1 Romanticism - In Search of a Definition (Isaiah Berlin 1965)

Isaiah Berlin gives the 1st lecture in a series of 6 on Romanticism and its roots.
All 6 lectures: • Romanticism - Isaiah B...
For Berlin, the Romantics set in motion a vast, unparalleled revolution in humanity’s view of itself. They destroyed the traditional notions of objective truth and validity in ethics with incalculable, all-pervasive results. As he said of the Romantics elsewhere: “The world has never been the same since, and our politics and morals have been deeply transformed by them. Certainly this has been the most radical, and indeed dramatic, not to say terrifying, change in men’s outlook in modern times.”
In these brilliant lectures Berlin surveys the myriad attempts to define Romanticism, distills its essence, traces its developments from its first stirrings to its apotheosis, and shows how its lasting legacy permeates our own outlook. Combining the freshness and immediacy of the spoken word with Berlin’s inimitable eloquence and wit, the lectures range over a cast of the greatest thinkers and artists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, including Kant, Rousseau, Diderot, Schiller, Schlegel, Novalis, Goethe, Blake, Byron, and Beethoven. Berlin argues that the ideas and attitudes held by these and other figures helped to shape twentieth-century nationalism, existentialism, democracy, totalitarianism, and our ideas about heroic individuals, individual self-fulfillment, and the exalted place of art. This is the record of an intellectual bravura performance-of one of the century’s most influential philosophers dissecting and assessing a movement that changed the course of history. These Mellon lectures were delivered in Washington in 1965.
#Philosophy #Romanticism #IsaiahBerlin

[@longcastle4863]

Utterly spellbinding lecture; pulled me right in. And made me want to read _Lord of the Rings_ again.

[@LuigiSimoncini]

Thank you. I’m enjoying listening while reading the transcripts in the book “The roots of Romanticism”. Quite a powerful lecture!

[@mikeroberts4873]

Wonderful. I've already listened spell bound on his lecture on the impact of Marx on the 19c. Brilliant!

[@syedadeelhussain2691]

I really admired listening to certain sections of this lecture. Quite a flamboyant character, this philosopher. He makes people develop an interest in a subject which is largely filled with boredom if you are coming from a broken educational background in liberal arts, humanities, and the other social sciences. It is a Gestalt experience filled with renditions of philosophical pleasures.

[@pectenmaximus231]

Took me a while to settle into the pace but it’s a fun listen

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

Romanticism can only be adequately understood as the revolt against reason, beginning with Rousseau.

[@Silvercardinal7]

This basically captures the essence of where I disagree with him. Romanticism was not against reason it was against reductionism.

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

One must consider that 'absolute knowledge' is not a kind of knowledge distinct from another kind of knowledge called 'non-absolute knowledge'. To speak of 'probable knowledge' is simply to confess that you don't really know.

[@vinm300]

6:00 Plato - certain truths (math) Plato also spawned Hermeti ism, Gnosticism, Alchemy etc Plato's cave - that behind reality there are unknown forces we can only barely perceive. So, Berlin is taking one side of Plato (which suits his argument) and neglecting the complex whole of Plato

[@KL0098]

Does anyone know where Isaiah Berlin got Northrop Frye's point about Romanticism from 02:40?

[@superflumina1]

Frye edited two volumes of essays on Romanticism; one has the title Romanticism, and the other, Romanticism Revisited. I think Frye makes the point in his introduction to one of those two volumes.

[@larsrons7937]

Interesting lecture, of a very *inspiring speaker.* Very exciting. I'm looking forward to hear lecture 2 - 6. In was led here on recommendation in a comment to a newly uploaded video slightly toughing the same subject, from the KZbin channel *TIKhistory* - _"From Plato to Hitler: The Ideological Origins of National Socialism"_ (which I in turn recommend).

[@voxsvoxs4261]

I was led here too, though I have to say, I am rather unconvinced so far on this front of understanding the flow of philosophy.

[@Catofminerva]

Why have you deleted these and reuploaded them again...I was looking all over for them

[@neilmacdonald6637]

The channel got copy-right striked, homie :/

[@Catofminerva]

@@neilmacdonald6637 rip

[@DuskAndHerEmbrace13]

Are they in danger of being removed again? Or was it about something else on the channel?

[@Catofminerva]

@@DuskAndHerEmbrace13 Well for me it says that the uploader deleted the videos and not that they were removed by youtube. But in any case the lectures are available on Oxford's Wolfson college website.

[@Xcalator35]

@@neilmacdonald6637 Ah, ok...that explains a lot. Thanks Neil!

[@skalitstudio2208]

great lecture! thank you. but boy is the laughter of the audience annoying 😮 what’s wrong with these people…

[@zphytrqw10obgokneq74]

29:58 saving for later

[@timothyhill5140]

This place has nothing to do with cowards in search of reasons to justify their masters' treachery. Focus on what makes you what you are, this is about looking within. I know its hard to find examples of what makes you exceptional in that way but if you really need to you can do it, I believe in you ya know?

[@vonBottorff]

Entertaining to hear an indoorsman speaking so energetically about something only vaguely knowable by the all but tranciest shamanic unicorns after lengthy exposure to the outdoors (e.g., Emily Bronte). I'm always on the hunt for indoorsman philosophizing about Romanticism. But if you want to get on the right path of what Romanticism really is watch this to the end: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mHK2l6WQjtOerKssi=SMPFbaqQUxbYczMV

[@aaronnelson7104]

About 35 minutes in, or so, the audience exposes itself as incapable of understanding him. He lists the inherent contradictions and opposing tendencies in Romanticism, effectively showing the impossibility of finding a definition for the term. The giggles of incomprehension from the listeners are unbearable.

[@simonvaughan6017]

Berlin invites the audience's laughter through his humorous juxtaposition of contradictory definitions. Some of the definitions (e.g. Stendhal's) are funny in themselves simply by virtue of their apparently self-serving nature.

[@subcitizen2012]

Five people in the audience laugh and you heap your judgement and speak for all of them. Are they really the problem? Or are you perceiving problems that don't really exist? What I thought I heard in the laughter was a reaction to the quote that expressed some pretty extreme contempt towards romanticism. Maybe that somehow resonated with you, some sort of contempt for humanity. What's intolerable is someone expecting no humanity in an audience of humans. Turn that vexing critical eye inward, it sounds like you have some personal demons to cast out.

[@DuskAndHerEmbrace13]

What a pretentious comment. He's deliberately being funny about academic definitions and the audience are laughing, as he intends. Let me guess: YOU understand him, don't you? Not the stupid people in the lecture audience. You must feel very clever. It's obvious irony you moron. You tried to make yourself look superior and just exposed that you didn't get his humour.

[@pectenmaximus231]

I think it is you who found the episode, or perhaps all humour, incomprehensible.