Oakeshott's platonism: The influence of Plato on Oakeshott's philosophy

Over the last two centuries, philosophy has stood in widespread agreement that the Enlightenment project has failed, revealing fundamental limitations on human reason. Since at least Nietzsche, philosophers have questioned the extent to which reason can, or should, act as a guide for human conduct or a standard for its evaluation.;In contemporary thought, philosophy's failure to find an eternally valid ‘truth’ has provoked two kinds of responses: either it is embraced as an opportunity, or lamented as a loss. Many, however, agree on one thing: that the state of contemporary thought is in some way connected to the philosophical inquiries initiated by Socrates and Plato. On one side are those who, with Nietzsche, identify Plato as the founder of an illusion corrupting all subsequent philosophy. On the other are those who instead decry the greatest errors of contemporary thought as resulting from the abandonment of Platonic philosophy.;A third, more fruitful response may be found in the philosophy of Michael Oakeshott. Oakeshott is well known for his critique of rationalism, and his denial that human reason is capable of achieving eternal truths. His specific response to this issue, however, places him between the two currently dominant positions.;Oakeshott does not view Plato as the source of either error or truth; instead, he views Plato as the proponent of an important dialectical manner of thinking. I argue that Plato's philosophy is among the most important influences on Oakeshott's thought, with his debts to Plato far outweighing his criticisms of him.;Clarification of the differences between ancient and modern forms of rationalism, and hence of the relationship between ancient and modern thought, play a central role in this argument. While Plato displays one form of rationalism, the worst problems of modern rationalism stem from errors Plato does not make, and for which his philosophy may serve as a corrective.;A critical examination of Oakeshott's debts to, and criticisms of Plato forms the basis of an argument against the view that a radical gap between ancient and modern thought renders ancient Philosophy either inaccessible or irrelevant to current thinking.