“To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss.” ~ Michael Oakeshott, On Being Conservative
[The only dichotomy I might take issue with is "fact to mystery."]
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Actually, I might take issue with all the dichotomies, since I don’t know the context of the quote or the quoter.
As revgeorge notes, context is absent in the summary. Take fact and mystery, as you mention. I prefer mystery in the Sacred Liturgy, but I much prefer fact in the courtroom. Christ seemed to prefer a superabundance of bread and wine (Jn 6:1-14, Jn 2:1-11) but when it came around to swords, he stuck to sufficiency (Lk 22:38). He also said “Be perfect” (Mt 5:48), not “do what is convenient” WRT personal holiness. However I agree that conservatives are well not to wait around for perfection in political candidates. (My wife and I also prefer the convenience of disposable diapers to the perfection of 100% cotton.)
Most dichotomies do make it difficult to judge things according to their merits or even, in a more abstract philosophical mode, to place things into proper relations and hierarchies. In general, I think I know what M.O. is summarizing; he was totally against Marxian and Socialist thought. So this summary is mainly anti-utopian and worthy of meditating upon–my opinion. I don’t know much else about Oakeshott’s philosophy, except that he’s Andrew Sullivan’s fave philospher and he was a brilliant professor who declined to be knighted in England. But who would want to be knighted after Elton John?