Podcasts about Michael Oakeshott

Send us a textThe full text of this podcast can be found in the transcript of this edition or at the following link:https://andrewjbrown.blogspot.com/2025/06/a-free-religious-reading-of-story-of.htmlPlease feel free to post any comments you have about this episode there.The Cambridge Unitarian Church's Sunday Service of Mindful Meditation can be found at this link:https://www.cambridgeunitarian.org/morning-service/ Music, "New Heaven", written by Andrew J. Brown and played by Chris Ingham (piano), Paul Higgs (trumpet), Russ Morgan (drums) and Andrew J. Brown (double bass) Thanks for listening. Just to note that the texts of all these podcasts are available on my blog. You'll also find there a brief biography, info about my career as a musician, & some photography. Feel free to drop by & say hello. Email: caute.brown[at]gmail.com

This conversation starts with fictional candidate Willy Stark, a favorite subject of our guest, Steve Ealy. Steve has written on how to read the Qur'an, the Federalist Papers and constitutional interpretation, the philosophers Jurgen Habermas, Michael Oakeshott, and Eric Voegelin, and the writers C. S. Lewis, Ralph Ellison, Fyodor Deostoevsky, James Fenimore Cooper, John Steinbeck, and Robert Penn Warren. He is currently working on a book-length study of Robert Penn Warren.  In other words, he is qualified to dicsuss Donald Trump in the perspective of history.  

At the 2024 New Polity conference, Matthew B. Crawford gave the keynote address in which he contrasted the view of man inherent in technocratic rationalism with that of a Christian view. Drawing from the work of Joseph Ratzinger and Michael Oakeshott, Crawford draws a distinction between an orientation toward receiving life as gift and cramped rationalism that views man as an object to be synthetically remade. The current push for technocratic control over every sphere of life collapses the vertical order of reality and aims to eliminate contingency, risk, and play. In contrast, one who affirms the inherent goodness of being is able to experience a real vitality of life in a meaningful world. Registration is open for the 2025 New Polity conference! Learn more and register at https://newpolity.com/events/2025

durée : 00:58:13 - Avec philosophie - par : Géraldine Muhlmann, Antoine Ravon - Le conservatisme britannique se distingue par une tradition singulière incarnée par Edmund Burke, penseur irlandais du 18e siècle. Quelle est exactement sa pensée ? Qui sont ses héritiers, Michael Oakeshott et Roger Scruton ? - réalisation : Nicolas Berger - invités : Françoise Orazi Maître de conférence en civilisation britannique à l'université Lumière Lyon-2; Laetitia Strauch-Bonart Journaliste, essayiste ; Philippe Raynaud Professeur émérite de science politique à l'université Panthéon-Assas, membre de l'Institut universitaire de France

To celebrate the 100th episode of Know Your Enemy, Matt and Sam decided to open up the mailbag and field listener questions—which, as always, proved to be incredibly intelligent and interesting, with topics ranging from what they've learned along the way to the politics of guns. Plus, past guests from the podcast stop by to offer their commentary on this auspicious occasion. Sources:John Lukacs, The Hitler of History (1997)— Confessions of an Original Sinner (1989)— A New History of the Cold War (1966)Michael Oakeshott, Notebooks, 1922-1986 (2014)Christopher Smart, "from Jubilate Agno," written between 1759-1763, published 1939...and don't forget to subscribe to Know Your Enemy on Patreon to listen to all of our bonus episodes!

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comElizabeth Corey is an academic and writer. She's an associate professor of political science in the Honors Program at Baylor University and the author of the 2006 book, Michael Oakeshott on Religion, Aesthetics, and Politics. She also writes for First Things and serves on the board of the Institute on Religion and Public Life. After many of you asked me to do a podcast on my intellectual mentor, we delve into the thinking and life of Michael Oakeshott — the philosopher I wrote my dissertation on.For two clips of our convo — on the genius who shirked fame, and my sole meeting with Oakeshott — pop over to our YouTube page. Other topics: Elizabeth born and raised in Baton Rouge; growing up to be a musician with Bill Evans as her idol; her father was an econ professor at LSU and part of the conservative intellectual movement; Baylor is a Christian school with thought diversity; Eric Voegelin; Hannah Arendt; Friedrich Hayek; how Elizabeth first stumbled upon Oakeshott; his critical view of careerism; living in the now; a championof liberal education; opposing the Straussians and their view of virtue; individualism above all; how he would be horrified by the identity politics of today; calling Augustine “the most remarkable man who ever lived”; Montaigne not far behind; the virtue of changing one's mind; how Oakeshott was very socially adept; conversation as a tennis match that no one wins; traveling without a destination; his bohemian nature; his sluttiness; Helen of Troy; early Christians; the Tower of Babel; civil association vs enterprise association; why Oakeshott was a Jesus Christian, not a Paul Christian; hating the Reformation and its iconoclasm; the difference between theology and religion; the joy of gambling being in the wager not the winning; the eternal undergraduate as a lost soul; politics as an uncertain sea that needs constant tacking; the mystery of craftsmanship; present laughter over utopian bliss; how following the news is a “nervous disorder”; why salvation is boring; how Oakeshott affected the lives of Elizabeth and myself; and the texts she recommends as an intro to his thought.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Tim Shipman on the UK elections, Erick Erickson on the left's spiritual crisis, Lionel Shriver on her new novel, Bill Wasik and Monica Murphy on animal cruelty, Van Jones, and Stephen Fry! Send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

Fusionism—the viewpoint advocated by the likes of William F. Buckley and Frank Meyer of order and liberty mutually reinforcing each other—has been the dominant form of conservatism in the United States for a generation.  In the era of Trump and the rise of nationalist populism on the Right, however, fusionism has steadily lost influence.  Should conservatives double down on what's worked in the past?  Or is it time for a different approach that was advocated by some of the original critics of fusionism on the Right?   Joining Saving Elephants host Josh Lewis is Jeffery Tyler Syck to argue for a conservative alternative to the fusionists and NatCons: humanist conservatism.  The humanist conservative is interested in preserving the diverse daily practices of human existence, as advocated by noteworthy thinkers like Michael Oakeshott, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Peter Viereck.  It's a quitter, more moderated form of conservatism that—Syck believes—could offer an antidote to the excess of the nationalist populous radicalism ascendant on the Right.   About Jeffery Tyler Syck From jtylersyck.com   Jeffery Tyler Syck is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Pikeville.   Tyler's academic research focuses on the development of American democracy and the history of political ideologies. He is the editor of the forthcoming book “A Republic of Virtue: The Political Essays of John Quincy Adams” and is completing a second book manuscript entitled “The Untold Origins of American Democracy.” This second book describes how the political debates between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson forever altered the republic created by the American founders – leaving behind an increasingly majoritarian democracy. His essays and articles on politics, philosophy, and history have appeared in several public facing publications including Law and Liberty, Persuasion, and the Louisville Courier-Journal. Tyler's academic work has recently been published in the journal Pietas.   A native of Pike County Kentucky, Tyler's political thought and writing are strongly shaped by the culture of Appalachia. With their tightly knit communities, the mountains of Appalachia have instilled in him a love of all things local. As such his writing most often advocates for a rejuvenation of local democracy and a renaissance of rural culture.   Tyler received a Doctor of Philosophy and Master of Arts in Government from the University of Virginia. He received a Bachelor of Arts in Government and History from Morehead State University where he graduated with honors.   You can follow Tyler on Twitter @tylersyck  

