El sentido que la educación liberal posee para Michael Oakeshott se concentra en que ésta consiste en un aprendizaje de las disciplinas humanísticas y científicas. Dichas disciplinas se muestran valiosas ya que tienen la virtud de desarrollar el intelecto y la sensibilidad humanas y porque aportan, además, una comprensión operativa de lo que son nuestro yo, la sociedad, la naturaleza y la cultura. No obstante, como también es sabido, los fines que la educación liberal se propone pecan (...) un tanto de idealistas, de manera especial cuando se insiste, como muchos han hecho desde los antiguos griegos, en que dicha educación es un fin en sí misma. En parte, lo demuestra la presencia permanente en nuestra cultura occidental de unos espacios de aprendizaje (‘schola’) que se conciben como si estuvieran separados del aquí y ahora en que transcurre la vida cotidiana. (shrink)

Este escrito apunta a mostrar el camino histórico seguido por el conocimiento liberal y por la Universidad en la tradición educativa anglosajona. En este contexto de ideas, el campo de estudio ha sido limitado a los siguientes temas: primero, precisar, en términos generales, qué es la educación liberal y qué elementos componen su syllabus; segundo, describir las características esenciales que definen esta tradición educativa en el mundo anglosajón, principalmente en Inglaterra y en los Estados Unidos; y (...) tercero, mostrar en qué consiste la superioridad cualitativa de este tipo de educación. (shrink)

Enrique Dussel telah lama dikenal secara luas sebagai seorang filsuf dari Amerika Latin, yang memperkenalkan “filsafat pembebasan”. Buku Ethics of Liberation ini merupakan elaborasi gagasan sentralnya “pembebasan”. Dussel saat ini menjadi profesor filsafat di Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Iztapalapa dan di Universidad Nacional Autóma de México di Mexico City. Dalam karya ini ia mencoba mengatasi berbagai sistem etika yang berlatar belakang filsafat kontinental, yang ia sebut sebagai filsafat yang berbasis filsafat Yunani atau disebut juga “hellenosentrisme” atau “eropasentrisme. Filsafat dan (...) sistem etika ini tidak memadai lagi untuk mendorong pembebasan korban peminggiran oleh globalisasi dan kapitalisme neo-liberal. Dussel mengawali bukunya sepanjang 715 halaman ini dengan menyajikan uraian mengenai sistem etika dalam sejarah dunia, yang dipandang sebagai filsafat yang datang dari pinggiran, periferi. Dari sinilah Dussel mengembangkan etika dari perspektif korban yang tereksklusi. Pada Bagian I Dussel membahas “Fondasi Etika” (h. 53-186) yang terdiri dari tiga komponen. Pertama, etika material atau isi dari etika, yaitu reproduksi dan pengembangan kehidupan secara sadar. Dussel memulai uraiannya dengan pandangan antropologisnya, dimana digambarkan tingkat-tingkat kesatuan hidup manusia. Ia mengaitkan padangannya mengenai manusia dengan “neuroscience. Kemudian dibahas beberapa aliran dalam etikla material;, seperti utilitarianisme dan komunitarianisme (A. MacEntyre, Charles Tay;or, M. Walzer), konsep eudaimonis dari Aristoteles, Sittlichkeit dari Hegel, etika matrial dari Max Scheler, gagasan Xavier Zubiri.. Dari uraian yang sifatnya deskriptif itu, Dussel beranjak kepada perumusan universal, yang merupakan komponen kedua. Yang memberi pembenaran atas norma yang telah dirumuskan. Rumusan universal itu dicapai melalui suatu diskursus dari partisipan yang setara, dalam suatu komunitas komunikasi. Itulah syarat tercapainya kesahihan antarsubjektif. Yang dibahas Dussel adalah sistem etika Kant. John Rawls, Karel Otto-Apel dan J. Habermas. Tahap ketiga dibahas komponen kelayakan berhadapan dengan berbagai kendala.............. Buku Ethics of Liberation memuat uraian yang sangat kaya akan berbagai sistem etika, terutama sistem etika yang diajukan oleh berbagai filsuf kontemporer. Sistem itu tidak ditolak, tetapi harus dilengkap dengan sistem etika-kritis, yeng mendorong mereka yang menjadi korban untuk membebaskan diri. Untuk memperdalam analisisnya Dussel banyak mengacu kepada Marx, Sekolah Frankurt, Nietzsche dan Freud. Pandangan Freire mengenai dialog dan “raising consciousness” melengkap apa yang disebut “konsensus” dalam sistem etrika Habermasian. Dialog menjadi penting untuk membangun komunikasi dalam masyarakat yang asimetris. Ini diperkaya dengan pengalaman tumbuhnya kesadaran sebagaimana diuraikan oleh Rigoberto Menchú Sistem etika Emmanuel Levinas memberikan perspektif baru mengenai keharusan “pengakuan” (recognition) dan tanggung jawab terhadap yang lain. Buku Dussel ini akan memperkaya pandangan para dosen etika, yang pada umumnya terpaku pada sistem etika “Eropasentris.” (M. Sastrapratedja, Program Pascasarjana, Sekolah Tinggi Filsafat Driyarkara, Jakarta). (shrink)

