What do you think?
Rate this book
ON HISTORY AND OTHER ESSAYS
Modern Political Philosophy
- GenresHistoryPhilosophy
240 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1983
About the author
Michael Oakeshott
63 books127 followersEnglish philosopher and political theorist who wrote about philosophy of history, philosophy of religion, aesthetics, and philosophy of law. He is widely regarded as one of the most important conservative thinkers of the 20th century, although he has sometimes been characterized as a liberal thinker.
Oakeshott was dismayed by the descent into political extremism that took place in Europe in the 1930s, and his surviving lectures from this period reveal a dislike of National Socialism and Marxism.
In 1945, Oakeshott was demobilized and returned to Cambridge for two years. In 1947, he left Cambridge for Nuffield College, Oxford. After only a year, he secured an appointment as Professor of Political Science at the London School of Economics (LSE), succeeding Harold Laski. He was deeply unsympathetic to the student action at LSE that occurred in the late 1960s, on the grounds that it disrupted the aims of the university. Oakeshott retired from LSE in 1969.
Oakeshott refused an offer of Knighthood from Queen Elizabeth II, for which he was proposed by Margaret Thatcher.
Oakeshott was dismayed by the descent into political extremism that took place in Europe in the 1930s, and his surviving lectures from this period reveal a dislike of National Socialism and Marxism.
In 1945, Oakeshott was demobilized and returned to Cambridge for two years. In 1947, he left Cambridge for Nuffield College, Oxford. After only a year, he secured an appointment as Professor of Political Science at the London School of Economics (LSE), succeeding Harold Laski. He was deeply unsympathetic to the student action at LSE that occurred in the late 1960s, on the grounds that it disrupted the aims of the university. Oakeshott retired from LSE in 1969.
Oakeshott refused an offer of Knighthood from Queen Elizabeth II, for which he was proposed by Margaret Thatcher.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
Read
October 21, 2024By insiders the British philosopher Michael Oakeshott (1901-1990) is placed at the same height as Wittgenstein and Heidegger, as brilliant as they were, but equally hermetic and elusive. In recent years his thinking has been recuperated by neoconservative thinkers, because he was very active in the field of political theory. In all his work a fierce critique on rationalism and modernism stands out, but I hesitate to call him a conservative or reactionary thinker. My impression is that he just wanted to be thorough and to get to the bottom of things, dismissing wrong concepts, views and theories.
That is also what he does in this book. Oakeshott devotes a great deal of time to making precise, meticulous distinctions between terms and concepts (historical past, practical past, encapsulated past, historical inquiry, occurrence, event, change, identity, continuity, etc.) and he does this in a very abstract way, that requires a lot of effort from the reader (and I have to admit that some passages were almost impossible for me to follow).
In these essays on history, Oakeshott primordially asks himself what history or the past really is. He makes a radical distinction between the practical and the historical past. The historical past (perhaps an echo of Ranke's "wie es eigentlich gewesen (ist)”) is definitely gone, no longer exists and is strictly speaking (contrary to what Ranke thought) no longer graspable. What remains are relicts ('survivals'), but for Oakeshott they don’t belong to the past, but to the present. Moreover, we usually deal with those relicts very practically, with a usefulness that is only relevant for the present and the future. In fact, an historical approach can only say something meaningful about the past if it completely distances itself from that (practical) relevance for present and future, and that is an extremely difficult task.
Oakeshott barely discusses the way in which such an enquiry is possible. He rather devotes his energy to refuting methods that he believes are radically wrong: for example, approaching the past from a contemporary relevant question, or from a theory or model, or - even worse - from a teleological perspective (in which what precedes is derived from the result). The use of causality, comparisons, correlations and analogies is also defined by him as deficient (sometimes in very blunt terms). Oakeshott is very strict about this and shows in detail the pitfalls of these approaches, and above all that they have nothing to do with the past, but everything with the present and the future.
Of course, when reading these essays, the question arises wether Oakeshott considers real historical research possible at all. He certainly answers this question positively, but he gives so many restrictions that hardly anything remains for those who practice history studies in reality. So, should we just push him aside and declare what he says irrelevant? I do not think so. Because what he writes actually makes sense. While reading these essays, for example, I noticed that his elaboration on the distinction between practical and historical past comes very close to the temporality theories that were developed much later by Reinhart Koselleck and François Hartog. And his accent on the constructivist character of historical approaches almost directly leads to the postmodernism of, among others, Frank Ankersmit. In that sense, Oakeshott may be comparable to a fierce weedkiller, whose work benefits others to harvest. His essays are certainly worth the effort, but definitely also make up for some tough reading.
That is also what he does in this book. Oakeshott devotes a great deal of time to making precise, meticulous distinctions between terms and concepts (historical past, practical past, encapsulated past, historical inquiry, occurrence, event, change, identity, continuity, etc.) and he does this in a very abstract way, that requires a lot of effort from the reader (and I have to admit that some passages were almost impossible for me to follow).
In these essays on history, Oakeshott primordially asks himself what history or the past really is. He makes a radical distinction between the practical and the historical past. The historical past (perhaps an echo of Ranke's "wie es eigentlich gewesen (ist)”) is definitely gone, no longer exists and is strictly speaking (contrary to what Ranke thought) no longer graspable. What remains are relicts ('survivals'), but for Oakeshott they don’t belong to the past, but to the present. Moreover, we usually deal with those relicts very practically, with a usefulness that is only relevant for the present and the future. In fact, an historical approach can only say something meaningful about the past if it completely distances itself from that (practical) relevance for present and future, and that is an extremely difficult task.
Oakeshott barely discusses the way in which such an enquiry is possible. He rather devotes his energy to refuting methods that he believes are radically wrong: for example, approaching the past from a contemporary relevant question, or from a theory or model, or - even worse - from a teleological perspective (in which what precedes is derived from the result). The use of causality, comparisons, correlations and analogies is also defined by him as deficient (sometimes in very blunt terms). Oakeshott is very strict about this and shows in detail the pitfalls of these approaches, and above all that they have nothing to do with the past, but everything with the present and the future.
Of course, when reading these essays, the question arises wether Oakeshott considers real historical research possible at all. He certainly answers this question positively, but he gives so many restrictions that hardly anything remains for those who practice history studies in reality. So, should we just push him aside and declare what he says irrelevant? I do not think so. Because what he writes actually makes sense. While reading these essays, for example, I noticed that his elaboration on the distinction between practical and historical past comes very close to the temporality theories that were developed much later by Reinhart Koselleck and François Hartog. And his accent on the constructivist character of historical approaches almost directly leads to the postmodernism of, among others, Frank Ankersmit. In that sense, Oakeshott may be comparable to a fierce weedkiller, whose work benefits others to harvest. His essays are certainly worth the effort, but definitely also make up for some tough reading.
October 24, 2021
This was a much more philosophical book than I had expected. Michael Oakeshott (1901-1990) is not a well-known name, but apparently 'connoisseurs' still place him in the top of 20th century philosophy and political theory. In this late work (1983) he deals in a very abstract way with the possibility of historical research. So, this book is essentially about epistemology (what are the conditions to come to real knowledge?), and that makes this into a tough read. Oakeshott mainly focuses on how things should NOT be done in historical research, and what the pitfalls are in which historians keep on falling. That means that in the end, you will be left with the question whether sound historical research indeed is possible. Oakeshott is convinced it is, but does not offer clear answers. See also my review in my History account on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
November 18, 2015
I read the three essays which make up 'On History'. Oakeshott is a careful thinker. This makes him hard work, but he is worth your time, especially if you want to think about the nature of historical enquiry.
December 27, 2025
hard to read but a pleasure to think on
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews