The Critique of Rationalism and the Defense of Individuality: Oakeshott and Hayek

Oakeshott and Hayek were both towering figures of the twentieth century in social and political philosophy who had contributed a lot to the defense of individual liberty. While this paper acknowledges that there are important affinities in their respective intellectual outlooks, it also attempts to argue that there are significant differences in their critique of Rationalism and defense of individuality. Oakeshott’s criticism of the sovereignty of technique in modern Rationalism is premised on his claim of the inseparable partnership of technical knowledge and practical knowledge in all human cognition and action. This, together with his recognition of the poetic character of all human activity, allows Oakeshott to develop a critique of Rationalism that is in full appreciation of the importance of individual style, meaning, and freedom. Hayek’s critique of constructivism, while highly original and persuasive, still relies on the primacy of demonstrable abstract principles that is rationalist at least in style if not in substance. Furthermore, Hayek’s defense of individualism is, in the final analysis, epistemological and evolutionary, making his justification of individual liberty at times instrumental rather than intrinsic.