Al aproximarse el cuadragésimo aniversario de la política oficial Canadienese de multiculturalidad, reexaminamos los cambios en las premisas, promesas y procesos de la educación multicultural. Si bien dicha política puede estar en crisis en un mundo repleto de medidas de seguridad post-11 de septiembre, o considerarse obsoleta en una norteamérica supuestamente “post-racial”, aún florece una “multiculturalidad de base” cuyo potencial no ha sido plenamente aprovechado, sobre todo en las relaciones vividas en los espacios urbanos. Al respecto presentamos el análisis (...) de una encuesta cuantitativa de 942 alumnos matriculados en los grados 10 y 11, en 10 escuelas ubicadas en contextos urbanos en 5 provincias de Canadá. El estudio ofrece una medida de su “literacidad multicultural,” identifica las lagunas y fortalezas de los programas de estudio, al mismo tiempo que demuestra que el conocimiento multicultural se ha nutrido informalmente, teniendo como fuente la familia o comunidad, o bien que se ha adquirido por medio de la cultura popular y los medios de comunicación. Nuestros hallazgos plantean la necesidad de proseguir con estudios cualitativos sobre el tema y sobre los cambios curriculares necesarios para deconstruir epistemologías autoritarias y eurocéntricas, y desarrollar enfoques inclusivos y pluralistas de una ciudadanía activa. (shrink)

Despite fundamental differences in the epistemologies presented by Oakeshott and Polanyi, there are some important areas of common concern which suggest further exploration. Focus here is on Oakeshott’s epistemological and disciplinary boundaries in his The Voice of Liberal Leaming.

On Human Conduct is composed of three connected essays. Each has its own concern: the first with theoretical understanding, and with human conduct in general; the second with an ideal mode of human relationship which the author has called civil association; and the third with that ambiguous, historic association commonly called a modern European state. Running through the work is Professor Oakshott's belief in philosophical reflection as an adventure: the adventure of one who seeks to understand in other terms what (...) he already understands, and where the understanding is sought is a disclosure of the conditions of the understanding enjoyed and not a substitute for it. Its most appropriate expression is an essay, which, he writes, 'does not dissemble the conditionality of the conclusions it throws up and although it may enlighten it does not instruct.'. (shrink)

