Here is an unlikely appreciation of Oakeshott by Robert Paul Wolff self-described as: “in politics I am an anarchist, in religion I am an atheist, and in economics I am a Marxist.” Wolff seems to appreciate the quality of Oakeshott’s mind and of course his mellifluous style and doesn’t get bogged down in one-dimensional ritualized exchanges. On the contrary, he is interested in a genuine philosophical conversation. Wolff reminds me a bit of the late Paul Hirst.
Ryle on Video
July 30, 2010Thanks to this blog here is a five-part discussion between the wonderful Gilbert Ryle and James Urmson. (I notice from the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy entry on Ryle that J.D. Mabbott must have known Ryle very well. Mabbott and Oakeshott were of course intellectual chums. According to Bob Grant, Oakeshott only ever communicated with two “official” philosophers, one of which was Ryle. On record, Oakeshott very favorably reviewed Ryle’s Concept of Mind, entitled “Body and Mind” in the Spectator. Years later he warmly introduced Ryle who delivered the annual LSE August Comte Memorial Lecture on 26 April, 1962 entitled “A Rational Animal”. Mabbott who read the proofs for On Human Conduct happened to be a member of Ryle’s “Wee Teas” philosophical tea parties (Tony Quinton told me that he himself was one of the more junior members) was the first to recognize Oakeshott’s KH/KT connection with Ryle in his review of Rationalism in politics in Mind.
Michael Oakeshott’s Skepticism
May 24, 2010Here’s a forthcoming book on Oakeshott. Aryeh Botwinick spoke at the inaugural of the MOA on this topic. I never thought Oakeshott had anything to say about personal identity (at least in the Lockean tradition) – so I look forward to see what Botwinick says.
Jesse Norman, MP
May 8, 2010Jesse Norman, a very able philosopher and man of practice, has been elected as the new MP to represent the Hereford and South Herefordshire constituency. Philosophically speaking, Jesse has several strings to his bow. I first came to know him as an Oakeshottian – he edited The Achievement of Michael Oakeshott (Duckworth – unfortunately, no longer in print) - and he provided valuable assistance and good counsel to me in my setting up the Oakeshott Association. Jesse is a bona fide Oakeshottian – unlike others running for public office who have sought to shallowly appropriate the name. I also know Jesse through a shared interest in the Sabre Foundation (donate some $$ now!). Here are Jesse’s academic interests which include his technical work on Pierce. Jesse will bring a touch of class to that most vulgar of all pursuits, politics. I hope that this is the beginning of a distinguished career, that great things lie ahead for him and that his keen intellect and subtlety isn’t corroded or dumbed down. I wish him well.
New Book on Oakeshott
May 4, 2010Here’s a new book on Oakeshott by Edmund Neill. Heretofore I haven’t come across Neill’s work but if Noel O’Sullivan says he’s OK, I guess that’s good enough for me. Two quibbles. First, it falls within a series entitled Major Conservative and Libertarian Thinkers – I thought that by now we’d gotten past these unhelpful Procrustean categories. Second, $130 for 160 pages – that’s taking the piss. Here is a review of said book by Till Kinzel. Stay tuned for Paul Franco and my co-edited book.

Oakeshott, Libertarianism and Judaism
April 21, 2010
Here’s a nice rendering by Mary Campbell of a photo of Oakeshott given to me by his son Simon (the photo was taken at Caius circa 1933). Speaking of Oakeshott, the following must rate as the most bizarre invocation of Oakeshott I’ve come across (Jewish Political Studies Review 19:1-2, Spring 2007).
Michael Oakeshott (1901-1990) was a leading British social and political theorist, often credited as a father of libertarian thought.
Even on the most generous of interpretations “father of libertarian thought” is so off-beam. We know Oakeshott took issue with libertarianism in no uncertain terms. Who conceives of Oakeshott in these terms? I’d like to know. And again:
As to openings, Oakeshott, unlike many other philosophical defenders of the free society, has a generous appreciation for the category of tradition. Although his political thought is often associated-no doubt simplistically-with libertarianism, he afforded traditional ways of life considerable scope in the conduct of a humane society.
A traditionalist (assuming Oakeshott to be one) cannot accept the spontaneous unforseen consequences of an absolutely free-market. It would be corrosive of tradition!! This is not to say that the free-market doesn’t have an important role to play for Oakeshott – or that tradition itself is not a spontaneous phenomenon – but to so brazenly claim that Oakeshott is associated with libertarianism is absurd. I know of no theorist who makes that claim.
Although somewhat overshadowed in life by his more famous contemporaries Isaiah Berlin, Friedrich Hayek, and Karl Popper, Oakeshott, not least on account of his profound and astonishingly elegant prose, bids fair to displace them in death.
That’s quite an optimistic claim – at best Oakeshott might take his place next to these titans – but displace them? This is hagiography.
Last,
Oakeshott’s thought, however, has hardly been taken up by Jewish philosophers. Although political theorists who are Jews, such as Josiah Lee Auspitz or Efraim Podoksik of the Hebrew University, have worked on Oakeshott, there have been no diligent attempts to mine Oakeshott for the purposes of Jewish thought. Nor have Jewish thinkers engaged him in philosophical conversation. This is regrettable, for Oakeshott offers a number of promising openings and provocations for contemporary Jewish thought.
Though a significant chunk of those who have written on Oakeshott are Jewish, this fact has no salience at all. Can only “Jewish” scholars plausibly claim expertise in Jewish philosophy? Ridiculous.
Anthony Flew
April 13, 2010
I heard through my chum David Livingtone Smith who heard through Leiter that Anthony Flew had died a few days ago. I recall Flew to be a most generous fellow. We corresponded by snail mail to his residence in Reading (I still have the letters). I was of the mind to invite him to the inaugural Oakeshott conference at the LSE thinking he’d be a fine chairman for the philosophy of education panel. When I spoke with him he said that he’d be delighted so long as I paid for his train and cab fare, which of course I was happy to do. In our discussions we never spoke about philosophy of religion (it seems that his turning from atheism to theism is unfortunately what he is being remembered for). As I indicated in a previous posting we talked about Ryle, Gellner, Language and Logic, and the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.
Times obituary
The Philosopher’s Magazine (reminiscences)
Phantom Philosopher
March 23, 2010Oakeshott has been added to the Special Forces Roll of Honour listing. Off course, many will have heard the Worsthorne story:
I remember Perry Worsthorne’s story about spending a year or two with Oakeshott when he was an officer in the special intelligence unit called “Phantom” during the war, and then coming back to Cambridge, finding to his astonishment that his old military comrade was a distinguished don, turning up to lecture him on the history of political thought. English upper class conversation, of course, is slow to spill the beans. Oakeshott continued to attend reunions of Phantom for many years. It must have been an interesting lot. The actor David Niven was one of them. (Cited in Kenneth Minogue).
Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry.
Famous Phantom officers included actors Major David Niven (who initially commanded A Squadron) and Tam Williams; MPs Jakie and Michael Astor, Sir Hugh Fraser, Sir Carol Mather, Peregrine Worsthorne, Maurice Macmillan and Christopher Mayhew. Sir Robert Mark became Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police whilst others excelled in other arenas – academia, athletics, horseracing (Sir Gordon Richards and John Hislop).
Posted by manwithoutqualities 

