John Rawls and Isaiah Berlin on the dilemma of freedom and pluralism

This study is related to the freedom problematic that still appears today as an up-to-date discussion area on political and social platforms. The main purpose of the study is to analyse, both theoritically and practically, individual freedom on which political liberalism constructed the "right", and the tension created by the reconciliation of pluralism that political liberalism set up on the basis of impartiality in late-modern-societies where the difference of the perception of good deepens. From this point of view, under the basic discussion that points out the tension between freedom and pluralism which is related to the late modern world where pluralism has become radical, the comparative analysis of John Rawls's and Isaiah Berlin's thoughts , with the conceptual instruments they offer to today's liberalism, were determined as the population of the thesis. In this respect, the "political liberalism" offered by John Rawls were examined, that protects both freedom as autonomy of individual and pluralism by emphasising "the public use of mind" "overlapping concensus" and "reasonability". Then, on the basis of "incomparibility of values", Berlin's existentialist "negative freedom" conceptualisation -that is anti-universalist , anti-objectivist, and transfigures the choice itself- were examined. In the conclusion part of the study, it is claimed that Berlin can't turn the conceptualisation of negative freedom into a political freedom in terms of protection of freedom as autonomy by giving the political area –under the private area- secondary importance in the problematic of freedom and pluralism. Rawls, on the other hand, restricts the freedom aspect of pluralism with private area, while turning the freedom as autonomy into a political freedom language, with the offer of political liberalism that prioritises publicness. Key Words: Positive Freedom, Negative Freedom, Pluralism, Liberalism.