Michael Oakeshott provides the best articulation of the widespread view that the moral foundations of the modern state limit it to the defense and maintenance of a system of formal rules governing individuals and non-state enterprises. While this understanding of the proper relation between individual and state has been challenged by liberals of a more Rawlsian persuasion, these criticisms have persuaded few to change their minds, as they rest upon assumptions that are plainly incompatible with the view under consideration. (...) I argue that, rightly understood, central and attractive features of Oakeshott’s own conception of understanding, philosophy, individuality, and education lead to significantly different conclusions than those embraced by Oakeshott himself. The “morality of individuality” upon which Oakeshott rests his strict restrictions on the use of state power requires that we be open to the use of that power to guarantee that all receive the education postulated by individuality. (shrink)

"Rationalism in Politics, " first published in 1962, has established the late Michael Oakeshott as the leading conservative political theorist in modern Britain. This expanded collection of essays astutely points out the limits of "reason" in rationalist politics.Oakeshott criticizes ideological schemes to reform society according to supposedly "scientific" or rationalistic principles that ignore the wealth and variety of human experience. "Rationalism in politics," says Oakeshott, "involves a misconception with regard to the nature of human knowledge." History has shown that (...) it produces unexpected, often disastrous results. "Having cut himself off from the traditional knowledge of his society, and denied the value of any education more extensive than a training in a technique of analysis," the Rationalist succeeds only in undermining the institutions that hold civilized society together. In this regard, rationalism in politics is "a corruption of the mind."Timothy Fuller is Professor of Political Science and Dean of the College at Colorado College. (shrink)

The English philosopher Michael Oakeshott is known as a conservative who rejected philosophically ambitious rationalism and the grand political ideologies of the twentieth century on the grounds that no human ideas have ultimately reliable foundations. Instead, he embraced tradition and habit as the guides to moral and political life. In this book, Aryeh Botwinick presents an original account of Oakeshott's skepticism about foundations, an account that newly reveals the unity of his thought. Botwinick argues that, despite Oakeshott's pragmatic conservatism, (...) his rejection of all-embracing intellectual projects made him a friend to liberal individualism and an ally of what would become postmodern antifoundationalism. Oakeshott's skepticism even extended paradoxically to skepticism about skepticism itself and is better described as a "generalized agnosticism." Properly conceived and translated, this agnosticism ultimately evolves into mysticism, which becomes a bridge linking philosophy and religion. Botwinick explains and develops this strategy of interpretation and then shows how it illuminates and unifies the diverse strands of Oakeshott's thought in the philosophy of religion, metaphysics, epistemology, political theory, philosophy of personal identity, philosophy of law, and philosophy of history. (shrink)

In this book Paul Franco provides an authoritative introduction to the life and thought of Michael Oakeshott, one of the most important philosophical voices of the twentieth century. After sketching a brief biography of Oakeshott, Franco then examines his most distinctive ideas, including his early idealist theory of knowledge, his influential critique of rationalism and central social planning, and his liberal theory of civil association. Though best known as a political philosopher, Oakeshott also made significant contributions to the philosophy (...) of history, aesthetics, the philosophy of religion, and the philosophy of education. Franco highlights Oakeshott’s impressive achievements in each of these areas. His book is an essential introduction to the whole range of Oakeshott’s thought, and it sets the philosopher’s work in historical context while also demonstrating its relevance to contemporary debates in political philosophy. (shrink)

This classic work is here published for the first time in paperback in recognition of its enduring importance. Its theme is Modality: human experience recognized as a variety of independent, self-consistent worlds of discourse, each the invention of human intelligence, but each also to be understood as abstract and an arrest in human experience. The theme is pursued in a consideration of the practical, the historical and the scientific modes of understanding.

This highly readable new collection of thirty pieces by Michael Oakeshott, almost all of which are previously unpublished, covers every decade of his intellectual career, and adds significantly to his contributions to the philosophy of historical understanding and political philosophy, as well as to the philosophy of education and aesthetics. The essays were intended mostly for lectures or seminars, and are consequently in an informal style that will be accessible to new readers as well as to those already well (...) acquainted with Oakeshott's works. Early pieces include a long essay ‘On the Relations of Philosophy, Poetry, and Reality', and Oakeshott’s comments on ‘The Cambridge School of Political Science’ through which he himself had passed as an undergraduate. The collection also reproduces a substantial wartime essay ‘On Peace with Germany’. There are two new essays on the philosophy of education, and the essay which gives the work its title, ‘What is History?’, is just one of over half a dozen discussions of the nature of historical knowledge. Oakeshott’s later sceptical, ‘hermeneutic’, thought is also well represented by pieces such as ‘What is Political Theory?’ and ‘The Emergence of the History of Thought.’ Reviews of books by English and European contemporaries such as Butterfield, Hayek, Voegelin, and Arendt also help to place him in context more clearly than before. The book will be indispensable for all Oakeshott’s readers, no matter which area of his thought concerns them most. (shrink)

Introduction to Leviathan.--The moral life in the writings of Thomas Hobbes.--Dr. Leo Strauss on Hobbes.--Leviathan: a myth.

Michael Oakeshott; Education: The Engagement and its Frustration, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 5, Issue 1, 30 May 2006, Pages 43–76, https://doi.o.

'The religious man will inherit nothing he cannot possess by actual insight... in place of an ideal of steady acquisition for some ulterior end in which, perhaps, he can never share, he will follow one which values it solely by its worth to present insight. And he will maintain a kind of candid detachment in the face of the very highest actual achievement.' -from 'Religion and the World'.

Michael Oakeshott; Education: The Engagement and its Frustration, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 5, Issue 1, 30 May 2006, Pages 43–76, https://doi.o.

During the Cold War, political thinkers in the West debated the balance between the requirements of liberal democracy and national security. This debate is relevant to East Asia and especially to Korea, where an ideological-military standoff between a democracy and a totalitarian system persists. The thinkers often identified as "Cold War liberals"--Isaiah Berlin, Karl Popper, Raymond Aron, Friedrich Hayek, and Michael Oakeshott--are worth revisiting in this context. Of these, Oakeshott is the least well understood in East Asia and therefore (...) particularly deserving of attention. His ideas about the limits of rationalism in politics, the irrelevance of conventional views of liberalism and conservatism, how constitutional democracy should be defined, and how it can be defended against various forms of anti-liberal politics are especially valuable. In this book, leading Oakeshott scholars from around the world explore these ideas and their implications for East Asia in ten illuminating and readable essays. (shrink)

Yale University Press is continuing to make available the best of these illuminating works.

In this paper, I reinterpret Michael Oakeshott’s idea of a liberal self through the conceptual framework of Foucault’s theory of the aesthetics of the self. Oakeshott believes that agents can create themselves as a “style” or a distinctive shape. This style is a “virtuosity,” an artistic achievement that is also an “excellence” in itself. Oakeshott’s liberal version of the aesthetics of the self is a new way to think about what Foucault’s argument might mean. Oakeshott’s theory is an internal (...) challenge to liberalism insofar as liberalism is purportedly a theory of individuality and the unalienable worth of each person; but for Oakeshott, this individuality pertains to the agent gaining a distinctive style, sustaining “distinctness,” not achieving “distinction.” Oakeshott draws our attention to how distinctness is undermined by the forces of conformity and “normality” in existing liberal society. I also argue that the purportedly “radical” social policy of the basic income, which, while in tension with parts of Oakeshott’s theory, provides all citizens the opportunity to enjoy his particular idea of the self. (shrink)

When it first appeared in 1933, Experience and its Modes was not considered a classic. But as philosophical fashion moved away from the analytic philosophy of the 1930s, this work began to seem ahead of its time. Arguing that experience is 'modal', in the sense that we always have a theoretical or practical perspective on the world, Michael Oakeshott explores the nature of philosophical experience and its relationship to three of the most important 'modes' of non-philosophical experience - science, (...) history and practice - seeking to establish the autonomy and superiority of philosophy. In recognition of its enduring importance, this book is presented in a fresh series livery for a new generation of readers, featuring a specially commissioned preface written by Paul Franco. (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)

