Check out Berlin's "Six Enemies of Human Liberty" on Amazon: amzn.to/2ZLoXqy Join us on Patreon! www.patreon.com/ManufacturingIntellect Donate Crypto! commerce.coinbase.com/checkout/868d67d2-1628-44a8-b8dc-8f9616d62259 Share this video! Get Two Books FREE with a Free Audible Trial: amzn.to/313yfLe Checking out the affiliate links above helps me bring even more high quality videos by earning me a small commission! And if you have any suggestions for future content, make sure to subscribe on the Patreon page. Thank you for your support!
There's loads of conversations like this on huge UA-cam channels followed by millions of people. Check out the discussions about consciousness with figures like Roger Penrose, Karl Friston. In Our Time by Melvyn Bragg also is a condensed version of this format which is on BBC Iplayer. The 1970's were not some kind of peak of civilisation.
@@theboogie_monsta Of course. He is merely pointing out the decay of the old media. Much of the intellectual discussion has moved to the internet nowadays, and traditional media outlets struggle to compete in this environment without some form of adaptation.
@@lucasdarianschwendlervieir3714 I was being reactive. There is definitely something lost from the older interview style - for instance, the video of Heidegger and the Buddhist Monk, or Chomsky and Foucault, etc etc. I associate this more with the culture of management and anti-intensity which has arisen, rather than the medium per se. I grew up with the internet, so don't think of TV as significant. I've taken its decay for granted. In the music industry, there's a similar complaint from older people who were used to the simpler market of the 20th century, and find the galaxy of possible artists to be overwhelming / assume that there is nothing worth investigating. Usually I don't bother, but I must have been tired.
This was broadcast at about 1130pm on a weekday night before closedown; very few people actually watched it. One look at the BBC Genome database for this period should very quickly disabuse you of the notion that 1970’s Britain was a hotbed of mainstream philosophical enquiry. The fact that you should uncritically succumb to such a fanciful notion of the past on the basis of a single television programme suggests that you need a lot more philosophy in your life than you’re currently getting. Try Kierkegaard, Heidegger and, latterly, Frederic Jameson if you want to get to grips with the phenomenology of nostalgia.
He truly goes beyond interviewing, it's also an active drawing out of the philosophical curiosity and vitality, to then weave mutually vitalizing conversations, curiously interesting to ever so many more than just them two - thankfully.
his candles went out and plunged him into pitch blackness. hopefully his curiosity overcame his fear of death. RIP Mr. Magee. We shall be in the same state of ignorance and uncertainty as we have always been in.
The last of Magee's books to be published during his lifetime - Making the Most of It (2018) - closes thus: If it could be revealed to me for certain that life is meaningless, and that my lot when I die will be timeless oblivion, and I were then asked: “Knowing these things, would you, if given the choice, still choose to have been born?”, my answer would be a shouted “Yes!” I have loved living. Even if the worst-case scenario is the true one, what I have had has been infinitely better than nothing. In spite of what has been wrong with my life, and in spite of what has been wrong with me, I am inexpressibly grateful to have lived. It is terrible and terrifying to have to die, but even the prospect of eternal annihilation is a price worth paying for being alive.
Zora Shoes he remained convinced till the end that long form philosophical programming was still viable and could draw a broad enough audience if done well
Somehow the most interesting, most engaged dialogue Bryan Magee ever had: for its enthusiasm and enlightenment and the way it opens up a subject. Magee is literally in awe of the answers: Barrett is such an animated educator.
33:30 Berlin, through the example of Turgenev, describes the moral philosopher in almost the same way a good lawyer should be described: one who analyzes the issues well enough to clarify, and hopefully crystalize, the available choices and present them to the client in language that the client can understand and act on. In the case of the moral philosopher, the "client" is the whoever is listening.
@@ouiblr Sorry for not seeing your comment for 2 years! As for primary sources for how attorneys best work with clients, there are plenty of bar association periodicals that repeat my points. I can't think of any one source, but my points were distilled through a combination of academic teaching, practical experience, and conversations with practicing attorneys. One book I can think of is Stephen Toulmin's "An introduction to reasoning" which presents different areas of expertise (e.g. law, medicine, science, art) and how their standard modes of reasoning differ. One side note: Berlin's comment on Turgenev suggests that, even though certain audiences dislike him for not giving them a clear set of instructions on how exactly to think and feel, being given choices instead of commands is analogous to having one's dignity respected instead of having one's dignity affronted. Depends on how slavish one is to start with I suppose.
@@d.mavridopoulos66 George Orwell. I may do a little episode on my channel about Bryan and Isaiah's friendship - at the moment there are little clips about Isaiah and Bryan separately. I never met Isaiah personally, though I am slowly writing a book on him. Bryan I had conversations with in the last few years of his life.
@@VladVexler I know some of Berlin's talks which are terrific and inimitable. Which of his essays would you recommend ? I admire the ones he did on Churchill and Roosevelt. I think Perry Anderson's written that his best book is the one on Russian thinkers.
Recommendation: Bryan Magee's "Confessions of a Philosopher". Essentially his intellectual biography. There is an absorbing chapter on Sir Karl Popper.
I love Isaiah Berlin's eloquent explanation of Common Sense; Truth, Justice and logic ( metaphysics). How to use science to solve problems. Thank you very much.
It's excellent that we can see these outstanding programmes again after many years (or for the first time of course), and surely this is an important justification for U-tube, if it needs one. (UK)
There is so much good TV from the 70s that has now been uploaded to UA-cam. I would recommend literally anything you can find of the C-Span archives. It always amazes me how good TV can be when you turn off the music, don't rush and don't assume that your audience will get bored in two seconds.
Thank you so much for uploading these fantastic interviews with philosophers from the 70s! My, my, my, sometimes the idiot box was actually educational after all back in the day...
