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.

Martha Nussbaum

Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics, University of Chicago

Recorded said elsewhere, not written here
This strikes me as the most hilarious question, given that I’m a philosopher. Philosophy is all about respectful disagreement, and learning from disagreement. No decent philosopher simply parrots some other philosopher, so there must be disagreements somewhere in every case. I disagree less with J.S. Mill than with any other major philosopher, but I still disagree with Mill a good deal. Aristotle is insightful on some matters, not so insightful on others. As for Plato, Kant, Bentham, Sidgwick, and Rawls, my disagreements are larger, but still compatible with thinking that in some very major ways they were on the right track. I would not say that about Lord Devlin or James Fitzjames Stephen, but I still teach both, in order to learn from their arguments. If I didn’t disagree with a philosopher it would hardly be worth engaging with him or her, because there would be nothing to learn.

Sean Illing, Vox, “9 questions” series, 23 April 2017 source ↗

Others on this question

View all 26 →
Guy Raz Radio journalist and podcast host
I don’t think there is a better journalist than Hitchens writing in English. The power of his arguments – they’re so crisply written, they’re so forceful that, if you are on the other side, they almost strangle you. There’s nobody more compelling to read. Every time I read him, I learn something from him. His arguments are so tight, they’re hermetic. It’s very difficult to take them apart. I certainly don’t agree with him a lot of the time, but you can’t but be in awe of the way he can build an argument.
Recorded Five Books interview, published transcript source ↗
Adam Gopnik Staff writer at The New Yorker; essayist
Writers we think are all wrong and want to read anyway come in two kinds: those who are good writers and bad thinkers — Christopher Hitchens, Norman Podhoretz, and Gore Vidal, each in his terribly different way, are instances of that — and those who may not be original stylists but who we admire for trying to be better thinkers than they were before, stumbling toward truth from a starting place very different from the one we happened to inherit. I disagree, for instance, with David Frum about almost everything, from Iraq to the legacy of Pierre Trudeau in our native Canada, but never doubt his integrity or desire to tell the truth about the world.
Recorded Sean Illing, Vox, “9 questions” series, 16 September 2017 source ↗
Fareed Zakaria Journalist and author; host of CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS
The Wall Street Journal editorial page, most of the time an intelligent and essential voice in American political life.
Recorded Sean Illing, Vox, “9 questions” series, 20 May 2017 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

Sarah Perry, David Nasaw, Skye C. Cleary, Henry Rollins, Kwame Anthony Appiah, Alain de Botton

Search the directory for somebody in particular.

Explore further

Report this answer