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

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.