34:15 Turgenev "One of the troubles of the 19th century Russian reader is that they want to be told how to live, they want to be quite clear about who are the heroes and who are the villains" - has that changed? Are we all like this? Are there different proportions of people in different countries like this? Does it change over time?
Completely agree, questions unanswered not a detraction from philosophy to improve the quality of one's reasoning, properly clarify and sort one's thoughts.
Thank you for a great interview; questions on morality beginning at an early age when encouraged. Isaiah Berlin, one of our timely philosophers thankful.
Did this man ever write an introductory book to philosophy? He is crystal clear and makes me inspired to learn the basics of formal and moral and empirical, etc.
Wonderful, quite clear, interview. Great demonstration of why philosophy matters. The date is mistaken. According to, e.g. the Guardian obituary of Magee, the series was broadcast in 1978. Greetings from East Anglia in England.
Against the Current by Berlin is a vastly profound work. The introduction by Mark Lilla is itself the best intro to a book I've ever read. The heart races. . U must read it in doses . . And with a Clear Conscience
W. E. B. Dubois, the famous black leader and writer, while not commenting directly on philosophy, did say that his people need a "Talented Tenth" to lead them from the chains of slavery to freedom and how to handle it. I am convinced that most people get their ideas second hand (that is when we delve into the field of ideas at all) and are more than willing to be lead by what "seems" right and correct by those they trust, perhaps by empiricism, "common sense" and the little they do read and listen. William Safire called this "secondary orality" and I think whether we like it or not, this is the path the world will continue to take. Certainly this leads to confusion, and politics, whether democratic or not suffers from such comprehension. I would say, that the more individual freedom is venerated and the use of religion and statecraft to force certain ideas is limited, the safer we are to decide for ourselves proper values and intellectual avenues. ?
Excellent upload! Many thanks. It demonstrates the great benefits that public (-spirited (this may have been on ITV?)) television can offer a wider audience. It should alert us all to the damage that the present government may inflict with its pernicious assault on the BBC.
When I hear this brilliant man speaking, I wonder to myself: how did so many morons end up running things? It seems that the world is completely devoid of critical thinking. The sheeple accept all the lies they are told without question.
More Berlin please :). He writes extraordinarily well for those have to pick him up. PS - A visitor of the Kennedy White House and dinner guest for conversation well into the late evening...
How come nobody is speaking over the other. How come they are quietly listening to each other. And why do they mostly agree with each other. And what's most horrible is that they seem to greatly respect each other. As a citizen of the largest democracy in the world I find this to be completely undemocratic.
Go online into Amazon and order "Popper" by Bryan Magee in the Fontana series. Just a thin paperback but absolutely brilliant in explaining the philosophy of Karl Popper to the interested layman. Best wishes, Grumpy.
@@doublenegation7870 Although I rather enjoyed his lectures on aesthetics, I could really only endorse Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit as a sleeping aid. Schopenhauer's critique of him is basically correct.
At 8,32 Magee says,,,can you give an example of a moral philosophical question, Berlin replies,,,let me tell you a story, What a story,,,like a story by Tolstoy or a parable by Kafka,
25:34 Stonehenge was "empirical" astronomy. There are other examples. Eratosthenes used mathematical principals to calculate the circumference of the earth. He used astronomical bodies to do this.
_Let us for a moment consider thought. What is it, my friends, to take thought? Took you then thought today? What thoughts did you think today? What thoughts were part of the original thought today? In how many of your thoughts did the creation abide? Was love contained? And was service freely given? You are not part of a material universe. You are part of a thought. You are dancing in a ballroom in which there is no material. You are dancing thoughts. You move your body, your mind, and your spirit in somewhat eccentric patterns for you have not completely grasped the concept that you are part of the original thought._ Ra Material
That I purchased with a fake ID..... my name was Bryan Magee......... I stayed up listening to Queen............ when I was seventeen..................
We progress as a society by "killing the beliefs of our fathers"? What if our fathers had it right? Surely obeying our father then would be the right thing.
Looking at today's television programme compared to this series I feel sad. It seems today we prefer to watch mainly trivial entertaining shows. Why don't we like philosophy education any more?
You are making a presumption then lamenting it. You imply "we" and "any more." This presumes that there is a we who in the past "liked" philosophy education, and now does not. I think if you were to review how you make these presumptions, you might discard them and empty. I direct you to my own comment, where I address your point differently.
This level of discussion agitates and angers well-off (those who have food & shelter) modern people (all Americans), who suffer the ironic burden of endless choices in what takes their attention, many of which assuage/sedate the thought processes rather than challenge it. "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - Donald Robert Perry "Don" Marquis.
Justus K From Wikipedia: "In 1834, 99 years before Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party seized power in Germany, Heine wrote in his work "The History of Religion and Philosophy in Germany": "Christianity - and that is its greatest merit - has somewhat mitigated that brutal Germanic love of war, but it could not destroy it. Should that subduing talisman, the cross, be shattered, the frenzied madness of the ancient warriors, that insane Berserk rage of which Nordic bards have spoken and sung so often, will once more burst into flame. This talisman is fragile, and the day will come when it will collapse miserably. Then the ancient stony gods will rise from the forgotten debris and rub the dust of a thousand years from their eyes, and finally Thor with his giant hammer will jump up and smash the Gothic cathedrals. (...) "Do not smile at my advice - the advice of a dreamer who warns you against Kantians, Fichteans, and philosophers of nature. Do not smile at the visionary who anticipates the same revolution in the realm of the visible as has taken place in the spiritual. Thought precedes action as lightning precedes thunder. German thunder is of true Germanic character; it is not very nimble, but rumbles along ponderously. Yet, it will come and when you hear a crashing such as never before has been heard in the world's history, then you know that the German thunderbolt has fallen at last. At that uproar the eagles of the air will drop dead, and lions in the remotest deserts of Africa will hide in their royal dens. A play will be performed in Germany which will make the French Revolution look like an innocent idyll.""
