|
Editorial on philsopher Isaiah Berlin
by Glenn Woiceshyn
Dear Editor,
Re: "Isaiah Berlin's Philosophy of Empathy"--Editorial--Nov. 10--The Globe
and Mail
Your editorial evaluates Isaiah Berlin as a "great philosopher," but its
presentation of Berlin's views conveys a muddled thinker.
For example, Berlin believes Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot murdered millions because
they allegedly were certain about their ideas and believed in utopia. His conclusion?
Certainty and idealism are bad while skepticism and cynicism are good.
Nonsense! These mass killers were power-lusting mystics preaching the irrational
and evil ideas of collectivism. Who offers better insurance against such evil --
those who know with certainty that these power lusters are irrational and destructive,
or skeptics who worship "unknowability."?
By regarding man to be intrinsically "crooked" -- Kant's secularized version
of Original Sin -- Berlin is thereby a determinist. Of what use is morality if man
is intrinsically evil? And where is Berlin standing when he evaluates man as such?
If "empathy" characterizes Berlin's philosophy, then he is an emotionalist
because empathy -- an emotion -- is merely a product of ideas, and ideas can be true
or false. If someone (wrongly) becomes convinced that misery is good for "crooked"
creatures, then he will feel a "Puritan" empathy for happy people, and
wish them misery.
If Berlin were truly "a defender of the individual against tyranny of all stripes"
he would not advocate a compromise between liberty and the equalization of wealth.
The latter involves violating individual rights to appease envy; it's the tyranny
of egalitarianism where the state bulldozes everyone to the same level; it's the
philosophy of Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao.
If a deeply muddled thinker is evaluated as a "great philosopher," then
one wonders about the evaluators.
Sincerely,
Glenn Woiceshyn
© 1997 Glenn Woiceshyn. All rights reserved.
This article can be found on-line at at http://www.capitalism.org/glennw. |
|
