|
As Berlin maintains, human life is always
in a process of "perpetual forward creation" and "all
schemes, all generalisations, all patterns imposed upon it are forms of
distortion". The exponents of grand-narratives of science or of
systems do not realise that logic and classification, in fact, deaden
the living life and imaginative intuition of man. Berlin, early in his
life, began to contrast the intuitive and the imaginative perceptions of
reality with the lifeless material of the rationalists.
Although we would normally
think of the acquisition of knowledge in terms of a rational process,
the intrinsic essence of a person, or of something which is observed,
involves non-rational states, and in so far as they involve knowledge,
the process is a subjective source of truth. This can be explained
through Stephen Dedalus’s idea of claritas which he dwells upon
in his aesthetic theory set out in James Joyce’s A Portrait of the
Artist as Young Man.
Stephen defines it first
as the relationship between, on one hand, the observer’s intellect and
imagination, and the external physical stimuli on the other. However, it
becomes awkward for him to rationalise this phenomenon of revelation of
truth owing to its illusive nature which defies any type of formulaic
approach. The evanescence of reality necessarily eludes definition or
capture. Nothing remains static.
In this context, Berlin
does not accept the vulgar Marxist notion that economic relations alone
determine the way a society evolves. Berlin finds the relative nature of
the human mind being overlooked in this rather reductionist approach.
Though consciousness is socially produced, it varies owing to the
experience and personality of the individual, who is always in the
process of interpreting knowledge.
Inherent in society are
problems concerning areas of knowing, perceiving, feeling, guessing,
being mistaken, inferring, reflecting and so on. This epistemological
process of quest for knowledge by active human beings results in a
distinctive experience of time, space and causality that is transitory,
fortuitous and arbitrary. On the other hand, a philosopher like
Condorcet, who has faith in human intelligence and universal reason and
believes that "a good law must be good for everyone", is
according to Habermas, possessed "of the extravagant expectation
that the arts and sciences would promote not only the control of natural
forces, but also understanding of the world and the self, moral
progress, the justice of institutions and even the happiness of human
beings".
Berlin had already written
about this debate in his lecture titled ‘The Romantic movement: A
Crisis in the History of Modern Thought’. Here as well as in the rest
of the lectures, he is mainly concerned with reassessing the
philosophers of the past for the only reason that he found no
distinction between his intellectual concerns and the public sphere. The
Russian revolution of 1917, the two wars, along with the interest that
he had in Marxist thinking and the Middle East upheaval in the creation
of Israel all led to his deep antipathy towards violence as means of
attaining political ends.
The morality of motives
became as important to him as the probity of consequences. Are human
beings not responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their
actions? This was no doubt a platitude of ethical thought. It was hardly
an ideology, but it unquestionably formed the centre of his world view.
Romanticism at long last
ushered in the strong and human values of commitment, sincerity and good
faith all moving towards the idea of a moral individual, who at least
seeks to minimise the harm caused by his action or inaction. These
lectures on Romanticism exemplify the need for the understanding and
tolerance in the face of plurality of human needs and aspirations, and
the inherent incompatibility of human ideals.
Berlin never wanted to
have these lectures published, but Henry Hardy has gone to great lengths
to edit his lectures and see to it that these are correctly footnoted;
Berlin was in the habit, like many of us, of spontaneously telling us in
his own words what the great thinkers had said, and sometimes even
improvising what the author had said. Thus, there was an imperative need
to edit his lectures. These were broadcast on the BBC network, but the
speed of his delivery left many of his keen readers desiring the
publication of some of the most intensely and insightful views on a very
relevant movement.
Berlin was indeed
essential to our times as a secular opponent of enlightenment which
labels him as an active supporter of polemical European anti-rationalist
tradition and existentialism. The grip of forms evaded him like it
evades life. His doggedness held together all his fox-like chase in the
defence of the all-encompassing plurality of theorist and tyrannous
ideologies that maintain the non-contradictory nature of all ends.
|
