What's your philosophy?

[libertango]

So, David Brooks is at it again.

(I know, I know... I just keep giving him ink. I should stop. But still.)

The Queen of Sheba is waxing rhapsodic.

"This is a good time of year to step back from daily events and commune with big thinkers, so I've been having a rather one-sided discussion about this whole Iraq business with Michael Oakeshott.

One of the most important philosophers of the 20th century, Oakeshott lived and died, in 1990, in England."

Let's leave aside what a mayfly career Oakeshott must have had to have both lived and died in 1990, yet still be so all-fired important -- I asked my resident former graduate in philosophy (who would be akirlu), "Does the name 'Michael Oakeshott' ring any bells with you?" I did that because I've become used to someone making a claim about how important their particular bug-a-boo is, and it turns out that in philosophical circles, they're little known, at best.

"Never heard of him."

I read Brooks' quote to her.

"Well... He's no A.J. Ayer. He's no Karl Popper."

It's gets better. Brooks goes on:

"As Andrew Sullivan, who did his dissertation on him..."

Hey, now there's a recommendation. Andrew Sullivan? Say no more, squire!

Next, Brooks will reveal... Your lover in Bolton!

Well, no. What he does is set Oakeshott up as a straw man, to say that Iraq and a Brave and Noble thing despite whatever Oakeshott would've said.

I'm not wholly sure why Brooks didn't just use his uncle Joe, instead.

Comments

[scottscidmore.livejournal.com]

Because Uncle Joe is still alive, and might argue back, and even win that argument?

Wish you'd "fair used" a bit more from the NYTimes, I can't remember my PW there and I don't know how many more 6 years old from Albania they'll let in.

tut tut

[groliffe.livejournal.com]

I'd have expected better of you. Your pet professional philosopher may not have heard of Oakeshott, but this amateur one has, and while I wouldn't have considered talking to Ayer or Popper (who to my knowledge are epistomologists) about the war in Iraq, Oakeshott - a historian and political philosopher seems to have some relevant expertise to the topic at hand.

Complain about the man being used as a straw man by all means, but spending nearly 20 lines belittling him and only 2 engaging with the argument at hand seems petty...

Re: tut tut

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

You misunderstand me. Easily done, I'm a terrible writer.

I wasn't belittling Oakeshott, as such. I'm sure he was fine fellow, with many good, interesting things to say.

What I was belittling was Brooks' insecurity, which is so deep he needed to label Oakeshott, "One of the most important philosophers of the 20th century." After all, he, David Brooks is writing about him, right? And Andrew Sullivan wrote his dissertation on him, right? This is someone important!

Oakeshott may well be important. But not for those reasons.

Had Brooks called Oakeshott a favorite philosopher, or an important philosopher, that would've been fine.

Re: tut tut

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

but spending nearly 20 lines belittling him and only 2 engaging with the argument at hand seems petty...

Not so much belittling him, but rather Brooks's claim of him as one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century. Not around these parts, squire. Not in the same league as Ayer and Popper. And no, I wouldn't characterize either as being particularly limited to epistemology. So there's the problem of Brooks doing a bit of grandiose appeal to authority in the process of building his strawman, which I suspect is what Hal was reacting to.

[supergee.livejournal.com]

David Brooks is a loathsome crawling thing, isn't he? The Times must have been desperately afraid that somebody would take that "liberal media" stuff seriously, or they wouldn't have hired him. I love the combination of demanding that the Democrats show their strength with self-destructive nomination wars and displaying his finer feelings with

Anybody who has several sexual partners in a year is committing spiritual suicide. He or she is ripping the veil from all that is private and delicate in oneself, and pulverizing it in an assembly line of selfish sensations.

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

I know. My problem is that I liked Brooks' book, Bobos in Paradise. I kind of want to like him as a columnist. But even given some of his positions, he expresses them in such an annoying way that he loses me.

It's not unlike Kirkpatrick Sale. I think Human Scale is a wonderful book, but in the intervening years Sale has just gone nuts.