Here is the first formal review. Kekes make some valid points but in respect of my essay he doesn’t grasp that the cogsci that I’m concerned with is non-reductionist and non-Cartesian. The ground was already cleared by Keith Sutherland and Stephen Turner in papers that I think I cite. I think that Kekes is distracted by the invocation of “science”, which of course we know MO was rightly concerned about (as I am too) but non-reductionist cogsci constitutes such an acknowledgment about levels of description. My sense then is that Kekes’ notion of science is rooted in the 1930s logical positivism of Carnap and Neurath. No-one subscribes to that anymore and certainly not me. I will mull over Kekes’ other criticisms and respond accordingly.
Kekes writes: “The aim of the volume is not mere exegesis, but also critical appraisal, which includes examining reasons for and against Oakeshott’s philosophical views on particular subjects.” Kekes overlooks the highly critical and substantial chunk of my paper that deals with MO’s infamous swipe at Hayek.
manwithoutqualities 