Robert Paul Wolff on Oakeshott

August 10, 2010

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, 2010

Thanks 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.


Ernest Gellner

July 27, 2010

Here is a review of an intellectual biography of Ernest Gellner.


Anthony (Lord) Quinton

June 22, 2010

I was sorry to learn of the death of Tony (Lord) Quinton.

My first contact with him was in the late-80s. Geoff Thomas, my Birkbeck tutor (who himself had Quinton as an examiner at Oxford), wrote to Quinton asking if he’d care to grant a young student an hour to chat about Oakeshott. Within the week, Quinton called me directly to set up a lunch-time meeting at the House of Lords. He very kindly showed me around and treated to me to a lovely lunch. We then settled in to discuss Oakeshott (I was canvassing interest in getting research supervision). Tony as he insisted I call him, was a superb raconteur and before long the formality of my stated intentions dissolved. We talked much about Oakeshott but also about Iris Murdoch, Gilbert Ryle and Wittgenstein. Three hours later I bid my farewell. On leaving he gave me a book from his private library (Baruch Brody’s Identity and Essence), an incredibly thoughtful gesture since he’d obvious consulted with Geoff as to what my other philosophical interests were. Not only that, he gave me a House of Lords pen set.

My next encounter with Tony was in the setting up of the Oakeshott Association. Without any hesitation he allowed me to trade on his name to gather the major Oakeshott players together to form this association. Of course this worked a charm. And when inquiries started to come through about when the Oakeshott conference would be (what conference???) once again I asked him if, subject to securing the funding, he would be the plenary speaker. Yet again, without pressing me on any detail whatsoever said that I should just let him know the date and he’ll be there. True to his word, at 9am precisely the dashing and dapper Tony Quinton stepped out of a taxi outside the Hong Kong Theatre in the Aldwych and Tony breezed in. Unusually for Tony (so I’m told) he hung around for the reception. Below are two photographs from the MOA reception.

At that time I was also in the process of setting up a new philosophy journal EPISTEME. Again, I turned to Tony asking if I could trade on his name to get this project going. As usual, he agreed with “no if or buts” expressed. Social epistemology was something he was always interested in but was not known as such in the analytical tradition. Having secured a publisher I decided that an annual conference would be in order to promote the journal and also provide a forum for this growing field. But where to hold such an event with little or no funding? Being a member of the British Academy Tony suggested that we book a room in his name and of course secure a members discount. This was duly done and again I was presumptuous enough to ask him if he’d be the first speaker. Of course, he agreed. In the interim I was Los Angeles-based and was communicating with Tony via snail mail and fax to get his talk knocked into shape for the first issue of EPISTEME. Tony didn’t do email and the typewritten script replete with “Tippexed” out typos and handwritten markup became quite a challenge to decipher.

Over the years I saw him at a couple of RIP lectures. Perhaps Tony’s real talent was as an expositor. He had the incredible ability to synthesis vast and difficult works and present them in a wonderfully lucid way. Tony never passed this ability off as being anything more than exposition – unlike some (who shall remain nameless), he was not one to immerse himself in a topic for six weeks, crank out a book, thereby setting himself up as an expert in yet another field. I thought Tony’s magnum opus The Nature of Things (1973) to be choppy (see Michael Ayers’ review in Philosophy 49, 1974, pp. 401-413) and its subject matter was bound to upset many of his political allies. His The Politics of Imperfection: The Religious and Secular Traditions of Conservative Thought in England from Hooker to Oakeshott (1978) finds Quinton at his very best.

I am terribly grateful for the kindness and generosity of spirit he accorded me – a true gentleman if ever there was one.

Telegraph obituary

Guardian obituary

Independent obituary

Tony at the first MOA conference, September 2001


Michael Oakeshott’s Skepticism

May 24, 2010

Here’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, 2010

Jesse 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, 2010

Here’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

Telegraph

Guardian

LA Times

The Philosopher’s Magazine (reminiscences)


Phantom Philosopher

March 23, 2010

Oakeshott 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).