Mr. Berlin was actually quoting himself from a paper 'Two concepts of Liberty' (1958). This paper and others of his can be read in a book 'The Power of Ideas'. The quote is: 'Over a hundred years ago, the German poet Heine warned the French not to underestimate the power of ideas: philosophical concepts nurtured in the stillness of a professor's study could destroy a civilisation'
A wonderful introduction to the pleasures of Turgenev’s ouvre is his “First Love and Other Tales” ...finest translation of his works are by David Magarshack. I recommend the Norton paperback from the series Russian Literature in Norton Paperback....ABE.com has inexpensively filled my library for decades. Miss Jenny
"THAT MORAL EXCELLENCE, THEN IS CONCERNED WITH THE PLEASANT AND THE PAINFUL IS CLEAR. BUT SINCE THE CHARACTER, BEING AS ITS NAME INDICATES SOMETHING THAT GROWS BY HABIT -- CONSIDER, THEN, CHARACTER TO BE THIS, VIZ. A QUALITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNING REASON BELONGING TO THE IRRATIONAL PART OF THE SOUL WHICH IS YET ABLE TO OBEY THE REASON." ARISTOTLE; EUDEMIAN ETHICS; BOOK II. SECTION 2.
"ALL HUMAN BEINGS HAVE AN INNATE RESISTANCE TO OBEDIENCE. DISCIPLINE REMOVES THIS RESISTANCE AND, BY CONSTANT REPETITION, MAKES OBEDIENCE HABITUAL AND SUBCONSCIOUS." GENERAL GEORGE S. PATTON JR.; "WAR AS I KNEW IT"; HOUGHTON MIFFLIN; 1947
I love this guys linguistic brilliance!.. he said 'with a God on the top and amoeba on the bottom' LMFAO and that is indeed a perfect summation of what average people think is "natural"...
Him, speaking fluent English, changed his Russia dramatically. He does not have any accent, but you can hear English Influence in his Russian. Interesting.
14:05 , Can anyone give me the reference to the actual quote by Heinrich Heine, i tried searching his works on 'The Gutenberg project' but to no avail.
I believe it is from Heine's 'Religion and philosophy in Germany' from p. 106 and onwards in the translated edition available on archive dot org. It's more likely a paraphrase than a quote
Wait, isn't the empirical world comprised of particular forms? And isn't this precisely why the world of particular empirical forms is so amenable to description and prediction by the more general statements about forms, known as formal systems? For example, the phenomenon named after Ohm for his discovery of it, and his description of it using the formal system of mathematics, makes it evident that there is a perfect correspondence between the physics of electricity and the logos of arithmetic. Not only can we reliably assume that Ohms law holds true anywhere in the universe that electrical phenomena might occur, but we could also make nearly perfect predictions about it, provided we were there to measure things, of course. Even if we weren't there, however, we can reasonably assume (owing to empiricism) that electricity behaves the same anywhere it shows up in the universe, and (owing to its formal representation in mathematics) we can further assume that it would behave in such and such precise manner under such and such conditions--conditions themselves just as amenable to mathematical expression. Moreover, once the fundamental nature of electrical phenomena was discovered by Ohm and given expression using the symbols of the formal system of mathematics, it was then possible to derive myriad other expressions algebraically from Ohms law. Of course these derivatives were a priori until they were confirmed by the a posteriori rigors of empiricism, but there was no reason to doubt that such conclusions wouldn't be true. My point is that there is hardly a natural or clear division between the behavior of formal systems and empirical observations. These divisions are a recent, artificial creation, a clever invention, made in the casual manner of those who would rather persuade indirectly by artful suggestions than by actual demonstrating that there are two wholly separate spheres of intelligence that only touch and overlap within the confines of a college graduate's skull. I'm willing to wager that the motive behind their implied suggestion--that some real distinction exists between empirical phenomena and the symbol systems we have contrived to represent them--is simply to refute, on the sly, the age-old proposition that the observable world of nature only exists by conforming to the breathtaking patterns an a priori Order, some of which are so complex and magnificent as to defy comprehension. This is my conception of what the ancient Greeks referred to as Logos, and it is so clear to me as to be self-evident. The symbols used in formal systems to designate quanta are arbitrary works of art, their only requirement being that they must differ from one another. The underlying rules--i.e., proportionality, equality, addition, etc.-- by which these symbols are made to relate, are not arbitrary, however. These underlying rules express the order of the Logos that structures not only formal systems, but also the observable world of natural phenomena.
18:27 If I ask you, "How do you know that the king in chess moves only one square at a time?", it's no good someone saying, "You say it only moves one square at a time, but, you know, one evening I was looking at a chessboard and I actually saw a king move two squares!" 🤣🤣🤣 This would not be regarded as a refutation of this proposition, because what you're really saying is, "Is there a rule in chess according to which the king [moves] and how do you know the rule is true?" The rules don't have to be true they just have to be rules. You either accept them or you don't. This is how mathematics works and all formal disciplines.
TV used to be several orders of magnitude better. It's upsetting that modern programmes treat their viewers as children with the attention span of a dead fly.
A hierarchy of claims and values are fundamental. Today it is a question of either finance capitalist domination or the non-monist philosophy of differential human personality, the latter meaning that only some should rule because of their superior character - anathema to the anarchist and Marxist who think they can get rid of capitalism through egalitarianism.
