Michael Oakeshott is widely recognised to be one of the most original political philosophers of the twentieth century. He also developed a very influential interpretation of the ideas of the great seventeenth century philosopher Thomas Hobbes. While many commentators have noted the importance of Hobbes for understanding Oakeshott’s thought itself, this is the first book to provide a systematic interpretation of Oakeshott’s philosophy by paying close attention to all facets of Oakeshott’s reading of Hobbes. On the surface, Oakeshott, the philosophical (...) idealist and critic of rationalism in politics, would seem to have little in common with Hobbes, who is often regarded as a classic materialist and rationalist philosopher. This work shows, however, that despite appearances, there are many basic affinities between the two thinkers and that Oakeshott brought to the surface aspects of Hobbes’s thought that had previously been overlooked by Hobbes scholars. The development of Oakeshott’s own theory is shown to mirror changes in his reading of Hobbes and many of the distinctive features of Oakeshott’s thought including the modal and sceptical conception of human knowledge, the ‘morality of individuality’, the theory of civil association, and the critique of rationalism all find a fascinating focal point in his writings on Hobbes. Some attention is also paid to Oakeshott’s religious ideas, indicating what they share with Hobbes’s philosophy of religion. The book situates Oakeshott’s reading in relation to some other important twentieth century interpretations of Hobbes and examines its significance for broader debates in political theory and the history of ideas. (shrink)

In 1948 Karl Popper sent a copy of his paper, ‘Utopia and Violence’, to Michael Oakeshott. Popper had recently read Oakeshott’s essay ‘Rationalism in Politics’, appreciating its relevance to views he had expressed in The Open Society. Oakeshott wrote to Popper at some length, explaining his thoughts about reason, tradition and kindred matters, to which Popper responded. This paper reproduces these letters and discusses them with reference to pertinent writings of Popper and Oakeshott. While showing there was much common ground (...) between the two men and that they significantly influenced each other, the writings reveal important differences over the role of reason and tradition in social and political life. (shrink)

Michael Oakeshott is widely recognised to be one of the most original political philosophers of the twentieth century. He also developed a very influential interpretation of the ideas of the great seventeenth century philosopher Thomas Hobbes. While many commentators have noted the importance of Hobbes for understanding Oakeshott’s thought itself, this is the first book to provide a systematic interpretation of Oakeshott’s philosophy by paying close attention to all facets of Oakeshott’s reading of Hobbes.On the surface, Oakeshott, the philosophical idealist (...) and critic of rationalism in politics, would seem to have little in common with Hobbes, who is often regarded as a classic materialist and rationalist philosopher. This work shows, however, that despite appearances, there are many basic affinities between the two thinkers and that Oakeshott brought to the surface aspects of Hobbes’s thought that had previously been overlooked by Hobbes scholars.The development of Oakeshott’s own theory is shown to mirror changes in his reading of Hobbes and many of the distinctive features of Oakeshott’s thought including the modal and sceptical conception of human knowledge, the ‘morality of individuality’, the theory of civil association, and the critique of rationalism all find a fascinating focal point in his writings on Hobbes. Some attention is also paid to Oakeshott’s religious ideas, indicating what they share with Hobbes’s philosophy of religion. The book situates Oakeshott’s reading in relation to some other important twentieth century interpretations of Hobbes and examines its significance for broader debates in political theory and the history of ideas. (shrink)

This paper explores the emergence and evolution of philosophical Australian New Idealism through an analysis of the writings of Francis Anderson (1858-1941), Mungo MacCallum (1854-1942), E.H. Burgmann (1885-1965) and G.V. Portus (1883-1954). Where their British Idealist contemporaries during and after the First World War were criticized for their putative 'Germanic' and authoritarian conception of the state, the writings of these Australian Idealists were centrally shaped by a concern with the categories of 'empire', 'humanity' and 'the international order', as much as (...) they were with the state. This proved significant during the two world wars, for rather than being called upon to defend the German roots of their understanding of the state, they opted instead to present events in Germany as a necessary stage in the development of civilization and a world community. (shrink)

It is the fate of most great political thinkers for their works to be the subject of controversy and contestation. Hobbes is a pre-eminent example of this generalisation. Though a comprehensive sur...

This paper explores the relationship between religion and history in the writings of R.G. Collingwood, Michael Oakeshott, and Clement C. J. Webb. Focussing principally on the early work of Collingwood and of Oakeshott and the later work of Webb, the paper shows that for all three philosophers the development of historical understanding in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had important religious implications. While many of their British Idealist predecessors and contemporaries had responded to the 'higher criticism' of the (...) Bible by constructing speculative philosophies of history, Collingwood, Oakeshott and Webb understood history to be a genuine form of understanding that could not be so easily translated into other terms. Where Collingwood and Webb sought to integrate history with other expressions of mind, Oakeshott insisted on separating the various 'modes of experience'. The effect of this is to insulate religion from historical criticism but also, from the perspective of Collingwood and Webb, potentially undermine it by isolating it from ultimate truth. (shrink)

Michael Oakeshott and Carl Schmitt are two of the most prominent critics of rationalism in politics. They also both draw heavily on the work of Thomas Hobbes. This paper connects these themes and indicates that Oakeshott's and Schmitt's concerns about rationalism are reflected in their writings on Hobbes, especially in their use of the idea of myth. Notwithstanding certain connections between their understanding of, and concerns about, modern rationalism, comparing Oakeshott and Schmitt through their readings of Hobbes helps to elucidate (...) the more important differences between their political theories as a whole. Using Oakeshott's own terminology, this paper suggests that the differences between the two theorists can be understood as a difference between a ‘politics of faith’ and a ‘political of scepticism’. Where Schmitt turned to Hobbes to find a political theology to combat the forces of liberal scepticism and ground the practice of modern authority, Oakeshott drew from Hobbes the idea — often associated with liberalism — that authority arises from a scepticism about the possibility of finding such a foundation. The paper concludes with the observation that the risks attending the politics of faith, as Schmitt's experience attests, are more severe than those of scepticism. (shrink)

David Weinstein, Utilitarianism and the New Liberalism , xii + 221 pp., £50/$95.00, ISBN: 978 0 521 87528 8. Richard Murphy, Collingwood and the Crisis of Western Civilisation: Art, Metaphysics and Dialectic , vii + 296 pp., £30.00/$49.90, ISBN: 978 184540 1061.