Torbjörn Tännsjö minns exakt när han blev konservativ. Här berättar han om detta ögonblick och prövar de grundläggande argumenten på samtida problem. Lyssna på alla avsnitt i Sveriges Radio Play. ESSÄ: Detta är en text där skribenten reflekterar över ett ämne eller ett verk. Åsikter som uttrycks är skribentens egna.Jag är filosof. Jag gillar idéer. Jag vill omfatta alla intressanta idéer. Ett problem är bara att de ibland är oförenliga. Och möter man två motsägande idéer är det förnuftigt att högst acceptera en av dem. Ibland finns ändå en utväg. Man kan hitta tolkningar, som gör att de ändå går ihop. Så är det för min del med de politiska ideologierna. Jag har länge varit socialist beträffande ekonomin och liberal beträffande individens förhållande till staten. Till sist blev jag också konservativ. Jag kan säga exakt då det inträffade. Jag kom att läsa den irlandsfödde tänkaren Edmund Burke som förklarade att om en uppfattning kunde ses som en fördom, så talade detta för och inte emot, den. Hur ofta hade jag inte avfärdat uppfattningar med att de var just fördomsfulla!Om konservatismen förstås som en vilja att hålla fast vid en företeelse som är väl etablerad, för att den är väl etablerad, så är konservatismen politiskt trolös. Det går lika bra att med konservativa argument försvara en socialistisk som en kapitalistisk ordning.Attityden att gilla det invanda håller vi oss alla med i högre eller lägre grad. Vissa tänkare har hävdat att konservatismens kärna bara är denna attityd. För en filosof är det ändå naturligt att tänka över om det kan finnas några bra argument för att hålla sig med den.Det mest rättframma argumentet för den konservativa attityden är att då vi lutar oss mot vanor, normer och traditioner, och intuitivt gör vårt bästa för att upprätthålla dem, underlättar det vår sociala koordination.Ta det enklast fallet. Vi har konventioner för hur man beter sig i trafiken. I vårt land har vi högertrafik. Det finns inga särskilda skäl för att köra till höger snarare än till vänster men det är viktigt att vi alla kör på samma sida. Alternativet vore att vi så snart vi möttes i trafiken var tvungna att finna en förhandlingslösning. Så mycket meningslös tidsspillan det skulle innebära.Burke hade ännu ett argument för att man ska hålla sig till det väl etablerade. En social evolution har valt ut överlägsna institutioner framför mindre lyckade sådana. Det var en djärv spekulation före Darwin och Spencer, men inte något som håller måttet. Vi vet idag att evolutionshistorien är fylld av återvändsgränder.Ska vi finna argument till stöd för rådande konventioner får vi i stället söka oss till en annan viktig konservativ tänkare, den skotske filosofen David Hume.Hume beskrev hur godtyckliga normer kunde lösa våra problem. Jag förväntar mig att du kör på höger sida av vägen, du förväntar dig att jag kör på höger sida, jag förväntar mig att du förväntar dig att jag kör på höger sida och så vidare. Här uppstår spontant en jämvikt. Har vi hamnat i en sådan tjänar var och en på att hålla fast vid normen.Ibland utgör normen den optimala lösningen på ett koordinationsproblem. Den jämvikt vi hamnat i är den bästa vi kan uppnå. Men ofta finns flera möjliga normer. Vi kan ha hamnat i en jämvikt som orättvist gynnar vissa eller i värsta fall är dålig för oss alla. Men då det är en jämvikt är vi inlåsta i den. Individuellt kan vi inte bryta oss loss. Försöker vi göra det uppnår vi i stället för ett bättre tillstånd bara kaos och elände.Går det ändå inte att göra något? Kanske, men i så fall med försiktiga medel. Det gäller att utmana den problematiska konventionen utan att allt spårar ur. Konservatismen motsätter sig djärva brott i form av revolutioner — dess motsats är radikalismen — men den godtar reformer. Övergången från vänstertrafik var en smal sak. Det kan vara svårare att göra upp med inbyggda tendenser i ett ekonomiskt system att gynna de rika och missgynna de fattiga. Ändå är det kanske möjligt, med en försiktig reformpolitik. I så fall finns inget från konservatismens sida att invända. Också genom gradvisa och planmässiga förändringar kan stor skillnad göras. Man kan nog säga att allmän och lika rösträtt i vårt land infördes på ett för konservatismens acceptabelt sätt och det innebar att vi undgick en allvarlig och blodig revolution. Det finns emellertid en speciell form av konservatism, som riktar sig mot hela idén om planmässig samhällsförbättring. Främste företrädaren för synsättet var den brittiske filosofen Michael Oakeshott. Vi bör avstå ifrån försök att formulera problem, tillsätta utredningar som klargör alternativen, för att utvärdera deras konsekvenser och satsa på den optimala lösningen, hävdade han. I stället bör vi hantera problem som de uppkommer, intuitivt och på traditionellt vis. Traditionalism i stället för rationalism, som han uttryckte det.Oakeshott gick för långt då han avvisade tanken om att hantera problem systematiskt. Vi bör försöka förstå vilka alternativ vi står inför och vad än Oakeshott säger räkna på dem. Fast hur ska vi räkna? Om vi ändå vill utföra den kalkyl Oakeshott ogillade, så väljer vi, om vi är konservativa, försiktiga räknesätt. Det gäller att ta det varligt och avstå ifrån att sikta på maximering av den förväntade nyttan om detta framstår som riskfyllt.Ryssland angriper Ukraina. Vi måste i grunden ändra vår utrikespolitik, säger radikalen. Vi behöver USA:s kärnvapenparaply för att vara säkra. Vi går med i NATO.Men Sovjet angrep Ungern 1956 och Tjeckoslovakien 1968. Traditionellt har vi sökt säkerhet i alliansfrihet och vi har försökt ge ett litet bidrag till ökad säkerhet i världen från den positionen. Så gjorde Erlander, så gjorde Olof Palme. Hade det inte varit bäst att hålla fast vid den traditionen, säger den konservative. Och tillägger: blev vi verkligen säkrare under USA:s kärnvapenparaply?Rationalisten hävdar att om man försöker maximera den förväntade nyttan så går det troligen bra på lång sikt. Men tänk om vi har otur och det förväntat bästa alternativet faktiskt innebär att det inte blir någon lång sikt?Tänk om Ryssland angriper Gotland. Ryssland spekulerar i att USA ska svika. Kanske går det så och Ryssland tar Gotland. Eller ännu värre, tänk om USA verkligen svarar som förväntat på angreppet och initierar ett kärnvapenkrig som gör slut på oss alla. Är detta en risk värd att ta?Sannolikt är vi kanske säkrare i NATO, men motiverar den förväntande säkerheten att vi sätter allt på spel? Nej, det är för riskfyllt att satsa på något som sannolikt kommer att gå bra, men som kan ända i katastrof om vi har otur.Så ser en försiktig konservativ kritik av radikal rationalism ut.Jag har hänvisat till Edmund Burke, David Hume och Michael Oakeshott. Idel döda gubbar. Var finns gummorna? Inte i den konservativa traditionen. Det finns ingen konservatismens Rosa Luxemburg eller Mary Wollstonecraft.Ligger detta i konservatismens natur? Det är en fråga som bör oroa varje anhängare av läran.Torbjörn Tännsjöfilosof och författare

To lead into the next season of Enduring Interest, we're re-releasing our first two seasons, covering totalitarianism and ideology and liberal education.  We'll be back on September 8 with a new season covering free speech and censorship. This episode concludes our series on liberal education. We have three of our previous guests in the series back to discuss some common themes in the work of Leo Strauss, Michael Oakeshott and Hannah Arendt. We have Michael and Catherine Zuckert, Rita Koganzon, and Elizabeth Corey all returning to the podcast for the discussion. Topics include the place of reverence and tradition in liberal education, the authority of the teacher, and the purpose or purposes of liberal education. See our previous episodes for the bios of these guests.

To lead into the next season of Enduring Interest, we're re-releasing our first two seasons, covering totalitarianism and ideology and liberal education.  We'll be back on September 8 with a new season covering free speech and censorship. This month our subject is Michael Oakeshott. We discuss two essays in particular: “A Place of Learning” and “Learning and Teaching.” Both essays can be found in the volume The Voice of Liberal Learning. Our guest is Elizabeth Corey of Baylor University. Elizabeth begins by providing a brief intellectual biography of Oakeshott. The bulk of our conversation takes up Oakeshott's conception of liberal learning. He argues it is neither the acquisition of cultural knowledge or information nor the improvement of the mind. It is rather “learning to recognize some specific invitations to encounter particular adventures in human self-understanding.” Elizabeth and I discuss the distinctiveness of Oakeshott's vision as well as his understanding of the primary challenges to liberal learning. We unpack Oakeshott's meditation of the teacher-student relationship and end with a discussion of Oakeshott's conservatism. Elizabeth is an associate professor of Political Science at Baylor University, in Waco, Texas. Her writing has appeared in a variety of popular and scholarly journals, including First Things, National Affairs and The Wall Street Journal, and The Chronicle of Higher Education. She received a bachelor's in Classics from Oberlin College, and master's and doctoral degrees in Art History and Political Science from Louisiana State University. She serves on the Board of Directors of the Institute on Religion and Public Life, publisher of First Things. She is also an American Enterprise Faith and Public Life Visiting Professor during the year 2022.

Three weeks ago, one-time Know Your Enemy guest and “frenemy” of the show Nate Hochman was fired from Ron DeSantis's presidential campaign for his role in producing a campaign video featuring a Nazi “sonnenrad” symbol. (You may have read about it!) Unsurprisingly, the Hochman affair inspired some soul-searching on the part of your podcast hosts: had we inadvertently exposed our audience to a neo-nazi? Was our original December 2021 interview insufficiently combative — or too credulous (as many of our most vigilant listeners have suggested)? Were we naive about the value of welcoming young conservatives on the show? And, perhaps most illuminatingly, what can Hochman's trajectory (from Never-Trump conservative and Michael Oakeshott fan to disgraced DeSantis speechwriter) tell us about the young right today?After all, Hochman was not alone. A few weeks before the Hochman affair, DeSantis influencer and Chronicles magazine editor Pedro Gonzalez was exposed for expressing virulent anti-Semitic sentiments in private group chats in 2019. And most recently, Huffington Post reported that Richard Hanania, another young conservative — a darling of Silicon Valley reactionaries and a frequent interlocutor with centrist pundits on Twitter — had lived a previous life as an alt-right white supremacist and misogynist.In this episode, we ask (not for the first time): what exactly is going on with young conservatives? Has the wall between mainstream conservatism and unacceptably hard-right sentiments completely broken down? Was it ever there? Or has it only become more porous in the age of Twitter, Telegram, and online anonymity? Did the alt-right of 2016, with its Pepe memes and winking fascist apologia, ever go away? Or did it merely merge, seamlessly, with today's young right, turning an entire generation of GOP operatives into half-ironic racists, neofascists, and violent homophobes? Further Reading:Michelle Goldberg, “The Radicalization of the Young Right,” NYTimes, July 31, 2023.“Young, Radical, and on the Right, with Nate Hochman,” KYE, Dec 16, 2021."How Euphemisms Muddy Our Political Conversations," On the Media (WNYC), Jan 21, 2022David Weigel and Shelby Talcott, “‘This belongs in the Smithsonian': Inside the meme video operation that swallowed Ron DeSantis' campaign,” Aug 1, 2023.Sam Adler-Bell, “The Radical Young Intellectuals Who Want to Take Over the American Right,” The New Republic, Dec 2, 2021.Michael Oakeshott, “On Being Conservative,” from Rationalism in politics and other essays, 1962.John Ganz, “They're All Like That,” Unpopular Front, Aug 6, 2023.Jordan Nixon-Hamilton, “‘F**k This President': More Messages Show Pro-DeSantis Influencer Pedro Gonzalez Turned on Trump in 2019,” Breitbart, Aug 1, 2023.Christopher Mathias, “Richard Hanania, Rising Right-Wing Star, Wrote For White Supremacist Sites Under Pseudonym,” Huffington Post, Aug 4, 2023.