There are problems with both. Financial capitalist domination cannot even claim to be of economic value as it is not in the service of production. "Differential human personality" presupposes too much. For one thing, that differences among people translate neatly into a social hierarchy. The assumption here is that "different" necessarily means "better" or "worse". Secondly, that determining the superiority of one's character were a relatively unproblematic task. Here, the assumption rests on the possibility to define an overarching standard that takes all considerations into account and orders them in a univocal way that sets itself above any challenge. This is a remarkably loaded belief as the diversity of these considerations, qualities, talents, etc., are not only hard to prioritize but are unevenly distributed, not only *among* individuals, but *within* individuals themselves. Thirdly, even if such a task were possible, to claim that those "inferior" were, therefore, less entitled to certain social or political benefits simply does not follow. E.g.: if someone were less intelligent than the mean, would that makes him less deserving of medical attention? Or free speech?
These are cogent replies, Federico, especially the need "To define an overarching standard that takes all considerations into account." The first criterion here is to recognize that the protection of the Earth's environment comes first. With resource collapse and food shortages, a system of triage will be instituted, people differentiated along a new form akin to the Hindu caste system. The difference with Hinduism however will be that caste is not hereditary since human personality is not hereditary - to the vexation of H. S. Chamberlain, Hitler and others who thought it was. Whatever the case, democracy and its levelling implications cannot deal with severe resource shortages, whether liberal democracy or "participatory" democracy of the anarchist type.
You actually don't address my points. Your focus on "personality" begs the same questions all over again. Also, I fail to see how or why exactly is a concern for the enviornment at odds with democracy.
You don't seem to understand that democracy implies the non-importance of fundamental personality differences since democracy presumes that "we are all the same underneath." It is this democratic prejudice that I attack since nearly everyone else (not just Westerners but Marxists too) seems to think it is some commonsense proposition. So many people are not really interested in the environment - most religious people, at least of the monotheist kind, being like this since they imagine that God can recreate the earth's environment with a mere flick of the divine finger. Hence the kinship between finance capitalism and Judeo-Christianity!
Finance capital's domination is taken for granted today so it hardly bothers to have to claim to be of economic value in the service of production. Ordinary people are locked out of wealth and rendered passive by government and religion in alliance. Democracy keeps the masses down by the masses' own stupidity e.g. using religion, already corrupted and indifferent to the environment, in the service of the oligarchs.
A bit late but: Bryan Magee produced a couple of books with the transcriptions: one was called - I think - The Great Philosophers - and they are wonderful. Probably available on the secondhand book market.
Sometimes I wish the kind of moral philosophies that Magee recapitulates in the middle of the interview were ‘answerable’. I’ll read something that convinced me one way and the next day I’ll read something that does the opposite. And I end up knowing way more than I did before I read the arguments to and for, but I am no closer to resolution. It’s a bit… unsatisfying/maddening/depressing depending on the day. :(
14:05 does anyone know where he got that quote from exactly? I think it's importance is not very much known to the world when people think of Philosophy.
Check out Berlin's "Six Enemies of Human Liberty" on Amazon: amzn.to/2ZLoXqy
Join us on Patreon! www.patreon.com/ManufacturingIntellect
Donate Crypto! commerce.coinbase.com/checkout/868d67d2-1628-44a8-b8dc-8f9616d62259
Share this video!
Get Two Books FREE with a Free Audible Trial: amzn.to/313yfLe
Checking out the affiliate links above helps me bring even more high quality videos by earning me a small commission! And if you have any suggestions for future content, make sure to subscribe on the Patreon page. Thank you for your support!
There is only one: Continued Universal Human Cluelessness (see the Philosophy of Broader Survival for the 'illumination').
Incredible that programs like this were broadcast on national television. A time when the viewing public were not assumed to be cretins.
There's loads of conversations like this on huge UA-cam channels followed by millions of people. Check out the discussions about consciousness with figures like Roger Penrose, Karl Friston. In Our Time by Melvyn Bragg also is a condensed version of this format which is on BBC Iplayer. The 1970's were not some kind of peak of civilisation.
@@theboogie_monsta Of course. He is merely pointing out the decay of the old media. Much of the intellectual discussion has moved to the internet nowadays, and traditional media outlets struggle to compete in this environment without some form of adaptation.
TV these days looks like the teletubbies
We all should think the same
@@lucasdarianschwendlervieir3714 I was being reactive. There is definitely something lost from the older interview style - for instance, the video of Heidegger and the Buddhist Monk, or Chomsky and Foucault, etc etc. I associate this more with the culture of management and anti-intensity which has arisen, rather than the medium per se.
I grew up with the internet, so don't think of TV as significant. I've taken its decay for granted. In the music industry, there's a similar complaint from older people who were used to the simpler market of the 20th century, and find the galaxy of possible artists to be overwhelming / assume that there is nothing worth investigating. Usually I don't bother, but I must have been tired.
This was broadcast at about 1130pm on a weekday night before closedown; very few people actually watched it. One look at the BBC Genome database for this period should very quickly disabuse you of the notion that 1970’s Britain was a hotbed of mainstream philosophical enquiry.
The fact that you should uncritically succumb to such a fanciful notion of the past on the basis of a single television programme suggests that you need a lot more philosophy in your life than you’re currently getting.
Try Kierkegaard, Heidegger and, latterly, Frederic Jameson if you want to get to grips with the phenomenology of nostalgia.
Bryan Magee is a perfect interviewer for philosophers
He truly goes beyond interviewing, it's also an active drawing out of the philosophical curiosity and vitality, to then weave mutually vitalizing conversations, curiously interesting to ever so many more than just them two - thankfully.
Perhaps the perfect interviewer, and much missed
Still True 💯
RIP, Mr. Magee died on July 26, 2019.
Oh RIP, Mr. Magee did some amazing programs. I wish we had more teachers like them today!
his candles went out and plunged him into pitch blackness. hopefully his curiosity overcame his fear of death. RIP Mr. Magee. We shall be in the same state of ignorance and uncertainty as we have always been in.
