The Politics of Faith and the Politics of Scepticism

by Michael Oakeshott, Timothy Fuller (Editor)

Michael Oakeshott, the foremost British political philosopher of the twentieth century, died in 1990, leaving a substantial collection of unpublished material. Yale University Press is continuing to make available the best of these illuminating works.

In this polished and hitherto unknown work, Oakeshott argues that modern politics was constituted out of a debate, persistent through centuries of European political experience down to our own day, over the question "What should governments do?" According to Oakeshott, two different answers have dominated our thought since the fifteenth century. One, exemplified by such thinkers as Rousseau and Marx, expresses a belief in the capacity of human beings to control, design, and monitor all aspects of social and political life, a belief fostered by the intoxicating increase in power available to governments in modern times. On the other hand, sceptics such as Montaigne, Pascal, and Hobbes argued that governments cannot, in principle, produce perfection and that we should prevent concentrations of power that may result in tyrannies that oppress the dignity of the human spirit. Oakeshott exposes the pitfalls of both positions and shows the value of a middle ground that incorporates scepticism with enough faith to avoid total quietism. Readers of Oakeshott will find here the thinking that lies behind his famous definition of politics as "the pursuit of intimations.".

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction

160 pages, Paperback

First published May 11, 1996

About the author

English philosopher and political theorist who wrote about philosophy of history, philosophy of religion, aesthetics, and philosophy of law. He is widely regarded as one of the most important conservative thinkers of the 20th century, although he has sometimes been characterized as a liberal thinker.
Oakeshott was dismayed by the descent into political extremism that took place in Europe in the 1930s, and his surviving lectures from this period reveal a dislike of National Socialism and Marxism.
In 1945, Oakeshott was demobilized and returned to Cambridge for two years. In 1947, he left Cambridge for Nuffield College, Oxford. After only a year, he secured an appointment as Professor of Political Science at the London School of Economics (LSE), succeeding Harold Laski. He was deeply unsympathetic to the student action at LSE that occurred in the late 1960s, on the grounds that it disrupted the aims of the university. Oakeshott retired from LSE in 1969.
Oakeshott refused an offer of Knighthood from Queen Elizabeth II, for which he was proposed by Margaret Thatcher.

Reviews

[KOP · Rating 5 out of 5]

todo mundo deveria ler oakeshott

[Lucas Magrini Rigo · Rating 3 out of 5]

Confesso que esperava mais do livro, dada a reputação do autor. Os conceitos dos dois modos de política apresentados são realmente interessantes e explicados com relativo sucesso, mas não gostei particularmente do modo como o autor escreve. Por exemplo, ele cita a política atual mas não sabe-se o ano referido, supõe-se a data de publicação (anos 90). Isso leva a outro problema que são os exemplos abstratos, em que o autor para explicar um conceito deseja dar exemplos mas não escolhe exemplos concretos. Por isso, achei o livro desnecessariamente longo, até mesmo por ter trechos repetidos.
O livro se salva com o posfácio, em que é retratada brevemente a vida e obras do autor e uma contextualização deste livro.

[Rutasel · Rating 3 out of 5]

While i think oakeshott makes some good analysis of these different political styles and i understand this is a theoretical book some examples wouldve given his Analysis some more grounding while also showing the limits of the Analysis as a tool to understand politics

[Mark Mills · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some interesting arguments but even for a work of political theory it's a bit abstract and prone to generalisation.

[Mariana Pietrini · Rating 5 out of 5]

Quisiera poder decir algo inteligente sobre un libro tan complejo e interesante, pero sólo puedo decir: ODIO LOS EXTREMOS DE LO QUE SEA. Nada en extremo sirve. Mucho menos posiciones políticas.