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.

Kwame Anthony Appiah

Professor of philosophy and law at New York University

Recorded said elsewhere, not written here
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.

Five Books interview, published transcript source ↗

Others on this question

View all 26 →
Richard Wolfson Benjamin F. Wissler Professor of Physics at Middlebury College
I chose this book because it’s written by a physicist, very elderly now, who has spent all his life working in controlled fusion. The title is a take on Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth . The first part of the book is Chen claiming that fusion is indispensable for our future, and why. He has a very readable section on climate change, a section on fossil fueled energy and a section on renewables—in which I disagree with him strongly, because he denigrates solar energy—and then goes on to say that we need fusion.
Recorded Sophie Roell, Five Books interview, published transcript, 24 May 2021 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 ↗
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 ↗
Harry Sidebottom Ancient historian and novelist; teaches ancient history at Oxford University
This is an odd choice because I disagree with almost all his conclusions. He argues that the reign of Augustus sees the Roman élite finally dealing with the problems of the Greek culture that they love and the nasty Greeks they rule. He’s just wrong. They don’t. They carry on loving the culture and despising Greeks. I don’t agree with his methods. He doesn’t argue things. He just tells you stuff.
Recorded Anna Blundy, Five Books interview, published transcript, 4 October 2010 source ↗

More on attention & the world

Also answered this

David Nasaw, John Gray, Lisa Randall, Bill Nye, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, Paul Thagard

Search the directory for somebody in particular.

Explore further

Report this answer