The last of Magee's books to be published during his lifetime - Making the Most of It (2018) - closes thus:
If it could be revealed to me for certain that life is meaningless, and that my lot when I die will be timeless oblivion, and I were then asked: “Knowing these things, would you, if given the choice, still choose to have been born?”, my answer would be a shouted “Yes!” I have loved living. Even if the worst-case scenario is the true one, what I have had has been infinitely better than nothing. In spite of what has been wrong with my life, and in spite of what has been wrong with me, I am inexpressibly grateful to have lived. It is terrible and terrifying to have to die, but even the prospect of eternal annihilation is a price worth paying for being alive.
Zora Shoes he remained convinced till the end that long form philosophical programming was still viable and could draw a broad enough audience if done well
Zora Shoes I’ve just dropped a little tribute to Bryan on my channel - he would have been 90 today.
Somehow the most interesting, most engaged dialogue Bryan Magee ever had: for its enthusiasm and enlightenment and the way it opens up a subject. Magee is literally in awe of the answers: Barrett is such
an animated educator.
Bryan Magee changed my life in a very profound way, may he rest in peace
That’s lovely to hear.
Me too! I applied to university to study philosophy because of his "Great Philosophers" series.
In a very sexual way - I might add.
I dumped TV some years ago and got a life but can still find much of the quality stuff on YT. I just hope our kids do. 🌈🦉
33:30 Berlin, through the example of Turgenev, describes the moral philosopher in almost the same way a good lawyer should be described: one who analyzes the issues well enough to clarify, and hopefully crystalize, the available choices and present them to the client in language that the client can understand and act on.
In the case of the moral philosopher, the "client" is the whoever is listening.
I find this remark intriguing. Can you point me to book/videos/article which can show how lawyers do this
@@ouiblr Sorry for not seeing your comment for 2 years! As for primary sources for how attorneys best work with clients, there are plenty of bar association periodicals that repeat my points. I can't think of any one source, but my points were distilled through a combination of academic teaching, practical experience, and conversations with practicing attorneys. One book I can think of is Stephen Toulmin's "An introduction to reasoning" which presents different areas of expertise (e.g. law, medicine, science, art) and how their standard modes of reasoning differ. One side note: Berlin's comment on Turgenev suggests that, even though certain audiences dislike him for not giving them a clear set of instructions on how exactly to think and feel, being given choices instead of commands is analogous to having one's dignity respected instead of having one's dignity affronted. Depends on how slavish one is to start with I suppose.
I've been looking for this interview for ages. Thank you so much for uploading it!
Me too. Happy to find it again
Isaiah Berlin's humor is dry but it still makes me laugh. Love his stuff.
Two of my intellectual heroes having a conversation. Thank you for uploading this !
Wonderful. Bryan thought Isaiah was one of the two greatest essayists in the English language in the 20th century.
@@VladVexler Thank you for your response. Out of curiosity, who did he pair him up with in first place ?
@@d.mavridopoulos66 George Orwell. I may do a little episode on my channel about Bryan and Isaiah's friendship - at the moment there are little clips about Isaiah and Bryan separately. I never met Isaiah personally, though I am slowly writing a book on him. Bryan I had conversations with in the last few years of his life.
@@VladVexler I know some of Berlin's talks which are terrific and inimitable. Which of his essays would you recommend ? I admire the ones he did on Churchill and Roosevelt. I think Perry Anderson's written that his best book is the one on Russian thinkers.
Ishiah was one of the outstanding philosophers of the world 👍🌸
I feel like I didn't actually waste time on youtube after watching this.
Recommendation: Bryan Magee's "Confessions of a Philosopher". Essentially his intellectual biography. There is an absorbing chapter on Sir Karl Popper.
I love Isaiah Berlin's eloquent explanation of Common Sense; Truth, Justice and logic ( metaphysics). How to use science to solve problems. Thank you very much.
It's excellent that we can see these outstanding programmes again after many years (or for the first time of course), and surely this is an important justification for U-tube, if it needs one. (UK)
There is so much good TV from the 70s that has now been uploaded to UA-cam. I would recommend literally anything you can find of the C-Span archives.
It always amazes me how good TV can be when you turn off the music, don't rush and don't assume that your audience will get bored in two seconds.
Thank you so much for uploading these fantastic interviews with philosophers from the 70s! My, my, my, sometimes the idiot box was actually educational after all back in the day...
Thank you, Bryan. You will be missed. RIP.
Magee was only 46 years old when this was taped! Hard life the one of a philosopher, hard life.
34:15 Turgenev "One of the troubles of the 19th century Russian reader is that they want to be told how to live, they want to be quite clear about who are the heroes and who are the villains" - has that changed? Are we all like this? Are there different proportions of people in different countries like this? Does it change over time?
Isaiah Berlin is my idol. I adore this man and his writing. Thank you very much!
What would you say Isaiah gave you?
This is an outstanding interview! Briliant interaction and so rewarding intellectually...
Brilliant content. Thanks for uploading.
Now the two friends can finally catch up on some long years of conversations. RIP Magee.
Thank you... Bryan... Thank you Bryan... Philosophy...
All these interviews and talks about philosophy are fantastic source of inspiration
This is amazing. That's very much for the upload!
Playback speed 0.75 makes Mr. Berlin much easier to grasp, imo.
23:16 What a satisfying exchange!
Bryan Magee. What a great man!
Capt ανδρεία Andreia Al sexy isn’t he?
Completely agree, questions unanswered not a detraction from philosophy to improve the quality of one's reasoning, properly clarify and sort one's thoughts.
A wonderful interview. Magee was a great presenter/interlocutor.
Such a brilliant conversation. Thankyou
Bryan Magee is a national British treasure.
imagine if Bryan Magee was being kept in a museum in Nigeria and they wouldn't give him back :(
Thank you for a great interview; questions on morality beginning at an early age when encouraged. Isaiah Berlin, one of our timely philosophers thankful.
