Two Cheers for “Two Concepts”: Isaiah Berlin’s Skeptical, Tragic Liberalism

IF 0.4 3区 社会学 Q4 POLITICAL SCIENCE Critical Review Pub Date : 2020-10-01 DOI:10.1080/08913811.2021.1898129
G. Thomas
{"title":"Two Cheers for “Two Concepts”: Isaiah Berlin’s Skeptical, Tragic Liberalism","authors":"G. Thomas","doi":"10.1080/08913811.2021.1898129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Returning to Isaiah Berlin’s “Two Concepts of Liberty” offers a defense of liberal democracy that can help us come to terms with its limits, as well as the implicit tradeoffs that are an inescapable feature of politics in a liberal democracy. While critics of Berlin are right to note his neglect of Enlightenment constitutionalism, his skeptical liberalism is illuminated by comparative constitutional law, where we see how different constitutional regimes balance different values—such as democracy, liberty, and equality—in different ways that are attuned to the particulars of place and history that both Berlin and critics of liberalism insist are so important.","PeriodicalId":51723,"journal":{"name":"Critical Review","volume":"32 1","pages":"574 - 592"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08913811.2021.1898129","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2021.1898129","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT Returning to Isaiah Berlin’s “Two Concepts of Liberty” offers a defense of liberal democracy that can help us come to terms with its limits, as well as the implicit tradeoffs that are an inescapable feature of politics in a liberal democracy. While critics of Berlin are right to note his neglect of Enlightenment constitutionalism, his skeptical liberalism is illuminated by comparative constitutional law, where we see how different constitutional regimes balance different values—such as democracy, liberty, and equality—in different ways that are attuned to the particulars of place and history that both Berlin and critics of liberalism insist are so important.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为“两个概念”欢呼:以赛亚·伯林的怀疑主义、悲剧自由主义
摘要回到以赛亚·伯林的《自由的两个概念》,为自由民主提供了一种辩护,可以帮助我们接受其局限性,以及自由民主政治不可避免的隐含权衡。虽然柏林的批评者注意到他对启蒙宪政的忽视是正确的,但他持怀疑态度的自由主义受到了比较宪法的启发,在比较宪法中,我们看到了不同的宪政制度如何平衡不同的价值观,如民主、自由、,平等——以不同的方式与柏林和自由主义批评者都坚持认为非常重要的地方和历史细节相适应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Critical Review
Critical Review POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society is a political-science journal dedicated to advancing political theory with an epistemological bent. Recurrent questions discussed in our pages include: How can political actors know what they need to know to effect positive social change? What are the sources of political actors’ beliefs? Are these sources reliable? Critical Review is the only journal in which the ideational determinants of political behavior are investigated empirically as well as being assessed for their normative implications. Thus, while normative political theorists are the main contributors to Critical Review, we also publish scholarship on the realities of public opinion, the media, technocratic decision making, ideological reasoning, and other empirical phenomena.
期刊最新文献
Depolarization Without Reconciliation Education and the Epistemological Crisis in the Age of ChatGPT Republicanizing Leviathan: Kant’s Cosmopolitan Synthesis of Hobbes and Rousseau Who Is Haunted by the Shadow Of God? Dialectical Notes on Michael Rosen’s Narrative of (Failed) Secularization Six Variations on Michael Rosen’s The Shadow of God
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1