Isaiah Berlin's liberalism: An exposition and defense

This dissertation is an exposition and defense of Sir Isaiah Berlin's liberalism. It explores the links between his studies in philosophy, the history of ideas, and his famous essay, "Two Concepts of Liberty" (1958).;Two theses follow from this exposition. The first is that Isaiah Berlin offers a fitting way to do political theory. His method is interpretative and historical. He is an empirical thinker who judges the worth of political principles and regimes in light of our knowledge of human nature and society. His empiricism is most evident in his critique of rationalist ethics and examination of moral pluralism.;The second thesis is that his defense of liberal institutions is the best one possible. He is not guilty of the current charges levelled against liberal thinkers such as John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin. Berlin's defense of liberalism is neither formal nor abstract. Thus it is a mistake, common amongst his critics, to believe that Berlin's "Two Concepts" essay is primarily about analytical distinctions. His defense of liberalism is historical and prudential.;This is a significant advance over the rationalist and abstract tenor of much contemporary political theory currently practised in the Anglo-American world. Moreover, Berlin offers unique responses to the so-called "communitarian" critics of liberalism. He is able to move on their territory and claim that the best defense of liberal institutions appeals to fundamental principles of justice and human needs, but also to cultural norms and political practices and conventions.;However, Berlin remains firmly in the modern world. His historical sense guards him against romantic yearnings for strong communal ties and civic virtues. Given modern social and cultural conditions, these latter appeals are abstruse and politically unsophisticated.;It is a sign of Berlin's moral realism that his thought is free of anachronistic entreaties and contains cultural, historical and political arguments for civil liberties. The strength of his position lies in the fact that he avoids formal and ahistorical defenses of liberal institutions.