Did this man ever write an introductory book to philosophy? He is crystal clear and makes me inspired to learn the basics of formal and moral and empirical, etc.
alas he didnt
Isaiah's voice: THE voice
Wonderful, quite clear, interview. Great demonstration of why philosophy matters. The date is mistaken. According to, e.g. the Guardian obituary of Magee, the series was broadcast in 1978.
Greetings from East Anglia in England.
Against the Current by Berlin is a vastly profound work. The introduction by Mark Lilla is itself the best intro to a book I've ever read. The heart races. . U must read it in doses . . And with a Clear Conscience
W. E. B. Dubois, the famous black leader and writer, while not commenting directly on philosophy, did say that his people need a "Talented Tenth" to lead them from the chains of slavery to freedom and how to handle it.
I am convinced that most people get their ideas second hand (that is when we delve into the field of ideas at all) and are more than willing to be lead by what "seems" right and correct by those they trust, perhaps by empiricism, "common sense" and the little they do read and listen.
William Safire called this "secondary orality" and I think whether we like it or not, this is the path the world will continue to take.
Certainly this leads to confusion, and politics, whether democratic or not suffers from such comprehension.
I would say, that the more individual freedom is venerated and the use of religion and statecraft to force certain ideas is limited, the safer we are to decide for ourselves proper values and intellectual avenues.
?
web du bois , great man
RIP Bryan Magee 😢
fantastic ! it is like attending a seminar-workshop in philosophy. Dr. Berlin is so illuminating.
23:20 "This posing of a question without any answer is the hallmark of a philosophical question."
Excellent upload! Many thanks. It demonstrates the great benefits that public (-spirited (this may have been on ITV?)) television can offer a wider audience. It should alert us all to the damage that the present government may inflict with its pernicious assault on the BBC.
Philosophy will always be the most interesting and important human endeavor.
Thank you Isaiah .
Thank you for sharing this stuff. It's amazing.
When I hear this brilliant man speaking, I wonder to myself: how did so many morons end up running things? It seems that the world is completely devoid of critical thinking.
The sheeple accept all the lies they are told without question.
People compete to achieve traits that they are rewarded for, and those traits only rarely include clear thinking.
Philosophy isnt really practical and society values much more practice than theory, this is why this profile of people is rare in authority positions.
"Yes.. we're all individuals".. Life of Brian"
A man of great intellect and speedy speech
He seems to have had six cups of coffee before each interview
More Berlin please :). He writes extraordinarily well for those have to pick him up. PS - A visitor of the Kennedy White House and dinner guest for conversation well into the late evening...
How come nobody is speaking over the other. How come they are quietly listening to each other. And why do they mostly agree with each other. And what's most horrible is that they seem to greatly respect each other. As a citizen of the largest democracy in the world I find this to be completely undemocratic.
the civility from the past is much more robust than that of the present
An admirable man, Master
Thanks for posting. I'm trying to get through "The Open Society and Its Enemies" by Christmas.
Go online into Amazon and order "Popper" by Bryan Magee in the Fontana series. Just a thin paperback but absolutely brilliant in explaining the philosophy of Karl Popper to the interested layman. Best wishes, Grumpy.
What an abhorrent piece of scholarship
@@doublenegation7870 Although I rather enjoyed his lectures on aesthetics, I could really only endorse Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit as a sleeping aid. Schopenhauer's critique of him is basically correct.
At 8,32 Magee says,,,can you give an example of a moral philosophical question, Berlin replies,,,let me tell you a story, What a story,,,like a story by Tolstoy or a parable by Kafka,
Morality is an satanic delusion
Thank you.
25:34 Stonehenge was "empirical" astronomy. There are other examples. Eratosthenes used mathematical principals to calculate the circumference of the earth. He used astronomical bodies to do this.
Two brilliant men.
Cool name and great voice
Throwing some shade on Bertrand Russell at the end.
Bryan Magee was a great tv person.
_Let us for a moment consider thought. What is it, my friends, to take thought? Took you then thought today? What thoughts did you think today? What thoughts were part of the original thought today? In how many of your thoughts did the creation abide? Was love contained? And was service freely given? You are not part of a material universe. You are part of a thought. You are dancing in a ballroom in which there is no material. You are dancing thoughts. You move your body, your mind, and your spirit in somewhat eccentric patterns for you have not completely grasped the concept that you are part of the original thought._
Ra Material
That I purchased with a fake ID..... my name was Bryan Magee......... I stayed up listening to Queen............ when I was seventeen..................
No. People don't by necessity have a problem with being analyzed... They have a problem with being misunderstood.
Hi. Just wondering if there's an option to view the transcript in English (as it comes up "German - auto generated") Thanks.
We progress as a society by "killing the beliefs of our fathers"? What if our fathers had it right? Surely obeying our father then would be the right thing.
Looking at today's television programme compared to this series I feel sad. It seems today we prefer to watch mainly trivial entertaining shows. Why don't we like philosophy education any more?
You are making a presumption then lamenting it. You imply "we" and "any more." This presumes that there is a we who in the past "liked" philosophy education, and now does not. I think if you were to review how you make these presumptions, you might discard them and empty. I direct you to my own comment, where I address your point differently.
@@johnsmith1474 thank you for this feedback.
So sad to say this but there's no subtitle and sometimes I do not understand what Isiah Berlin is saying for Christ's sake.
Yeah, same dilemma here, hehehe.
".....if the imagination is to be stirred...."
3:09 Are you sure that the girls you are pursuing are true girls? I knew that that was what philosophy was all about at bottom.
Good point, though what he actually said is "goals" rather than "girls".
Derek Vernon Smith perhaps an even better analogy for the world of today
Thnks a lot for this uploads! where can i find Charles Taylor on "Karl Marx" & R. M. Hare on "Moral Philosophy" ??
While I think manufacturing intellect is a disgusting name, I still thank you for giving me the opportunity to consume this.
A joy.
This level of discussion agitates and angers well-off (those who have food & shelter) modern people (all Americans), who suffer the ironic burden of endless choices in what takes their attention, many of which assuage/sedate the thought processes rather than challenge it. "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - Donald Robert Perry "Don" Marquis.
"THE WAYS OF HEAVEN ARE DARK AND INTRICATE" JOHN ADAMS 1775
Does anybody know where his Heinrich Heine quote (14:05) stands or how it continues? I'd be grateful for the clarification.
Justus K From Wikipedia:
"In 1834, 99 years before Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party seized power in Germany, Heine wrote in his work "The History of Religion and Philosophy in Germany":
"Christianity - and that is its greatest merit - has somewhat mitigated that brutal Germanic love of war, but it could not destroy it. Should that subduing talisman, the cross, be shattered, the frenzied madness of the ancient warriors, that insane Berserk rage of which Nordic bards have spoken and sung so often, will once more burst into flame. This talisman is fragile, and the day will come when it will collapse miserably. Then the ancient stony gods will rise from the forgotten debris and rub the dust of a thousand years from their eyes, and finally Thor with his giant hammer will jump up and smash the Gothic cathedrals. (...)
"Do not smile at my advice - the advice of a dreamer who warns you against Kantians, Fichteans, and philosophers of nature. Do not smile at the visionary who anticipates the same revolution in the realm of the visible as has taken place in the spiritual. Thought precedes action as lightning precedes thunder. German thunder is of true Germanic character; it is not very nimble, but rumbles along ponderously. Yet, it will come and when you hear a crashing such as never before has been heard in the world's history, then you know that the German thunderbolt has fallen at last. At that uproar the eagles of the air will drop dead, and lions in the remotest deserts of Africa will hide in their royal dens. A play will be performed in Germany which will make the French Revolution look like an innocent idyll.""
Mr. Berlin was actually quoting himself from a paper 'Two concepts of Liberty' (1958). This paper and others of his can be read in a book 'The Power of Ideas'. The quote is:
'Over a hundred years ago, the German poet Heine warned the French not to underestimate the power of ideas: philosophical concepts nurtured in the stillness of a professor's study could destroy a civilisation'
Their definiton of a philosophical question would make "Do you like apples?" a philosophical question.
Isaiah Berlin is that Rees-Mogg guy of back in the day
who is the russian author he describes at 34:20?
Ivan Turgenev, the author of “Fathers and Sons”
A wonderful introduction to the pleasures of Turgenev’s ouvre is his “First Love and Other Tales” ...finest translation of his works are by David Magarshack. I recommend the Norton paperback from the series Russian Literature in Norton Paperback....ABE.com has inexpensively filled my library for decades. Miss Jenny
SAINT JOHN 8:32
AND YOU SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH: AND THE TRUTH WILL SHALL MAKE YOU FREE.
Wonderful stuff.
"THAT MORAL EXCELLENCE, THEN IS CONCERNED WITH THE PLEASANT AND THE PAINFUL IS CLEAR. BUT SINCE THE CHARACTER, BEING AS ITS NAME INDICATES SOMETHING THAT GROWS BY HABIT -- CONSIDER, THEN, CHARACTER TO BE THIS, VIZ. A QUALITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNING REASON BELONGING TO THE IRRATIONAL PART OF THE SOUL WHICH IS YET ABLE TO OBEY THE REASON."
ARISTOTLE; EUDEMIAN ETHICS; BOOK II. SECTION 2.
"ALL HUMAN BEINGS HAVE AN INNATE RESISTANCE TO OBEDIENCE. DISCIPLINE REMOVES THIS RESISTANCE AND, BY CONSTANT REPETITION, MAKES OBEDIENCE HABITUAL AND SUBCONSCIOUS."
GENERAL GEORGE S. PATTON JR.; "WAR AS I KNEW IT"; HOUGHTON MIFFLIN; 1947
Who is Sir Isaiah's tailor?
The truth above philosophy is the truth and reality. The daily life only. Other is waste
I love this guys linguistic brilliance!.. he said 'with a God on the top and amoeba on the bottom' LMFAO and that is indeed a perfect summation of what average people think is "natural"...
Him, speaking fluent English, changed his Russia dramatically. He does not have any accent, but you can hear English Influence in his Russian. Interesting.
Of course he has an accent. He has a public school accent or Oxford accent of the time he studied there that is blend with his native Russian tongue
I like this
Empirical questions/solved with common sense or science.
Formal questions/the rules set in place
Philosophical questions are outside these two formats.
14:05 , Can anyone give me the reference to the actual quote by Heinrich Heine, i tried searching his works on 'The Gutenberg project' but to no avail.
I believe it is from Heine's 'Religion and philosophy in Germany' from p. 106 and onwards in the translated edition available on archive dot org. It's more likely a paraphrase than a quote
@@househead92 Thanks, just finished it. Hell of a read. just discovered whole new world of german enlightenment.
