Freedom for the wolves has often meant death to the sheep.
Isaiah BerlinRead
Utopias have their value -- nothing so wonderfully expands the imaginative horizons of human potentialities -- but as guides to conduct they can prove literally fatal.
Interpretation
Utopias inspire imagination but should not be strictly followed as they can lead to disastrous outcomes.
Isaiah Berlin highlights the dual nature of utopiasβwhile they serve to broaden human imagination and push the boundaries of what is possible, they can also lead individuals and societies to dangerous paths if pursued as concrete guides for action. The idea is that having lofty ideals is important, but they should not dictate real-world conduct without consideration of practical implications.
In practice
This quote can be shared in a philosophical debate about the role of ideals in society.
Freedom for the wolves has often meant death to the sheep.
Injustice, poverty, slavery, ignorance - these may be cured by reform or revolution. But men do not live only by fighting evils. They live by positive goals, individual and collective, a vast variety of them, seldom predictable, at times incompatible.
All central beliefs on human matters spring from a personal predicament.
The underlying assumption that human nature is basically the same at all times, everywhere, and obeys eternal laws beyond human control, is a conception that only a handful of bold thinkers have dared to question.
The case against the notion of historical objectivity is like the case against international law, or international morality; that it does not exist.
But to manipulate men, to propel them toward goals which you-the social reformers-see, but they may not, is to deny their human essence, to treat them as objects without wills of their own, and therefore to degrade them.
We live in an age of reproduction. Most of what makes up our personal picture of the world we have never seen with our own eyes--or rather, we've seen it with our own eyes, but not on the spot: our knowledge comes to us from a distance, we are televiewers, telehearers, teleknowers.
What's the difference? How can people be so inconsistent? Why is it that free immigration was a good thing before 1914 and free immigration is a bad thing today? Well, there is a sense in which that answer is right. There's a sense in which free immigration, in the same sense as we had it before 1914 is not possible today. Why not?
Rulers do not like to admit that their power is restricted by any laws other than those of physics and biology. They never ascribe their failures and frustrations to the violation of economic law.
The public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything, except what is worth knowing.
I never yet heard man or woman much abused that I was not inclined to think the better of them, and to transfer the suspicion or dislike to the one who found pleasure in pointing out the defects of another.
I met a white man once, who claimed that every black man has a gene which makes him violent. To which, I said I had never been violent and that he was wrong.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.