The full text of this podcast can be found in the transcript of this edition or at the following link:https://andrewjbrown.blogspot.com/2023/05/unplanned-obsolescence-and-how-perhaps.htmlPlease feel to post any comments you have about this episode there.A collection of Tenko-san's writings in English can be found in his book, “New Road to Ancient Truth” Ittōen: The Myths and Rituals of Liminality. Parts I-IIIAuthor(s): Winston DavisSource: History of Religions , May, 1975, Vol. 14, No. 4 (May, 1975), pp. 282-321 Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1062047Ittōen: The Myths and Rituals of Liminality. Parts IV-VIAuthor(s): Winston DavisSource: History of Religions , Aug., 1975, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Aug., 1975), pp. 1-33 Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1061853Music, "New Heaven", written by Andrew J. Brown and played by Chris Ingham (piano), Paul Higgs (trumpet), Russ Morgan (drums) and Andrew J. Brown (double bass) Thanks for listening. Just to note that all the texts of these podcasts are available on my blog. You'll also find there a brief biography, info about my career as a musician, & some photography. Feel free to drop by & say hello. Email: caute.brown[at]gmail.com

An audio excerpt from M. Allen Cunningham's talk "Reading, Seeing, and Self-Forgetting," delivered recently in an undergraduate creative writing course. Cunningham considers what a creative writing course can and cannot achieve, and explores the imaginative value of honing one's perceptions by "going beyond the edges" of one's own identity, perspectives, imagination, and discipline. One springboard for this lecture is Ali Smith's Artful, an assigned book for this course Other touchpoints include Rainer Maria Rilke, Paul Cezanne, Harold Bloom, C.S. Lewis, Nabokov, Virginia Woolf, James Baldwin, Michael Oakeshott, and Lynda Barry. (NB: Cunningham's particular discussion of Rilke originates with Letters on Cezanne, edited by Joel Agee, and draws on the observations in Agee's introduction to that book.)Visit www.MAllenCunningham.com to learn more about Cunningham's work as a writer, teacher, and publisher. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comJohn Gray is a political philosopher. He retired from academia in 2007 as Professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics, and is now a regular contributor and lead reviewer at the New Statesman. His forthcoming book is The New Leviathans: Thoughts After Liberalism. I regard him as one of the great minds of our time, and this is one of my favorite pods ever. For two clips of our convo — how smug liberalism led to Trump and Brexit, and why we shouldn't treat religion as intellectual error — pop over to our YouTube page. Other topics: the Judeo-Christian roots of liberalism; why Catholics never supported eugenics; the genius and licentious life of Michael Oakeshott; how Thatcherism and Reaganism turned into “inverted Marxism”; John's loathing of the “indifference to economic casualties” (e.g. Hillary's “deplorables”); his opposition to Fukuyama; Blair and the Iraq War; the liberal case for border control; the dangers of producing too many elites; Silicon Valley's obsession with eternal life; anti-wokeness in France; how Trump predicted Germany's bind over Russian energy; the disintegrating support for the war in Ukraine; reporting on the Holodomor; Fox News and Dominion; and how the gains of Western civilization could ultimately be saved by non-Westerners.Next week is Cathy Young to discuss Ukraine and what do to about CRT in public schools. Browse the Dishcast archives for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 episodes are free in their entirety). If you missed last week's transcript with Glenn Loury, it's here for the reading.

Neste episódio, conversamos com Felipe Kantor, mestrando da FEUSP, que nos fala sobre sua pesquisa: a educação liberal segundo Michael Oakeshott (1901-1990), pensador inglês do século XX.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comAurelian is a political scientist and professor at Indiana University in Bloomington. His two most recent books are A Virtue for Courageous Minds: Moderation in French Political Thought and Faces of Moderation: The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes. His forthcoming book is Why Not Moderation?: Letters to Young Radicals. If you think you know what moderation is, Aurelian will surprise you. Not mushy; not vague; not the median: it's a political temperament and philosophy with its own distinctive heritage. We talk of Raymond Aron and George Orwell, Albert Camus and Michael Oakeshott, Isaiah Berlin and Adam Michnik. And why we need these kinds of thinkers today.For two clips of our convo — on whether the right or left is more of a threat to moderates, and why moderates oppose the notion of salvation — pop over to our YouTube page. Other topics: Aurelian growing up in communist Romania near Ukraine; his five key principles of moderation; the French philosopher Raymond Aron and his rivalry with Sartre; Camus and Orwell as men of the left whom leftists hated; Isaiah Berlin and pluralism; Tocqueville, Judith Shklar, and Montaigne; relativism vs. skepticism; Keynes, and how liberty and equality are not incompatible; Machiavelli and the role of luck in politics; Oakeshott, politics as the art of improvisation; Adam Michnik's courage in dark times; Plato on when moderation is not a good thing; MLK's critique of moderates, Flight 93 elections, the Benedict Option, the cancel culture of the right, Oscar Wilde and the need for relaxed humor in politics. Yes, it was a lot. But we had a lot of fun as well.

By examining the writings of twentieth-century thinkers such as Raymond Aron, Isaiah Berlin, Norberto Bobbio, Michael Oakeshott, and Adam Michnik, Prof. Aurelian Craiutu's Faces of Moderation: The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes (U Pennsylvania Press, 2017) argues that moderation remains crucial for today's encounters with new forms of extremism. In his interview with an old friend, Craiutu candidly talks about his scholarly trajectory from Romania to Indiana at Bloomington, his momentous encounter with the works of de Tocqueville and his long-time friendship with Romanian philosopher Mihai Sora, as well as the ways in which the virtue of moderation can instill civility, respect and dialogue in politics and daily life. The interview also anticipates another book on moderation he will publish later this year with Cambridge University Press. Lavinia Stan is a professor of political science at St. Francis Xavier University in Canada. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

By examining the writings of twentieth-century thinkers such as Raymond Aron, Isaiah Berlin, Norberto Bobbio, Michael Oakeshott, and Adam Michnik, Prof. Aurelian Craiutu's Faces of Moderation: The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes (U Pennsylvania Press, 2017) argues that moderation remains crucial for today's encounters with new forms of extremism. In his interview with an old friend, Craiutu candidly talks about his scholarly trajectory from Romania to Indiana at Bloomington, his momentous encounter with the works of de Tocqueville and his long-time friendship with Romanian philosopher Mihai Sora, as well as the ways in which the virtue of moderation can instill civility, respect and dialogue in politics and daily life. The interview also anticipates another book on moderation he will publish later this year with Cambridge University Press. Lavinia Stan is a professor of political science at St. Francis Xavier University in Canada. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

By examining the writings of twentieth-century thinkers such as Raymond Aron, Isaiah Berlin, Norberto Bobbio, Michael Oakeshott, and Adam Michnik, Prof. Aurelian Craiutu's Faces of Moderation: The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes (U Pennsylvania Press, 2017) argues that moderation remains crucial for today's encounters with new forms of extremism. In his interview with an old friend, Craiutu candidly talks about his scholarly trajectory from Romania to Indiana at Bloomington, his momentous encounter with the works of de Tocqueville and his long-time friendship with Romanian philosopher Mihai Sora, as well as the ways in which the virtue of moderation can instill civility, respect and dialogue in politics and daily life. The interview also anticipates another book on moderation he will publish later this year with Cambridge University Press. Lavinia Stan is a professor of political science at St. Francis Xavier University in Canada. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

In this episode, Peter Boghossian interviews Carl Benjamin. This is what Peter said about the discussion:Carl Benjamin, AKA "Sargon of Akkad," is best described as a free-speech activist, staunch critic of identity politics, and champion of English Liberalism.  When YouTube and Google shadowbanned his channel in 2019 for wrongthink, Carl continued creating content on Akkad Daily. In November 2020, he launched a new media venture: Lotuseaters.com.Carl and I have fundamental differences about our core principles, but we are able to explore these differences constructively. Carl challenged my views and I find his take on social and cultural issues to be insightful, refreshing, and unhindered by moral fashions. We discussed myriad topics over more than two hours; I'm sharing the most interesting segment, where the issue of national sovereignty sparks a deep inquiry into the value of rationality, the possibility of “moral facts,” the attainment of objective universal principles, and the possible pitfall of a doctrine of human rights. I hope you enjoy this conversation as much as I did.For further reading on ideas discussed, check out Michael Oakeshott, John Rawls, Richard Rorty, J. L. Mackie, Jürgen Habermas, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Michael Shermer.You can watch this conversation on YouTube.

All Souls College Oxford was one of the meeting points of English public intellectuals in the twentieth century. Its Fellows prided themselves on agreeing in everything except their opinions. They included Cabinet Ministers from all the three major parties, and academics of diverse political allegiances, who met for frank conversations and lively disagreements. Davenport-Hines investigates historic strands of conservative thought: aversion to rapid and disruptive change, mistrust of majority opinions, prizing of community loyalties and pride over the assertion of aggressive individualism, the recession of the Church of England, and the impact of militarism. Conservative Thinkers from All Souls College Oxford (Boydell & Brewer, 2022) draws on the ideas of two conservative thinkers, 'Trimmer' Halifax and Michael Oakeshott, to examine the conservative assumptions, ideas, writings and influence of seven Fellows of All Souls from the last century. Their brands of conservatism regarded popular democracy as an unavoidable necessity which must be managed rather than loved. Their scepticism about the rule of the people was rooted in a meritocratic commitment to the government of the wise. They disliked plutocracy, regretted consumerism, and loathed sloppy and self-serving thought. All were more or less dissatisfied with the workings of the Westminster parliamentary model. Charles Coutinho, PH. D., Associate Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, received his doctorate from New York University. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. He has written for Chatham House's International Affairs, the Institute of Historical Research's Reviews in History and the University of Rouen's online periodical Cercles. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

