Özet:

In this paper, Berlin’s conceptualization of freedom will be discussed. The philosopher distinguishes between negative and positive interpretations of freedom. According to him, negative freedom is the possibility of acting without being interfered with whereas positive freedom is the sovereignty that the individual establishes over his/her will or self. For Berlin, the negative character of freedom is more important than its positive character. Negative freedom which also characterizes the interpretation of freedom of the moderns against the ancient understanding, obstructs authority and facilitates individual choice. Whereas positive freedom is more fit to be used by totalitarian currents due to its authority-generating character.   Berlin predicts a strong connection between the positive interpretation of freedom and monist thinking which he considers conceptually wrong and politically dangerous. According to him, neither history has a constant direction nor there are historically inevitable laws. Besides there are multiple values and truths that contradict each other. Therefore pluralism is required for a decent and civilized life. Liberalism constitutes the most important guarantor of pluralism in the Berlinian thought. The pluralist approach denies no idea from the very beginning because it is against true freedom. Moreover pluralist approach supports deliberation in a democratic society. In terms of values like broad-mindedness and flexibility, there is a positive interaction between pluralism and democracy. As the pluralist approach is left behind, social and political options with high human cost come into prominence. The claim to resolve all conflicts based on a single high good necessarily omits some options of good. For instance, trying to be fair may prompt one to adopt a code of conduct devoid of mercy. Besides, an alternative to pluralism brings along utopian and overarching solutions which drive people to make sacrifices in the name of a single great good. Once this path is taken, destination is indispensably totalitarianism. Within the context of this last reminder, the Berlinian thought contains in itself not only an objection to totalitarianism but also an extremely cautious attitude towards utopianism.       Also a series of critiques will be mentioned regarding the fundamental theses of the Berlinian thought which is opened up for discussion in the paper. To begin with, Berlin is pro-pluralism yet anti-relativism. However, the line he draws between pluralism and relativism is quite arbitrary. Berlin holds that there is a universal minimum aspect to morality, an objective minimum point or a moral point shared by all nations. He cannot explain why the humanity which knows what is wrong on a minimum level fails to recognize a single common truth. Moreover, Berlinian pluralism is vulnerable not only to relativism but also to pragmatism. This is because in terms of his system, not having a universal prescription does not eliminate rationality. Plus, it is not necessary to refer to a meta-value that will make all values shape up for rationalist solutions. But how can we answer the questions like which solution is more rational than the other or which value is more preferable than the other? Berlin is of the opinion that truth is determined by circumstances. Circumstances and historical condition explain the rational condition. As it can be easily seen, this answer renders all distinctions between pluralism, relativism and pragmatism arbitrary. If truth and good depend on circumstances as Berlin says, all determinations that distinguish between right and wrong become relative in history and culture.    Another problematical point gains a concrete content in the tension between liberalism and moral pluralism. Many liberal thinkers like Locke, Mill and Hayek have a monist perspective regarding morality and politics. Since liberalism can also be monistic, the interpretation that is articulated by the philosopher and finds the guarantee of pluralism in liberalism should be approached with some caution. Also, the cause and effect relationship established between monist position and totalitarianism should be reconstructed. This is because ultimately all common good/common benefit understandings have morally monist assumptions. If dismissal of a monist approach comes to mean dismissal of a common good as is the case in Berlin, then this position can be criticized. 

Anahtar Kelimeler: