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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: tut tut
Date: 2003-12-27 10:13 pm (UTC)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.