quarta-feira, 8 de fevereiro de 2012

Michael Oakeshott, o filósofo moderno da tradição e a disposição conservadora

Do blog do Bruno Garschagen,



Três textos sobre Michael Oakeshott:

O primeiro, no Telegraph, por Noel Malcom:
Modern philosopher of traditionNoel Malcolm reviews Michael Oakeshott by Paul Franco
Asked to name the most important British political philosopher of the 20th century, most people with an interest in the field would probably hesitate for a while, and then come up with the name of Isaiah Berlin. Only a minority, I suspect, would nominate Michael Oakeshott; and yet, as time goes by, his claim to that title is arguably emerging as the stronger of the two.

(...) Oakeshott's famous defence of "tradition" as a basis for political life is shown to be not a piece of reactionary obscurantism (as his critics on the Left always claimed) but a subtle extension of his theory of man's social nature, exploring the ways in which social values can develop and change over time. Franco also explains how and why Oakeshott's later thinking moved away from this emphasis on tradition, towards a more formal analysis of the nature of freedom under the rule of law.
O segundo, na Spectator, por Andrew Sullivan:
Taking the world as it isMichael Oakeshott’s philosophy fits no ideological or party label – but there is no better case for conservatism
I met him only once. He lived at the end of his days in a tiny slate cottage near Langton Matravers on the Dorset coast. On a damp November day, he came to greet me at the gate to his small garden, made me a small lunch of cold meat, and then sat me down in front of a coal fire to talk. I was in awe; he seemed thrilled to have a Harvard doctoral student examining every word he had ever published. And at the time, in November 1989, his delight was understandable. Mine was only the second doctoral dissertation written about him, after he had spent six decades producing some of the finest philosophical writing of the 20th century. His writing had been marginalised by the academic establishment, relentlessly pummelled by the left, and ignored by most of those in the middle because he was always described as a ‘conservative political philosopher’, about as repellent a soubriquet as one could come up with in the upper regions of Anglo-American political science. John Rawls? A demigod. Michael Oakeshott? Who?
O terceiro, no iOnline, por João Carlos Espada:
Michael Oakeshott e a disposição conservadora
(...) Contrariamente ao racionalismo moderno, o conservador (de tipo britânico) terá um compromisso fundamental com a liberdade. Mas, diferentemente do liberalismo e do socialismo, esta defesa da liberdade não vai decorrer de uma doutrina ou de um sistema deduzidos a partir de premissas abstractas primeiras - como seria o caso da liberdade, no liberalismo, ou da igualdade, no socialismo.
A disposição conservadora nasce de um attachment e de uma disposição para usufruir aquilo que nos é familiar. E esse attachment não resulta da convicção de que o que nos é familiar é necessariamente "o melhor". Antes de mais, o nosso modo de vida é o nosso, aquele em que nos sentimos confortáveis, e que gostamos de usufruir, basicamente porque nos é familiar.

Nenhum comentário:

Postar um comentário

1. Seja polido;

2. Preze pela ortografia e gramática da sua língua-mãe.