Whom do you read even though you disagree with them?

Originally asked

Vox, to writers and thinkers, 9 Questions, 2017

Vox used this as one of nine fixed questions in its 2017 series on intellectual habits.

You answer as yourself. Nobody on FLAPSS answers as anybody else.

Recorded Beth Breeze said elsewhere, not written here
We should engage with these texts. I disagree with them, and I argue back against them, but I don’t think that means they shouldn’t be read and thought about.

Sophie Roell, Five Books interview, published transcript, 29 December 2021 source ↗

Others on this question

View all 26 →
Kwame Anthony Appiah Professor of philosophy and law at New York University
Frank Henderson Stewart is a very distinguished scholar, now retired, an expert on the ancient Near East, but he thought deeply about honour. He read ancient texts and legal documents because, as you know, honour is a legal concept in German law and you can seek to have your honour protected in various ways – it’s sort of what they have instead of libel. Analysing and thinking deeply about it, he tries to understand how honour developed, and it was he who led me to see the core thought, which is that honour is an entitlement to respect, and that what honour codes do is say how you get to be entitled to respect. I disagree with a lot of what he says – in particular that he wants to give up on honour because it has such negative connotations: I think it needs reform as a concept – but I think it’s a very lovely piece of scholarly analysis.
Recorded Five Books interview, published transcript source ↗
Antulio J. Echevarria II Editor of the US Army War College Quarterly
This book is a great place for people to begin who want to learn more about strategy. Gray does what he says he is going to do: he talks about modern strategy. He talks about everything from the principles of nuclear strategy to the basic fundamentals of strategy itself, the importance of Clausewitz, and of strategic context. I don’t agree with everything he says, but no strategist agrees with everything another one has to say. But his book is a great place to begin.
Recorded Sophie Roell, Five Books interview, published transcript, 23 February 2017 source ↗
Skye C. Cleary Philosopher and author of Existentialism and Romantic Love
It’s short. About 50 pages. I don’t agree with everything she says because, despite her interlocutor and friend being homosexual, she makes a few homophobic comments. I chose this book because it’s witty and fun, it raises some fundamental questions about the nature of love, and also it’s a fascinating insight into society at the time.
Recorded Nigel Warburton, Five Books interview, published transcript, 3 September 2018 source ↗
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie Novelist and essayist
The Wall Street Journal editorial page, because I imagine it to be what the thoughtful American right reads.
Recorded Sean Illing, Vox, “9 questions” series, 27 May 2017 source ↗

More on attention & the world

Also answered this

Myra Strober, Ariel Rubinstein, Skye C. Cleary, Adam Gopnik, Alain de Botton, Richard White

Search the directory for somebody in particular.

Explore further

Report this answer