All Souls College Oxford was one of the meeting points of English public intellectuals in the twentieth century. Its Fellows prided themselves on agreeing in everything except their opinions. They included Cabinet Ministers from all the three major parties, and academics of diverse political allegiances, who met for frank conversations and lively disagreements. Davenport-Hines investigates historic strands of conservative thought: aversion to rapid and disruptive change, mistrust of majority opinions, prizing of community loyalties and pride over the assertion of aggressive individualism, the recession of the Church of England, and the impact of militarism. Conservative Thinkers from All Souls College Oxford (Boydell & Brewer, 2022) draws on the ideas of two conservative thinkers, 'Trimmer' Halifax and Michael Oakeshott, to examine the conservative assumptions, ideas, writings and influence of seven Fellows of All Souls from the last century. Their brands of conservatism regarded popular democracy as an unavoidable necessity which must be managed rather than loved. Their scepticism about the rule of the people was rooted in a meritocratic commitment to the government of the wise. They disliked plutocracy, regretted consumerism, and loathed sloppy and self-serving thought. All were more or less dissatisfied with the workings of the Westminster parliamentary model. Charles Coutinho, PH. D., Associate Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, received his doctorate from New York University. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. He has written for Chatham House's International Affairs, the Institute of Historical Research's Reviews in History and the University of Rouen's online periodical Cercles. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

All Souls College Oxford was one of the meeting points of English public intellectuals in the twentieth century. Its Fellows prided themselves on agreeing in everything except their opinions. They included Cabinet Ministers from all the three major parties, and academics of diverse political allegiances, who met for frank conversations and lively disagreements. Davenport-Hines investigates historic strands of conservative thought: aversion to rapid and disruptive change, mistrust of majority opinions, prizing of community loyalties and pride over the assertion of aggressive individualism, the recession of the Church of England, and the impact of militarism. Conservative Thinkers from All Souls College Oxford (Boydell & Brewer, 2022) draws on the ideas of two conservative thinkers, 'Trimmer' Halifax and Michael Oakeshott, to examine the conservative assumptions, ideas, writings and influence of seven Fellows of All Souls from the last century. Their brands of conservatism regarded popular democracy as an unavoidable necessity which must be managed rather than loved. Their scepticism about the rule of the people was rooted in a meritocratic commitment to the government of the wise. They disliked plutocracy, regretted consumerism, and loathed sloppy and self-serving thought. All were more or less dissatisfied with the workings of the Westminster parliamentary model. Charles Coutinho, PH. D., Associate Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, received his doctorate from New York University. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. He has written for Chatham House's International Affairs, the Institute of Historical Research's Reviews in History and the University of Rouen's online periodical Cercles. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

All Souls College Oxford was one of the meeting points of English public intellectuals in the twentieth century. Its Fellows prided themselves on agreeing in everything except their opinions. They included Cabinet Ministers from all the three major parties, and academics of diverse political allegiances, who met for frank conversations and lively disagreements. Davenport-Hines investigates historic strands of conservative thought: aversion to rapid and disruptive change, mistrust of majority opinions, prizing of community loyalties and pride over the assertion of aggressive individualism, the recession of the Church of England, and the impact of militarism. Conservative Thinkers from All Souls College Oxford (Boydell & Brewer, 2022) draws on the ideas of two conservative thinkers, 'Trimmer' Halifax and Michael Oakeshott, to examine the conservative assumptions, ideas, writings and influence of seven Fellows of All Souls from the last century. Their brands of conservatism regarded popular democracy as an unavoidable necessity which must be managed rather than loved. Their scepticism about the rule of the people was rooted in a meritocratic commitment to the government of the wise. They disliked plutocracy, regretted consumerism, and loathed sloppy and self-serving thought. All were more or less dissatisfied with the workings of the Westminster parliamentary model. Charles Coutinho, PH. D., Associate Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, received his doctorate from New York University. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. He has written for Chatham House's International Affairs, the Institute of Historical Research's Reviews in History and the University of Rouen's online periodical Cercles. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies

All Souls College Oxford was one of the meeting points of English public intellectuals in the twentieth century. Its Fellows prided themselves on agreeing in everything except their opinions. They included Cabinet Ministers from all the three major parties, and academics of diverse political allegiances, who met for frank conversations and lively disagreements. Davenport-Hines investigates historic strands of conservative thought: aversion to rapid and disruptive change, mistrust of majority opinions, prizing of community loyalties and pride over the assertion of aggressive individualism, the recession of the Church of England, and the impact of militarism. Conservative Thinkers from All Souls College Oxford (Boydell & Brewer, 2022) draws on the ideas of two conservative thinkers, 'Trimmer' Halifax and Michael Oakeshott, to examine the conservative assumptions, ideas, writings and influence of seven Fellows of All Souls from the last century. Their brands of conservatism regarded popular democracy as an unavoidable necessity which must be managed rather than loved. Their scepticism about the rule of the people was rooted in a meritocratic commitment to the government of the wise. They disliked plutocracy, regretted consumerism, and loathed sloppy and self-serving thought. All were more or less dissatisfied with the workings of the Westminster parliamentary model. Charles Coutinho, PH. D., Associate Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, received his doctorate from New York University. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. He has written for Chatham House's International Affairs, the Institute of Historical Research's Reviews in History and the University of Rouen's online periodical Cercles. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

All Souls College Oxford was one of the meeting points of English public intellectuals in the twentieth century. Its Fellows prided themselves on agreeing in everything except their opinions. They included Cabinet Ministers from all the three major parties, and academics of diverse political allegiances, who met for frank conversations and lively disagreements. Davenport-Hines investigates historic strands of conservative thought: aversion to rapid and disruptive change, mistrust of majority opinions, prizing of community loyalties and pride over the assertion of aggressive individualism, the recession of the Church of England, and the impact of militarism. Conservative Thinkers from All Souls College Oxford (Boydell & Brewer, 2022) draws on the ideas of two conservative thinkers, 'Trimmer' Halifax and Michael Oakeshott, to examine the conservative assumptions, ideas, writings and influence of seven Fellows of All Souls from the last century. Their brands of conservatism regarded popular democracy as an unavoidable necessity which must be managed rather than loved. Their scepticism about the rule of the people was rooted in a meritocratic commitment to the government of the wise. They disliked plutocracy, regretted consumerism, and loathed sloppy and self-serving thought. All were more or less dissatisfied with the workings of the Westminster parliamentary model. Charles Coutinho, PH. D., Associate Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, received his doctorate from New York University. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. He has written for Chatham House's International Affairs, the Institute of Historical Research's Reviews in History and the University of Rouen's online periodical Cercles. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/british-studies

The Brian D. O'Leary Show November 28, 2022   We delve back into the November 2022 issue of Chronicles. Daniel McCarthy has an essay on Michael Oakeshott, the 20th century British conservative thinker. Mark G. Brennan recalls most Americans only familiarity with Albania. Roger McGrath writes of the California water crisis. https://chroniclesmagazine.org/ If you think your ideas are worth talking about…and they are, believe me…join us over at Substack and start your own page. Write a newsletter or do a podcast or just hang out and post things occasionally when the mood strikes. https://substack.com/refer/briandoleary   Follow us on Twitter @BrianDOLeary . An archive of all our audio and video content starting from summer 2022 is at Odysee. Please join us over there. Go to BrianDOLeary.com for more information.

In this rich conversation, Elizabeth Corey introduces us to the thought of Michael Oakeshott and what we can learn from him about being human and the practice of liberal education. Oakeshott's unique voice is needed more than ever and touches not only the life of liberal learning but on almost every sphere of human flourishing. Elizabeth Corey, Michael Oakeshott on Religion, Aesthetics, and Politics Elizabeth Corey, “Michael Oakeshott's Conservative Disposition” Elizabeth Corey, “No Happy Harmony” A.G. Sertillanges, The Intellectual Life: Its Spirit, Conditions, Methods Pieper, Leisure the Basis of Culture John Paul II, Laborem exercens

Ed Smith played cricket for Kent, Middlesex (as captain) and England, was an incisive commentator on Test Match Special and was England's Chief Selector from 2018 to 2021. In that role, he drew on learning from many different fields as well as those of cricket, as he reveals in his recent polymathic book, Making Decisions. He is the latest guest of Peter Oborne and Richard Heller in their cricket-themed podcast. Ed begins by describing his childhood training for the post of Chief Selector, in role play in the classic game of Owzat. He suggests that selecting is simultaneously highly complex and highly democratic: all cricket-lovers have views, if not votes, and never hesitate to express them. Social media have opened up new and often unusual perspectives on selection and strategy.Current form and a past record in county cricket were once the sole basis of selection of England's international players, but he and his panel looked at other factors as well. He suggests that the gulf in playing standards has widened between county and international cricket. The dramatic and successful selection of Jofra Archer for the 2019 World Cup was based on IPL evidence.  IPL games are not only highly competitive but rich in detailed televised data.He cites some players who made inauspicious starts in international cricket but whose evident quality demanded their retention, especially Jos Buttler in England's one-day cricket. Selectors face a constant dilemma of when to over-ride data and rely on their personal assessments of players, as Duncan Fletcher had done with Marcus Trescothick and Michael Vaughan. Decision-makers who always play safe and follow conventional wisdom never add value to the decision process – and not only in cricket. Although cricket has no transfer market, like football and other sports, it is still imperative for selectors to find undervalued players (by reputation) and offload overvalued ones.He cites the guidance of the conservative philosopher Michael Oakeshott on how to choose among the runners in the Derby and other classic horse races: “there are no precise rules for selecting the winner and some intelligence not supplied by the rules themselves is necessary.” Scientific systems can filter out obvious losers, but human judgement is needed to identify the attributes of a winner.  Sam Curran would never have been selected by scientific algorithm: he was picked after a human assessment of his personality and his ability to add variety and enhance team performance.He argues strongly that selection must always aim to create the best possible team from the resources available for the contests ahead. The team's needs will sometimes entail omitting a fine individual player and giving a long run to players whose figures appear unexceptional: he gives three examples of this by his panel. In T20 cricket it is especially important to get the maximum value from the best batter in a limited span of overs and to surround him or her with the players that contribute the most to achieving this. A strong team culture will overcome the disappointment of the individuals passed over for particular matches and remove their fear of being discarded and forgotten.Read the full description here: https://chiswickcalendar.co.uk/episode-105-a-select-offering-from-ed-smith/Get in contact by emailing obornehellercricket@outlook.com

