In this 1958 essay, Berlin introduces the distinction between negative and positive liberty, and argues that positive liberty is ripe for abuse at the hands of tyrants. Because there is no single correct way of judging the relative importance of competing plural values, Berlin argues, a great deal of individual freedom is necessary so that each person may choose a life embodying those values of his or her own choosing. There are many interpretations of “freedom.” Berlin asserts two senses of freedom: negative and positive. Negative freedom is the area which people are “able to do or be, without interference by other person.” Positive freedom looks at the source of control that influences a persons actions or state of being. ### Negative liberty Political liberty in the negative sense is the area within which a man can act unobstructed by others. Contacted enough and it can be described as coercion or enslavement. Mere inability to achieve some goal is not lack of political freedom. You must be prevented by other people. Classical English philosophers thought (negative) freedom shouldn’t be unlimited. “Or else the liberties of the weak would be suppressed by the strong.” A frontier must be drawn between the area of private life and that of public authority. That must be negotiated since people are largely interdependent and no one is so completely private as never to obstruct other’s lives. ### Positive liberty “The ‘positive’ sense of the word ‘liberty’ derives from the wish on the part of the individual to be his own master.” “I wish to be the instrument of my own, not of other men’s, acts of will.” Historically, philosophers have discussed how people can be slaves to their “lower” selves— spiritual enslavement or baser nature. But there’s also a reasoned “higher nature” which is often called my “more real” or “ideal” self. But this idea can be dangerously extended where individuals are only their higher selves when aligned with a group: the state, church, a race, etc. In this case, an individuals autonomy can be disregarded for the sake of their supposed “true self”. “Enough manipulation of the definition of man and freedom can be made to mean whatever the manipulator wishes.” Both negative and positive freedom can be twisted in this way. But historically, positive freedom, with its focus on self-mastery and therefore a “real self” and “empirical self”, has lent itself to this manipulation. ### The One and the Many The chapter argues against the notion that there is one ultimate solution to human problems, highlighting the complexity and often incompatibility of human values. It makes a case for pluralism and the freedom to make choices among conflicting ends, suggesting that this is a more humane and realistic approach to understanding human society. Monism vs. Pluralism: The monistic view aims to find a single criterion to judge all human actions and is often inhumane because it forces complex issues into a single ideal. Pluralism accepts the multi-faceted nature of human existence and the unavoidable conflicts that come with it.