Wait, isn't the empirical world comprised of particular forms? And isn't this precisely why the world of particular empirical forms is so amenable to description and prediction by the more general statements about forms, known as formal systems? For example, the phenomenon named after Ohm for his discovery of it, and his description of it using the formal system of mathematics, makes it evident that there is a perfect correspondence between the physics of electricity and the logos of arithmetic. Not only can we reliably assume that Ohms law holds true anywhere in the universe that electrical phenomena might occur, but we could also make nearly perfect predictions about it, provided we were there to measure things, of course. Even if we weren't there, however, we can reasonably assume (owing to empiricism) that electricity behaves the same anywhere it shows up in the universe, and (owing to its formal representation in mathematics) we can further assume that it would behave in such and such precise manner under such and such conditions--conditions themselves just as amenable to mathematical expression. Moreover, once the fundamental nature of electrical phenomena was discovered by Ohm and given expression using the symbols of the formal system of mathematics, it was then possible to derive myriad other expressions algebraically from Ohms law. Of course these derivatives were a priori until they were confirmed by the a posteriori rigors of empiricism, but there was no reason to doubt that such conclusions wouldn't be true. My point is that there is hardly a natural or clear division between the behavior of formal systems and empirical observations. These divisions are a recent, artificial creation, a clever invention, made in the casual manner of those who would rather persuade indirectly by artful suggestions than by actual demonstrating that there are two wholly separate spheres of intelligence that only touch and overlap within the confines of a college graduate's skull. I'm willing to wager that the motive behind their implied suggestion--that some real distinction exists between empirical phenomena and the symbol systems we have contrived to represent them--is simply to refute, on the sly, the age-old proposition that the observable world of nature only exists by conforming to the breathtaking patterns an a priori Order, some of which are so complex and magnificent as to defy comprehension. This is my conception of what the ancient Greeks referred to as Logos, and it is so clear to me as to be self-evident. The symbols used in formal systems to designate quanta are arbitrary works of art, their only requirement being that they must differ from one another. The underlying rules--i.e., proportionality, equality, addition, etc.-- by which these symbols are made to relate, are not arbitrary, however. These underlying rules express the order of the Logos that structures not only formal systems, but also the observable world of natural phenomena.
met Brian's brother Ulick, Ulick Magee, one time
"What is meant by Kant?" About three volumes.
"ALL MEN DESIRE TO KNOW." ARISTOTLE
18:27 If I ask you, "How do you know that the king in chess moves only one square at a time?", it's no good someone saying, "You say it only moves one square at a time, but, you know, one evening I was looking at a chessboard and I actually saw a king move two squares!" 🤣🤣🤣 This would not be regarded as a refutation of this proposition, because what you're really saying is, "Is there a rule in chess according to which the king [moves] and how do you know the rule is true?" The rules don't have to be true they just have to be rules. You either accept them or you don't. This is how mathematics works and all formal disciplines.
TV used to be several orders of magnitude better. It's upsetting that modern programmes treat their viewers as children with the attention span of a dead fly.
A hierarchy of claims and values are fundamental. Today it is a question of either finance capitalist domination or the non-monist philosophy of differential human personality, the latter meaning that only some should rule because of their superior character - anathema to the anarchist and Marxist who think they can get rid of capitalism through egalitarianism.
There are problems with both. Financial capitalist domination cannot even claim to be of economic value as it is not in the service of production. "Differential human personality" presupposes too much. For one thing, that differences among people translate neatly into a social hierarchy. The assumption here is that "different" necessarily means "better" or "worse". Secondly, that determining the superiority of one's character were a relatively unproblematic task. Here, the assumption rests on the possibility to define an overarching standard that takes all considerations into account and orders them in a univocal way that sets itself above any challenge. This is a remarkably loaded belief as the diversity of these considerations, qualities, talents, etc., are not only hard to prioritize but are unevenly distributed, not only *among* individuals, but *within* individuals themselves. Thirdly, even if such a task were possible, to claim that those "inferior" were, therefore, less entitled to certain social or political benefits simply does not follow. E.g.: if someone were less intelligent than the mean, would that makes him less deserving of medical attention? Or free speech?
These are cogent replies, Federico, especially the need "To define an overarching standard that takes all considerations into account." The first criterion here is to recognize that the protection of the Earth's environment comes first. With resource collapse and food shortages, a system of triage will be instituted, people differentiated along a new form akin to the Hindu caste system. The difference with Hinduism however will be that caste is not hereditary since human personality is not hereditary - to the vexation of H. S. Chamberlain, Hitler and others who thought it was. Whatever the case, democracy and its levelling implications cannot deal with severe resource shortages, whether liberal democracy or "participatory" democracy of the anarchist type.
You actually don't address my points. Your focus on "personality" begs the same questions all over again. Also, I fail to see how or why exactly is a concern for the enviornment at odds with democracy.
You don't seem to understand that democracy implies the non-importance of fundamental personality differences since democracy presumes that "we are all the same underneath." It is this democratic prejudice that I attack since nearly everyone else (not just Westerners but Marxists too) seems to think it is some commonsense proposition. So many people are not really interested in the environment - most religious people, at least of the monotheist kind, being like this since they imagine that God can recreate the earth's environment with a mere flick of the divine finger. Hence the kinship between finance capitalism and Judeo-Christianity!
Finance capital's domination is taken for granted today so it hardly bothers to have to claim to be of economic value in the service of production. Ordinary people are locked out of wealth and rendered passive by government and religion in alliance. Democracy keeps the masses down by the masses' own stupidity e.g. using religion, already corrupted and indifferent to the environment, in the service of the oligarchs.
Philosophers ask all the right questions but rarely provide any answers.
Can somebody provide a transcript
A bit late but: Bryan Magee produced a couple of books with the transcriptions: one was called - I think - The Great Philosophers - and they are wonderful. Probably available on the secondhand book market.
Sometimes I wish the kind of moral philosophies that Magee recapitulates in the middle of the interview were ‘answerable’. I’ll read something that convinced me one way and the next day I’ll read something that does the opposite. And I end up knowing way more than I did before I read the arguments to and for, but I am no closer to resolution. It’s a bit… unsatisfying/maddening/depressing depending on the day. :(
This may have been recorded in 1976 I don't recall it being shown until 1977 or 78.
It was in '78.
14:05 does anyone know where he got that quote from exactly? I think it's importance is not very much known to the world when people think of Philosophy.