"Essere conservatori significa essere adeguati alla propria fortuna, vivere all'altezza dei propri mezzi, essere soddisfatti della mancanza di maggiore perfezione sia per quanto concerne se stessi sia per quanto concerne la propria condizione. “ Oakeshott, Razionalismo in politicaMichael Oakeshott, nato l'11 dicembre 1901 a Chelsfield, fu un filosofo politico… del tutto peculiare. Conservatore per nulla ombroso, appassionato di corse di cavalli e tutt'altro che monogamo, guarda alla tradizione politica continentale da un punto di vista serenamente britannico. Grande studioso di Hobbes, il suo conservatorismo è una inclinazione, un atteggiamento pre-politico prima ancora di una filosofia. In esso, vi è un forte scetticismo politico riguardo le pretese della politica e dello Stato di reinventare la società. Nei suoi lavori, Oakeshott critica la corrente del razionalismo che limita la conoscenza a quella scientifica e teorica senza dare importanza alla pratica e all'esperienza, da cui scaturisce l'ambizione della politica a perseguire una società perfetta ed irrealizzabile anziché puntare a migliorare quella già presente. La sua è una visione della politica come attività strettamente limitata, circoscritta, che non desidera reinventare i modi di vivere degli uomini.Protagonista:Lisa KinspergherOspite:Giovanni Giorgini, professore ordinario di storia delle dottrine politiche presso l'Università di Bologna e Adjunct Professor presso la Columbia UniversityConsigli di Lettura- “Razionalismo in Politica altri Saggi” ([1962], 2020) di Michael Oakeshott, IBLLibrihttps://www.brunoleoni.it/razionalismo-in-politica-e-altri-saggi- “La Politica Moderna tra Scetticismo e Fede” ([1996], 2013) di Michael Oakeshott, Rubbettino Editorehttps://www.store.rubbettinoeditore.it/catalogo/la-politica-moderna-tra-scetticismo-e-fede/- “La Condotta Umana” (1985) di Michael Oakeshott, Il Mulinohttps://www.libreriauniversitaria.it/condotta-umana-oakeshott-michael-mulino/libro/9788815008558- “Lezioni di Storia del Pensiero Politico” (2022) di Michael Oakeshott, Jouvencehttps://www.amazon.it/Lezioni-storia-del-pensiero-politico/dp/8878018562 Per saperne di più:- “Michael Oakeshott: An Introduction” (2015) di Paul Franco, Yale University Presshttps://www.amazon.it/Michael-Oakeshott-Introduction-Paul-Franco/dp/0300215274- “Il filosofo della politica che non amava i maestrini della politica. Michael Oakeshott, scomparso trent'anni fa, è stato uno dei più importanti filosofi politici del Novecento”, di Alberto Mingardi. Il Foglio, 19 Dicembre 2020.https://www.brunoleoni.it/il-filosofo-della-politica-che-non-amava-i-maestrini-della-politica

In this wide ranging conversation with Elizabeth Corey, we take up the fundamental question that has animated this podcast series: What is liberal learning? Along the way we consider the challenges faced by those who would liberally educate students today (including our brightest students), the higher purposes of liberal education, and consider liberal education's future. We also reflect on how liberal education can inform our approach to work, how the life of the academic and liberal education might become illiberal (while looking liberal from the outside), and the conditions—particularly the habits of reading and mind—that are necessary for liberal education to take place. Elizabeth Corey, Michael Oakeshott on Religion, Aesthetics, and Politics Elizabeth Corey, “Michael Oakeshott's Conservative Disposition” Elizabeth Corey, “No Happy Harmony” A.G. Sertillanges, The Intellectual Life: Its Spirit, Conditions, Methods Pieper, Leisure the Basis of Culture John Paul II, Laborem exercens

On religion (by which he chiefly means Christianity), [philosopher Michael] Oakeshott is subtle. … He deprecates the doctrine of a future life, not as being impossible, but because it distracts people from the unique importance of the life they have

Edmund Burke, Russel Kirk, Michael Oakeshott, Roger Scruton e companhia. Se você, leitor, se considera conservador, ou se pelo menos já teve alguma curiosidade por este universo, é muito provável que você tenha esbarrado em alguns destes nomes. São, de fato, grandes homens que pensaram o conservadorismo e são essenciais para entender suas raízes históricas e suas aplicações. O problema é que, como você também pode ter percebido só de ouvir esta abertura, é que estes nomes soam estranhos à língua portuguesa. E essa é só a superfície do problema: no país do samba, do forró, do Carnaval, das festas juninas, e do Pantanal, alguns discursos conservadores parecem completamente descolados da realidade. O Ideias de hoje tem duas apresentadoras e dois convidados. As jornalistas Bruna Komarchesqui e Maria Clara Vieira conversam com o cientista político Bruno Garschagen e com o historiador e professor de filosofia política Alex Catharino sobre por que o conservadorismo brasileiro precisa ser diferente dos outros se quiser sobreviver. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tenha acesso a conteúdos exclusivos! Assine: bit.ly/2t5mxEe Escolha seu app favorito e receba uma seleção com as principais notícias do dia ou da semana no seu celular: leia.gp/2MTnyrS Acompanhe a editoria Ideias nas redes sociais: Facebook: www.facebook.com/ideiasgazetadopovo/ Twitter: twitter.com/ideias_gp Canal no Telegram: t.me/ideiasgazetadopovo

This episode concludes our series on liberal education. We have three of our previous guests in the series back to discuss some common themes in the work of Leo Strauss, Michael Oakeshott and Hannah Arendt. We have Michael and Catherine Zuckert, Rita Koganzon, and Elizabeth Corey all returning to the podcast for the discussion. Topics include the place of reverence and tradition in liberal education, the authority of the teacher, and the purpose or purposes of liberal education. See our previous episodes for the bios of these guests.    

Jules sits down with Professor Matthew McManus to discuss his book "The Rise of Postmodern Conservatism". Thinkers discussed include Edmund Burke, Joseph de Maistre, Michael Oakeshott, Isaiah Berlin, and many others. This is a conversation that traces the roots of reactionism all the way back to the French Revolution. Additional links below… Matthew McManus on Twitter The Rise of Postmodern Conservatism by Matthew McManus Matthew McManus articles at Jacobin Matthew McManus articles at Areo Plastic Pills Podcast Matthew McManus on Academia.edu Permanent Links Below… Follow us on Social Media: Twitter Facebook Medium Patreon Join the discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/noeasyanswerspodcast Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/noeasyanswers/message Visit our Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/noeasyanswers Hang out with us on Discord: https://discord.gg/4RHEEhdxy5 One-off Contribution: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/julestaylormusic Comments, concerns, criticisms, and vitriol: noeasyanswerspodcast@gmail.com Outro music "Panda Punk Tongue" by Peelander-Z Music for this episode: Lewis And Dekalb by Kevin MacLeod Link: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/4989-lewis-and-dekalb Severe Tire Damage by Kevin MacLeod Link: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/5004-severe-tire-damage --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/noeasyanswers/support

Should teachers teach their pupils what to think? Or how to think? The great English philosopher Michael Oakeshott says it's not so simple. Students certainly must learn how to think, but can only do so by learning about things in particular - in other words, by learning what to think. Jonathan and Ryan are joined to discuss this excellent Oakeshott lecture on learning and education by Dale Stenberg.The Davenant Institute: https://davenantinstitute.org/Pilgrim Faith Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pilgrim-faith-podcast/id1494222569Pietas Classical Christian: https://pietasclassical.com/Richard M. Gamble's The Great Tradition: https://bookshop.org/a/25626/9781935191568Carl Trueman's Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: https://bookshop.org/a/25626/9781433556333Alastair Roberts' blog: https://alastairadversaria.com/Donald Phillip Verene's The Art of Humane Education: https://bookshop.org/a/25626/9780801440397C.S. Lewis's An Experiment in Criticism: https://bookshop.org/a/25626/9781107604728New Humanists is brought to you by the Ancient Language Institute: https://ancientlanguage.com/Links may have referral codes, which earn us a commission at no additional cost to you. We encourage you, when possible, to use Bookshop.org for your book purchases, an online bookstore which supports local bookstores.Music: Save Us Now by Shane Ivers - https://www.silvermansound.com

This month our subject is Michael Oakeshott. We discuss two essays in particular: “A Place of Learning” and “Learning and Teaching.” Both essays can be found in the volume The Voice of Liberal Learning. Our guest is Elizabeth Corey of Baylor University. Elizabeth begins by providing a brief intellectual biography of Oakeshott. The bulk of our conversation takes up Oakeshott's conception of liberal learning. He argues it is neither the acquisition of cultural knowledge or information nor the improvement of the mind. It is rather “learning to recognize some specific invitations to encounter particular adventures in human self-understanding.” Elizabeth and I discuss the distinctiveness of Oakeshott's vision as well as his understanding of the primary challenges to liberal learning. We unpack Oakeshott's meditation of the teacher-student relationship and end with a discussion of Oakeshott's conservatism. Elizabeth is an associate professor of Political Science at Baylor University, in Waco, Texas. Her writing has appeared in a variety of popular and scholarly journals, including First Things, National Affairs and The Wall Street Journal, and The Chronicle of Higher Education. She received a bachelor's in Classics from Oberlin College, and master's and doctoral degrees in Art History and Political Science from Louisiana State University. She serves on the Board of Directors of the Institute on Religion and Public Life, publisher of First Things. She is also an American Enterprise Faith and Public Life Visiting Professor during the year 2022.

