In his essay 'Two Concepts of LibertyE(1958), Sir Isaiah Berlin made considerable intellectual ground on the philosophical definition of Freedom ¯ notably, it was here that the archaic distinctions between 'PositiveEand 'NegativeEfreedom were reexamined and given a fresh, clear outlook. The ideas offered in his essay on the nature of these two 'freedomsEprovided philosophers with such intellectual ammunition that they continue to be debated over, even to this present day.
             In trying to demarcate the separate senses of the two types of liberty, Berlin correctly noted that negative liberty is 'freedom fromE or the absence of obstacles to the individual's free choice; positive liberty is 'freedom toE or the power of which the individual may act according to this free choice. From here, it may seem that the differences between positive and negative freedoms are just semantic; they basically are different sides of the same coin. This is true, insofar that they are both still liberty in a general sense. Liberty, in a very general, broad definition, is the individual's capacity for free choice; it is his ability to exercise free will. This idea of basic liberty is central to both 'PositiveEand 'NegativeEsenses of the concept; they begin with this basic premise of what freedom entails, but then become separate as they develop as concepts in their own right. The source of this divide is in what both senses of liberty constitutes as 'free choiceEand 'free willE
             According to Berlin, positive liberty is freedom of the self; this notion of 'positivityEis derived from the individual's desire for his choices and decisions to depend on no other than himself, to be his own master. This simple definition takes a complex turn when Berlin introduces rationality, or the rational self, to the equation. The most prominent feature of man is his faculty o...