This article investigates the liberal political implications of Michael Oakeshott’s political theory of civility and civil association by focusing on his judicious attempts to abate contingency. It argues that Oakeshott’s political theory can be best understood as ‘political pluralism’, aimed at the maximalist accommodation of abundant and fluctuating human pluralities, individual and associational. By reinterpreting Oakeshott as a defender of civil society, composed of numerous purposive associations, against state-imposed monism, it argues that in Oakeshott’s theory civil association is devised (...) to protect associational freedom, thereby keeping civil society as free as possible. It then discusses the distinctiveness of Oakeshott’s characteristically ‘liberal’ political theory by critically engaging it with two dominant strands of liberalism, namely, liberal pluralism and political liberalism. (shrink)

This article investigates the liberal political implications of Michael Oakeshott’s political theory of civility and civil association by focusing on his judicious attempts to abate contingency. It argues that Oakeshott’s political theory can be best understood as ‘political pluralism’, aimed at the maximalist accommodation of abundant and fluctuating human pluralities, individual and associational. By reinterpreting Oakeshott as a defender of civil society, composed of numerous purposive associations, against state-imposed monism, it argues that in Oakeshott’s theory civil association is devised (...) to protect associational freedom, thereby keeping civil society as free as possible. It then discusses the distinctiveness of Oakeshott’s characteristically ‘liberal’ political theory by critically engaging it with two dominant strands of liberalism, namely, liberal pluralism and political liberalism. (shrink)

Thomas Hobbes est le seul penseur de la tradition philosophique a qui le philosophe britannique Michael Oakeshott consacra entierement l'un de ses livres, un recueil d'essais et de conferences qu'il publia en 1975 sous le titre de Hobbes on Civil Association. A quoi tient l'importance decisive reconnue ainsi a l'oeuvre de Hobbes, et quel role particulier joua la pensee de Hobbes dans l'elaboration de la pensee de Oakeshott lui-meme? Le titre donne au recueil donne une indication precieuse. Tant d'un (...) point de vue philosophique que d'un point de vue historique, Oakeshott a en effet thematise a travers le concept d' association civile un mode d'association politique precis des hommes, celui dans lequel les individus sont lies par le respect de certaines regles et de certaines pratiques, mais non par une fin commune unique. C'est dans cette perspective que Oakeshott a pu opposer la nomocratie d'une societas a la teleocratie d'une universitas, c'est-a-dire d'un Etat qui se donnerait comme mission d'imposer un meme objectif a tous ses membres. La lecture que fait Oakeshott de Hobbes est ainsi tres clairement une lecture liberale: il comprend Hobbes comme un penseur du cadre formel d'une societas, et non pas d'une universitas, c'est-a-dire comme un penseur, precisement, de l' association civile. Afin de permettre l'evaluation d'une telle lecture, la traduction de l'ouvrage de Oakeshott, la premiere en langue francaise, est accompagnee de la traduction de cinq autres essais que l'auteur a consacres a Hobbes entre 1935 et 1974. (shrink)

Michael Oakeshott a contribué de manière décisive à la recherche sur Hobbes, sur l’historiographie et sur la pensée politique dans le monde moderne et contemporain. « Rationalism in Politics » , que l’on trouvera ici dans la traduction d’Olivier Sedeyn, est l’un des textes les plus représentatifs de sa pensée et, cela vaut la peine d’être ajouté, de son style..

Michael Oakeshott a contribué de manière décisive à la recherche sur Hobbes, sur l’historiographie et sur la pensée politique dans le monde moderne et contemporain. « Rationalism in Politics », que l’on trouvera ici dans la traduction d’Olivier Sedeyn, est l’un des textes les plus représentatifs de sa pensée et, cela vaut la peine d’être ajouté, de son style...

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)