Finally, another enemy! This time Matt and Sam are joined by Nate Hochman, a rising star on the intellectual Right and one of the subjects of Sam's recent New Republic article about today's young, populist conservatives. They discuss Michael Oakeshott, friendship and politics, where the Right and Left might agree, and, especially, where they don't.Further Reading:Sam Adler-Bell, "The Radical Young Intellectuals Who Want to Take Over the American Right," New Republic, Dec 2, 2021Nate Hochman, "Michael Oakeshott, 30 Years Later," National Review, Dec 18, 2020Matthew Sitman, "Leaving Conservatism Behind," Dissent, Summer 2016Michael Oakeshott, Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays (Liberty Fund, 1991)                                            The Voice of Liberal Learning (Yale University Press, 1990)..and don't forget to subscribe to Know Your Enemy on Patreon for access to all of our bonus episodes!

https://youtu.be/x5JgjK8X8uE On Sept. 1, 1939, 70 years ago, the German Army crossed the Polish frontier. On Sept. 3, Britain declared war. Six years later, 50 million Christians and Jews had perished. Britain was broken and bankrupt, Germany a smoldering ruin. Europe had served as the site of the most murderous combat known to man, and civilians had suffered worse horrors than the soldiers. By May 1945, Red Army hordes occupied all the great capitals of Central Europe: Vienna, Prague, Budapest, Berlin. A hundred million Christians were under the heel of the most barbarous tyranny in history: the Bolshevik regime of the greatest terrorist of them all, Joseph Stalin. What cause could justify such sacrifices? Patrick J. Buchanan, Did Hitler Want War? (2009) Matthew Raphael Johnson is a scholar of Russian Orthodox history and philosophy. His research agenda centers around ethnic nationalism, Eurasianism and the Orthodox tradition as forms of rebellion against globalism. He has recently completed a lengthy book on the history of Ukrainian political thought from Mazepa to the present. Now, he is in the midst of a substantial book on nominalism and its condemnation by Patristic and Platonic authors. He completed his doctorate at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln in 1999 as a recipient of the Sennen, as well as the Clare and Marguerite MacPhee Fellowships, focusing on anti-modernist social philosophy. His dissertation detailed the critique of Positivism from Michael Oakeshott and the British Hegelians. The central philosophical thesis running through all his philosophical work is that nominalism is the root ontological evil. It lies at the foundation of the 20th century and it is termed by Johnson as “the ontology of death.” Find Dr. Johnson here: https://theorthodoxnationalist.wordpress.com/2018/02/21/vor-archive/ https://www.rusjournal.org/ Odysee BitChute Minds Flote Archive Spotify

Matthew Raphael Johnson is a scholar of Russian Orthodox history and philosophy. His research agenda centers around ethnic nationalism, Eurasianism and the Orthodox tradition as forms of rebellion against globalism. He has recently completed a lengthy book on the history of Ukrainian political thought from Mazepa to the present. Now, he is in the midst of a substantial book on nominalism and its condemnation by Patristic and Platonic authors. He completed his doctorate at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln in 1999 as a recipient of the Sennen, as well as the Clare and Marguerite MacPhee Fellowships, focusing on anti-modernist social philosophy. His dissertation detailed the critique of Positivism from Michael Oakeshott and the British Hegelians. The central philosophical thesis running through all his philosophical work is that nominalism is the root ontological evil. It lies at the foundation of the 20th century and it is termed by Johnson as “the ontology of death.” Find Dr. Johnson here: https://theorthodoxnationalist.wordpress.com/2018/02/21/vor-archive/ https://www.rusjournal.org/ -------------------------------- If you find value in the content, please consider donating to my PayPal KeithKnight590@gmail.com LBRY: https://lbry.tv/@KeithKnightDontTreadOnAnyone:b BitChute: KeithKnightDontTreadOnAnyone https://www.bitchute.com/channel/keithknightdonttreadonanyone/ Minds: https://www.minds.com/KeithKnightDontTreadOnAnyone/ MeWe: mewe.com/i/keithknight25 Flote: https://flote.app/VoluntaryistKeith Gab: https://gab.com/Voluntarykeith Twitter: @an_capitalist The Libertarian Institute: https://libertarianinstitute.org/dont-tread-on-anyone/ One Great Work Network: https://www.onegreatworknetwork.com/keith-knight

What does it mean to be vulnerable at scale? To go out on a limb and lay bare not just one's opinions, but the private details of a life? The most effective political writing often exists at the intersection of quantitative data and personal anecdote. A writer's argument - if it is to convince - must accurately speak to the external reality we all share while inviting us to understand the author's internal experience that provides the emotional anchor. Writer and political commentator Andrew Sullivan has gathered his essays from the last 31 years - a record of joys, sorrows, missteps and victories - all written down, in public.Out on a Limb: Selected Writing, 1989 - 2021, by Andrew SullivanThe Weekly Dish, by Andrew SullivanIntimations Pursued: The Voice of Practice in the Conversation of Michael Oakeshott, by Andrew SullivanWhat Andrew Sullivan Taught Me About Michael Oakeshott, by Giles Fraser22: Changing Stars, with Katharine Birbalsingh - The New LiberalsAlone Again, Naturally, by Andrew Sullivan (Originally appeared November 28, 1994, in The New Republic)Nighthawks (1942), by Edward HopperNew York Movie (1939),by Edward HopperAutomat (1927), by Edward HopperThe End of Gay Culture, by Andrew Sullivan@sullydish----------Email: newliberalspodcast@gmail.comTwitter: @NewLiberalsPod

This fortnight, while Andrew and I are on our annual Dishcation in August, we are airing a two-part interview of Andrew from 2012, conducted by the journalist Johann Hari (author of the bestselling books "Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs" and "Lost Connections: Why You’re Depressed and How to Find Hope"). The interview delves into Andrew's early life in England with a working-class Irish-Catholic family, becoming the first to go to college, then arriving in America at Harvard, coming out as gay, discovering his philosophical guiding light, Michael Oakeshott, and much more. I vividly remember listening to this interview, almost a decade ago, because it was one of the most revealing conversations I’ve ever heard of Andrew (and I’ve known him a long time). Johann has a real knack for allowing people to reveal themselves. Get full access to The Weekly Dish at andrewsullivan.substack.com/subscribe

In this edition of The New Thinkery Alex and Greg visit the Jack Miller Center where they are joined by Professor Steven Smith. The group discuss Michael Oakeshott's famous work, "Political Education". Plus: don't miss out on the quickest response times we've seen yet on lightning round questions!   Shoutout to Davenant Hall for sponsoring!

In this episode, I speak with Elizabeth Corey about life beyond politics, friendship, learning, and the work of Michael Oakeshott. We discuss a wide range of issues, including rationalism and politics, the value of the reading of classic texts, and Oakeshott's idea of different modes of engaging with the world: the practical, scientific, historical, and poetic. We discuss Eric Voegelin, Russell Kirk, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Rod Dreher, what it means to be a conservative, and some recent developments in the conservative political movement. We talk about the importance of carving out spaces outside the political sphere, including building functional, decentralized civil associations, and practicing the things we defend: reading good books, playing music, conversation, and trying to live a good life. We also discuss whether in 2021 it is really possible today to escape the intrusion of politics into so many spheres of life. Visit https://www.themoralimagination.com/episodes/elizabeth-corey-phd for show notes and resources.

Heather Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a contributing editor of City Journal, and a New York Times bestselling author. In this week's episode, Heather discusses her time as a graduate student in comparative literature at Yale and the events that led her to uncover the faults in deconstruction and other postmodernist theories. She illustrates how current trends in higher education have impeded a manner of education which philosopher Michael Oakeshott referred to as the "transmission of an inheritance from one generation to the next."  She also discusses her article, "The Bias Fallacy"— she outlines why efforts to remove objective measures of accomplishment in the name of equity is nihilistic, as well as efforts to vilify Western civilization.Host Jeremy Tate @JeremyTate41Guest Heather Mac Donald"The Bias Fallacy" in City Journal

A few thoughts on why, as a minister of a small liberal-religious community, I need to stop being a player and adopt, instead, the role of umpire. In this piece, I draw considerably, and gratefully, on some of  Michael Oakeshott's ideas about conversation.The full text of this podcast can be found in the transcript of this edition or at the following link:https://andrewjbrown.blogspot.com/2021/04/adopting-role-of-umpire-and-letting.htmlPlease feel to post any comments you have about this episode there.Music, "New Heaven", written by Andrew J. Brown and played by Chris Ingham (piano), Paul Higgs (trumpet), Russ Morgan (drums) and Andrew J. Brown (double bass)

Jean-Philippe Trottier reçoit Pierre Norris. Les mesures sanitaires vues selon la pensée de l'historien et philosophe britannique Michael Oakeshott.

This week, Jonathan and Simon discuss Michael Oakeshott's classic essay, 'On being conservative'. Oakeshott (1901-1990) was one of the foremost thinkers in twentieth century British philosophy and a leading conservative. This essay, published in a collection of Oakeshott's writings entitled Rationalism in Politics, outlines Oakeshott's brand of liberal conservatism. The lads focus in on Oakeshott's description of conservatism as a disposition, his conceptions of innovation and change, and his framing of the conservative view of politics. The episode covers fundamental and important questions about politics, society more broadly, and living as a conservative today.

On this episode, we talk with Justin Shubow, President of the National Civic Art Society, about modernism and classicism, the profession of architecture and its role in civil society, public monuments in Washington, D.C., the philosopher Michael Oakeshott, and much more.  

On this episode, we talk with Justin Shubow, President of the National Civic Art Society, about modernism and classicism, the profession of architecture and its role in civil society, public monuments in Washington, D.C., the philosopher Michael Oakeshott, and much more.

In this second in a series on Chantal Mouffe's ideas in The Return of the Political, I discuss her use of Carl Schmitt's critique of liberalism and relate her ideas to authors she draws from, such as Leo Strauss, Isaiah Berlin, Michael Oakeshott, Charles Taylor, Michael Walzer and Hans Georg Gadamer. I try to get an initial handle on her preferred "agonistic pluralism" as an answer to the question--can we respect particular values and traditions enough to compete with them rather than seeking to destroy them? I relate her line of argument to my understanding of Carl Jung's theory of political ideology as "ideological possession" -- the projection of the shadow. … More Chantal Mouffe, Carl Schmitt, and the Critique of Enlightenment Liberalism (2-Audio)

EPISÓDIO ESPECIAL DO EXTREMISTÃO PODCAST Neste episódio especial, o filósofo GABRIEL FERREIRA conversa com Martim Vasques da Cunha sobre o teórico político e filósofo inglês MICHAEL OAKESHOTT (1901-1990) a respeito de sua obra e de seu influente ensaio "O Racionalismo na Política", que foi reunido na coletânea de ensaios "Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays" (1991). Dentre outras obras influentes de Okaeshott temos "The Politics of Faith and the Politics of Skepticism" (1996) (lançado no Brasil pela editora É Realizações em 2018 com o título "A Política da Fé e a Política do Ceticismo", com tradução de Daniel Lena Marchiori Neto), "On Human Conduct" (1975) e "Hobbes on Civil Association" (1975). Michael Oakeshott teve outros livros publicados no Brasil: "Sobre a História e Outros Ensaios" (Editora Topbooks, 2003, tradução de Renato Rezende) e "Conservadorismo" (Editora Ayné, 2016, tradução de André Bezamat). SOBRE GABRIEL FERREIRA Possui Graduação em Filosofia pela Faculdade de São Bento/SP (2007), Mestrado em Filosofia pela Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (2009) e Doutorado em Filosofia na Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos - UNISINOS (CAPES), sob orientação do Prof. Dr. Álvaro L. M. Valls, com período no Søren Kierkegaard Forskningscenteret, em Copenhague (2014), sobre os desdobramentos da Ontologia de Kierkegaard. Foi Visiting Scholar na Howard and Edna Hong Kierkegaard Library, St. Olaf College ? EUA (2012). É professor do PPG em Filosofia da Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos (UNISINOS). Para mais informações, acesse: http://www.gabrielferreira.com.br/blog/ [Episódio Disponível Gratuitamente] Para mais informações e outros episódios do EXTREMISTÃO PODCAST, visite nossa página no APOIA-SE: https://apoia.se/extremistao

New York Times Op-Ed columnist David Brooks stops by The Remnant to discuss tribalism v. community, nationalism, whether the word conservative is salvageable, and the story of the "Kosher Killer." Show Notes: -The Second Mountain -Michael Lind essay -Goldberg: Americans are more partisan than ever -Brooks: The Two Moons -George Will v. Josh Hawley part one -George Will v. Josh Hawley part two -Capitalism v. socialism debate with Arthur Brooks -Marco Rubio's common-good capitalism -Michael Oakeshott's Rationalism in Politics -DonorsTrust.org/dingo -DoorDash promo code: Remnant See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, I take a few minutes to explain why the liberal arts matter for the church. Books mentioned: Politics by Aristotle Confesssions by Augustine The Voice of Liberal Learning by Michael Oakeshott

For Michael Oakeshott, conservatism is not a creed or a doctrine but a disposition of contentment. A conservative prefers the familiar to the unknown and the tried to the untried. It is a propensity to use and enjoy what is available, rather than to wish for something other than what you have. Oakeshott posits a minimalist role for government that allows people to live their lives as they see fit.

Classical conservative Michael Oakeshott identifies the marketplace and its attendant encouragement of trendiness as an area that runs counter to the conservative disposition. The conservative disposition can instead be seen in activities like friendship, fishing, a person's tool collection and how he uses it. Sawzall meme included. … More Not About the Market: Oakeshott on Friendship, Fishing and Tools (audio)

In this second reading from Michael Oakeshott's essay "On Being Conservative" we get into what counts as a true conservative disposition and what does not. Two aspects of contemporary conservatism are questioned--the desire for rapid and ongoing change, supposedly for the better, and a sentimental nostalgia for an idealized past. … More Don’t be Nostalgic: Oakeshott on Conservative Disposition

The term "conservatism" is so laden with unfortunate meaning and associations by now that it's hard to explain to people what it meant before it was confused with liberalism. But it's really important to do so, because unlike the revolutionary culture-, family- and community-busting market-prioritizing conservatism everyone knows about now, the older version has positive contributions to make in a time of openness to different ways of thinking and living. Michael Oakeshott was a 20th century British thinker who wrote “On Being Conservative.” We'll read from the essay and mark some notable differences between the natural conservatism of Oakeshott and US conservatism today. … More Alternative Conservatism: Michael Oakeshott’s Model

Title: The Artful Recluse: 17th Century China About the Lecture: This lecture is a part of The Loss of Country Panel, which was held at The Institute of World Politics on June 13th. About the Panelist: Dr. Richard J. Bishirjian, was Founding President and Professor of Government at Yorktown University from 2000 to 2016. He earned a B.A. from the University of Pittsburgh and a Ph.D. in Government and International Studies from the University of Notre Dame under the direction of Gerhart Niemeyer. While a graduate student at Notre Dame he studied under Eric Voegelin. After completing graduate work at Notre Dame, he did advanced study with Michael Oakeshott at the London School of Economics. Dr. Bishirjian taught at colleges and universities in Indiana, Texas and New York and is the author of a history of political theory, editor of A Public Philosophy Reader and The Conservative Rebellion (2015) and The Coming Death and Future Resurrection of American Higher Education(2017), published by St. Augustine's Press. Dr. Bishirjian is the author of professional essays in The Political Science Reviewer, Modern Age, Review of Politics, Anamnesis and The Imaginative Conservative. He has published topical essays in Chronicles and the American Spectator.

Dnes vám chcem ponúknuť na zamyslenie niekoľko myšlienok z jednej mojej staršej eseje, ktorú som nazval “Prezident bez politických skúseností – precedens alebo kríza politiky”. I keď sa nejedná o najnovší článok, verím, že obsahovo má stále čo povedať.Rámcovo v ňom budem hovoriť o politickej filozofii,----more----teda o základných otázkach existencie a fungovania politického spoločenstva, a konkrétne si zoberiem na mušku celkom pretrvávajúci problém: je správne, aby išiel do politiky človek bez politických skúseností? Okrajovo sa tiež dotknem fenoménu tzv. nezávislých politických kandidátov a prečítať si ju môžete tu.***Dobré veci potrebujú svoj čas. Pomohla ti táto dávka zamyslieť sa nad niečím zmysluplným? Podpor tvoj obľúbený podcast sumou 1€, 5€ alebo 10€ mesačne na SK1283605207004206791985. Ďakujeme!Zdroj obrázku: www.ted.com/playlists/497/practice_makes_perfect

In this episode, Josh and Ethan discuss the resolution for the May 11 Coolidge Cup Qualifier tournament! This episode is more affirmative in nature, while E17 is more helpful for the negative case. Tune in to learn about "ring by spring," Michael Oakeshott, the transformative power of a college education, and more! (*When we recorded, the news of the Notre Dame fire had just broken. Fortunately, the damage was not as severe as we feared.)

“Smith's answer is that human beings have a basic capacity to observe, to be aware of, and in due course to be moved by the feeling of others. He calls that sympathy.” How did Adam Smith's insights into morality and sociology transform the modern world? Do they offer answers to the deepest political challenges of the twenty-first century? Jesse Norman MP discusses his new book on Smith with Mark Pennington on the Governance Podcast. Subscribe on iTunes and Spotify Subscribe to the Governance Podcast on iTunes and Spotify today and get all our latest episodes directly in your pocket. Follow Us For more information about our upcoming podcasts and events, follow us on facebook or twitter (@csgskcl). The Guest Jesse Norman MP was appointed Minister of State for the Department for Transport on 12 November 2018. He was previously Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Department for Transport from June 2017 to 9 November 2018. He was elected as the MP for Hereford and South Herefordshire in May 2010. Before entering politics Jesse was a Director at Barclays, researched and taught philosophy at University College London, and ran a charitable project in Communist Eastern Europe. His books and pamphlets include ‘The achievement of Michael Oakeshott', ‘After Euclid', ‘Compassionate conservatism' and ‘The big society'. His book ‘Edmund Burke: politician, philosopher, prophet' was listed for the Samuel Johnson Prize, the Political Book Awards and the George Orwell Prize. He has also written regularly for the national press.   Skip Ahead 00:38: Why write a book about Adam Smith, and why now? 3:05: What is Smith's view of human nature, and the role of empathy within it? 9:17: If you look at the Theory of Moral Sentiments, there's the idea that moral order doesn't need to come from a legislator [or from God] – it is a bottom-up account of how rules are developed. 12:15: One thing critics say about Smith is that he has a purely descriptive account of morality—it's describing how people act in ways to seek others' praise, but that doesn't address whether the action itself is actually worthy of praise. 15:17: In the Smithian account of morals, how do morals change? If what others perceive I should do is not what I think I should do, how do I challenge that public view? 18:40: I think The Theory of Moral Sentiments can help us understand things like celebrity culture, or what goes on in social media. People looking for ‘likes' on Facebook is very much praise and blame. But there's a tension here: this is how moral norms are enforced, but Smith also talks about the “man within the breast,” the person who knows what is really praiseworthy. 21:35: In my view, what the invisible hand is referring to is a kind of social process, it's an understanding that there are emergent properties in society, when people interact and then something emerges which is more than the sum of its parts and which wasn't anticipated by its participants… it's the unintended consequences of spontaneous order. 24:45: If you have a theory of the invisible hand, you might also have theories of how the invisible hand can break down. Economists have theories of market failure, but does Smith have a theory of moral failure? 27:45: When we're talking about morality, yes we can point to celebrity culture as being a moral market failure, but what's the alternative? Would the Smithian account favour a legislative response? 31:10: You're very good at explaining that Smith is, in some ways, an egalitarian… the challenge is, and I think this is a problem that no one's cracked—what do we do when people who acquire economic power then try to use the state to limit competition? 37:00: We know that financial markets have important information asymmetries… that's a standard argument some people use to argue for regulation…. But equally, we know that regulation can be captured by big players. To solve a market failure, you end up with a governance failure. 40:28: One of the things I take from Smith is a scepticism about politicians… how do we constrain politicians?  

Francisco Mendes da Silva é advogado, dirigente do CDS-PP e participa no programa Sem Moderação. O convidado define-se politicamente como Conservador e um ‘centrista’, como explica no início. O primeiro termo - conservador - pode induzir em erro, se interpretado à luz da nossa História. É que o conservadorismo que o Francisco perfilha é essencialmente de inspiração britânica, na linha Edmund Burke, político e filósofo da segunda metade do século XVIII cuja escola de filosofia política defende que as constituições dos países não devem ser o produto da razão abstracta (o que o levou a opor-se à Revolução Francesa) mas sim de uma lenta evolução histórica (como é o caso da constituição inglesa). Foi uma conversa longa e ultra-interessante, em que tentei não só compreender melhor esta ideologia, como também confrontar o convidado com as limitações inerentes a uma filosofia que se propõe “conservar”. Falámos, ainda, da relação entre o conservadorismo e outras filosofias políticas à Direita, que por vezes chegam a parecer defender valores e objectivos antagónicos. Apoie o podcast a partir de 2€! https://www.patreon.com/quarentaecincograus Agradecimentos a patronos do podcast: Gustavo Pimenta João Vítor Baltazar; Salvador Cunha; Ana Mateus; Nelson Teodoro; Paulo Ferreira; Duarte Dória Abílio Silva; Tiago Neves Paixão; João Pinto; “Falcão Milenar” Vasco Sá Pinto; David; Pedro Vaz; Luís Ferreira; André Gamito, Rui Baldaia; Henrique Pedro; Manel Lagarto; Rui Carrilho; Luis Quelhas Valente; Tomás Costa; Joao Saro Créditos da fotografia: Isabel Zuzarte Links: Miguel Esteves Cardoso - Os Meus Problemas Personalidades citadas Edmund Burke Ensaio ‘On being Conservative’, de Michael Oakeshott (comentário de Pedro Mexia) Roger Scruton Fraga Iribarne Chesterton General Milan: "Viva la muerte!” Efeito ‘ratchet’ Série recomendada: The Newsroom Bio: Advogado e dirigente nacional do CDS-PP. Licenciou-se em Direito em 2003, pela Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de Coimbra, tendo desde então exercido advocacia na área do Direito Fiscal. Colabora com a Morais Leitão, Galvão Teles, Soares da Silva & Associados - Sociedade de Advogados, RL. Foi membro da Assembleia Municipal de Viseu entre 2005 e 2009 e é desde 2007 membro da Comissão Política Nacional do CDS-PP.

Segunda parte da nossa conversa com o professor e tradutor Daniel Lena Marchiori Neto, que traduziu Política da fé e política do ceticismo, de Michael Oakeshott, para a editora É Realizações. Programa veiculado em 25 de novembro de 2018.

Primeira parte da nossa conversa com o professor e tradutor Daniel Lena Marchiori Neto, que traduziu Política da fé e política do ceticismo, de Michael Oakeshott, para a editora É Realizações. Programa veiculado em 18 de novembro de 2018.

Guten Morgen, Brasilien! O debate político se acalora meses antes das eleições e, na crise de identidade em que o mundo foi lançado com fenômenos como Trump e a onda "populista" na Europa, aliado a palavras como "globalismo" e "establishment" que agora dominam o debate, todos ficaram confusos e começam às vezes a inverter o que são, pensam e querem a esquerda e a direita. Mas há uma questão fundamental que é ignorada, apesar de ser a base da conversa: qualquer pessoa que hoje esteja minimamente alfabetizada no debate político, digamos, em nível universitário, sabe perfeitamente bem o que é, pensa e quer a esquerda. Conhece seus autores, suas dissidências, o básico de sua história, suas realizações e idealizações. Porém, o oposto ocorre com a direita. Perguntar a um universitário, mesmo e sobretudo se fizer um curso envolvendo política (do Direito e da Ciência Política à Sociologia e Relações Internacionais), quais são os maiores nomes de pensadores da direita no século XX, e dificilmente ele acertará um nome. Pior: acreditará piamente que a direita é algo muitas vezes inverso do que a direita realmente é, por só conhecê-la não por fonte direta, mas através do cabresto ideológico da esquerda. Sem querer esgotar um assunto tão complexo, capiloso, metamorfo e espinhoso, buscamos aqui dar uma definição de direita que, se não é cabal e definitiva (o que seria reducionista, algo que não poderia ser mais inimigo do pensamento conservador), ao menos irá aclarar algumas discussões atuais envolvendo um tema que é dito o tempo todo, mas nunca estudado. Afinal, que grande debatedor na intelligentsia atual, ainda mais brasileira, leu, estudou, passou anos a fundo com os grandes clássicos da direita? Eric Voegelin, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Bernard Lonergan, Russell Kirk, Leo Strauss, G. K. Chesterton, Alfred North Whitehead, George Santayana, Michael Oakeshott, Alain Peyrefitte, Nikolai Berdyaev, Hans Urs von Balthasar... quem ao menos ouviu falar destes grandes gênios do século XX estudando em faculdades no Brasil? É fácil entender por que as pessoas são tão devotamente de esquerda e acreditam tanto em sua superioridade, se gastam anos de vida estudando autores francamente menores, e no máximo lêem 2 páginas do Google por 3 minutos para autores dos quais só ouvem falar, ehrr, por aqui. E também por que todos estão confusos com casos que fogem a definições simples como a Rússia, Israel, as agências internacionais, além de questões exteriores, como o comércio internacional ou o tamanho do Estado. E como ficam liberais e libertários nesta questão? Agora é hora de aprender ao menos um pouco sobre o que é a direita, ficar mais inteligente e perder amigos! E mais: Estado laico, monarquia, a questão do anti-semitismo e dos totalitarismos modernos, Antigo Testamento, gnosticismo, Império Romano e modernismo no seu podcast preferido. A produção é de Filipe Trielli e David Mazzuca Neto no estúdio Panela Produtora, com produção visual de Gustavo Finger na Agência Pier. Guten Morgen, Brasilien! Olavo de Carvalho - A Nova Era e a Revolução Cultural: https://amzn.to/2rpYOtu Nelson Lehmann da Silva - A Religião Civil do Estado Moderno: https://amzn.to/2rrxw66 Benjamin Wiker - Dez Livros que Todo Conservador Deve Ler: https://amzn.to/2I17hKB Massimo Cacciari - Ocidente Sem Utopias: https://amzn.to/2Ipbmfq Eric Voegelin - Ordem e História: https://amzn.to/2K0yIVy Eric Voegelin - Hitler e os Alemães: https://amzn.to/2FRLseM Eric Voegelin - Reflexões Autobiográficas: https://amzn.to/2K3GSN7 Olavo de Carvalho - O Jardim das Aflições: https://amzn.to/2jDa9CU Russell Kirk - A Política da Prudência: https://amzn.to/2FRMebG Roger Scruton - Como ser um Conservador: https://amzn.to/2I0aWIU Massimo Cacciari - O Poder Que Freia: https://amzn.to/2rrRv4G Thomas Sowell - Os Intelectuais e a Sociedade: https://amzn.to/2wl5leH

Dr. Jonathan Havercroft is Associate Professor of International Political Theory at the University of Southampton. He has published work on the historical development and transformation of state sovereignty, 17th century and 20th century political philosophy, space weaponization and security, global dimensions of indigenous politics and hermeneutics. He is currently working on the ethical dimensions of international norms, theories of political affect, and the role of agreement in democratic theory and practice. His book Captives of Sovereignty (Cambridge University Press, 2011) looks at the historical origins of state sovereignty, critiques its philosophical assumptions and offers a way to move contemporary critiques of sovereignty beyond their current impasse. Notes How I'm trying to achieve absolute disalienation and why Jonathan thinks I'm crazy; living in the UK vs. the US; childhood; why it's good to have goals even if you know you can't achieve them; Caitlyn Jenner; bathroom gender laws; is the news worth reading?; how and why my dad used to get in fights and hitchhike but I never did; the tv show Cops and cultural change since the 1990s; the rise of after school activities as social control; whether I should want to have kids and Jonathan refusing to give me advice; how to live in the most revolutionary way; the problem of charismatic power and cults; the life of Wittgenstein; left-wing stupidities; Michael Oakeshott; why Jonathan thinks I'm going to become a conservative; gambling, etc.

This year's GOP primary race, perhaps more than others, does not exist in a vacuum. When Barry Goldwater accepted the GOP nomination in the SF Cow Palace in 1964, he spoke of extremism in the defense liberty and eschewed moderation.  Ever since that moment, so called conservatives have been falling all over themselves trying to live up to those words.  Words that had very little to do with the true conservatism of Edmund Burke or Michael Oakeshott and words that were later called into question by Goldwater himself.But the attempt to elevate their mythology, as Ted Cruz is trying to do,  particularly in a rapidly evolving world, may be the final nail in the Republican coffinThis is the context of E.J. Dionne’s insightful new book Why the Right Went Wrong: Conservatism From Goldwater to the Tea Party and Beyond.My conversation with E.J. Dionne:

Benjamin shares some things he's learned since discovering Michael Oakeshott this past week in a piece from First Things.