Skip to content

The question

Whose work do you read even when 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.

RW
Richard White

Margaret Byrne Professor of American History, Emeritus, Stanford University

Recorded said elsewhere, not written here
But Wiebe didn’t have the evidence to sustain many of the assertions that fed his thesis. Many of the things which he said happened in the Gilded Age had happened earlier and other things didn’t happen at all. Nonetheless, it’s a great feat of storytelling to fit so many disparate details into a simple framework. Even though I disagree with Wiebe, I always keep my eye on The Search for Order as a model of historical writing.

Eve Gerber, Five Books interview, published transcript, 26 March 2021 source ↗

Others on this question

View all 26 →
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 ↗
Paul Thagard Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of Waterloo
That’s where I disagree with her. I don’t actually think happiness is a meaning of life, though lots of people assume that. Still, happiness is something folks care about, and she gives the best discussion I know, of the nature of happiness and the ways that one can practically accomplish it.
Recorded Five Books interview, published transcript source ↗
David Nasaw Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. Professor of History at the CUNY Graduate Center
Hamilton – I disagree with him much more than I agree with him. This book is very much a book about a father and a son. The father is painted as the bad guy, and the son is the good guy, struggling to break free. I don’t accept that interpretation, or that framework of analysis. Nonetheless, Hamilton writes with a verve, an electricity, a passion, that’s rare among academic historians. As a researcher, he’s extraordinary.
Recorded Emma Mustich, Five Books interview, published transcript, 27 April 2011 source ↗
Neil deGrasse Tyson Astrophysicist; director of the Hayden Planetarium
The National Review, on occasion. An attempt to understand the brain wiring of as many points of view as I can.
Recorded Sean Illing, Vox, “9 questions” series, 25 March 2017 source ↗

More on attention & the world

Also answered this

Skye C. Cleary, Adam Gopnik, Alain de Botton, Beth Breeze, David Nasaw, John Gray

Search the directory for somebody in particular.

Explore further

Report this answer