a space beyond a Zionist and that was also prescience the space of coexistence right and I haven't read much by Berlin in all the things I've read I know that he was or was awarded to Jerusalem promise he traveled you know to Israel often he never expressed any any criticism and I think he just remained in solidarity for him the Palestinian question was very critical to the occupation she was but he was always Steven did publish this I used to try to get people to sign petitions once he did sign then he said reluctantly I know is he was very was he was attending public intellectual reversal in order to take decisions that it makes you know you know I think I think that you you see you see here or roses paradigm of the burdens of judgment I mean he doesn't say explicitly that you know he was inspired by constitutional court judging in fact it's amazing I don't know until later worked out well but that there is so little about legal hermeneutic in his work there is quite a lot about constitutional essentials but not that much about the question of judging and as far as calcium is concerned of course he goes in and out of the argument of this of this book but one of the difficulties of course is the extent to which the calcination in debate is owed or whether it's continues or or how but the preconditions of democracy army would become more and more painful being you know aware of of what goes because he basically thinks it is the individuals subject their choice and that gives me and I think that there are also some passages when even then sounds very much like supporting his core take you know Kierkegaard right that the choice between Nigel face the aesthetic ethical and religious and how do you highly choose how to choose between them in in that sense I think and the so to root of all this animus deep mirror is nature and I mean this is not you know I just and we even the quote something can be beautiful despite the fact that it is ugly and something can be good despite that is you know in that sense I think labor can be can be called and exist I just but he's also as a social scientist there is also this Russian was financial yes only on the tall 7 it should be traveling to me the court above there is a pin people is very radical about something that the thin figure with the asylum is deranged I mean but the situations that we are faced with actually are not as clear that is that actual team freaking so to me I think that's a that's a prelude to totalitarianism I don't know if he felt or anybody else is that because push the arbiter once they have been drinking that's actually no human not without humanity and what is this arbiter the judge looks in the mirror actually he's there being triggered I don't know is there any really quite disappointed by this essay and I kept going back to it trying to see ok it's good that he's in hell my positivist and it's not just scientific or logical judgments that are rational and your judgments can also be rational but again we ask the question of why you end up you know falling either actually kind of more realism or on a kind of common sense which may not be done innocent as you say you know who who judges it was very cavalier attitude about who is a homicidal lunatic I mean it's it's not such a such an easy easy judgment to surrender so I share I share your sense that that hope you know maybe more to source or trouble than anything than anything else well please join me in thanking [Applause]

No Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *