左翼が今世紀有数の哲学者であると手放しで大絶賛するオークショットだが、新しい事をやるときは前例がないという批判から逃げ続けた

Constructivism and Relativism in Michael Oakeshott
http://www.academia.edu/297952/Constructivism_and_Relativism_in_Michael_Oakeshott

This paper highlights a troubling tension within the philosophy of Michael Oakeshott.

The relativistic stance that informs his radical constructivism giveslicense to socio-political conclusions
we know Oakeshott could not possibly accept.

Politically, Oakeshott cannot accept constructionist social ontologies that are forged in the clamor for
rights, an abstract and axiomatic foundationalist conception of rights, which demands a corresponding
morality not deduced from morally relevant considerations.

Educationally, Oakeshott laments that the notion of disinterested liberal learning is rendered redundant
given the incessant impulse for RELEVANCE, now guaranteed with sociology as its master.

Scientifically, Oakeshott plays both sides and this is most problematic. On the one hand he commends
science for its achievement against the sociology of knowledge view that science is at best an ideology,
at worst, a tool of oppression. On the other hand, the constructivist/relativist Oakeshott berates science
for being devoid of any truth-value. Taken thus, bereft of any veritistic notions, Oakeshott is in no position
to distinguish good science from pseudo-science. Oakeshott therefore plays into the hands of the scientism
that has been the hallmark of his Rationalist and contravenes his own primary philosophical dictum — the
error of irrelevance. For Oakeshott these three dimensions have conspired to create a distinctly
liberal intellectual climate, a regime of “ready-made” or approved ideas,“oppressive uniformities of thought
or attitude or conduct.”

Behind the ostensibly liberal metaphysic of social constructionism, is a reformist program that is not at all benign.
Furthermore, behind the familiar appeal to notions of “social” justice,“social” conscience, “social” science and all
manner of RELEVANCE, there lies a self-serving illiberal divisiveness functional to a realignment of power relations.
In a word “socialization” is the order of the day — a gross example of an ignoratio elenchi.

The question then is why does Oakeshott’s constructivism and relativism not tally with his socio-political conclusions?
Oakeshott accepts all of the philosophical pre-conditions of constructivism yet he cannot accept its natural conclusion.
If Rorty’s co-option of Oakeshott’s metaphor of “conversation” in the service of his own radically relativist
epistemology has any plausibility, this creates serious problems for Oakeshott: it throws up some surprising
socio-political anomalies for those of us attracted to Oakeshott’s philosophical politics.

長いのでまとめると、オークショットは一方で進歩に敵意をむき出しにし、他方では綺麗事の逃げ道を作ったため矛盾が生まれたということだ
ホッブスを賞賛し、改革を否定することから生じる不都合からオークショットは目をそむけている
（進歩を嫌うのは社会主義国がことごとく自由主義国の進歩性によって否定されたことの社会主義者特有の恨みと怨念からだろう）

フェビアン協会出身のオークショットは保守主義者と考えるよりも、PCな社会主義者が定義した保守と考えれば良い
科学的と装うが本質は疑似科学的であるという社会主義者特有の性向から統制主義という結論ありきで抽象論を展開し、
バークとは正反対の徹底した前例主義と統制・計画経済は官僚が好む社会主義的統制経済と親和性が高く、政治経済
の結論だけを見れば社会主義、国家社会主義と区別するのが難しい