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 →
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 ↗
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 ↗
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 ↗
Celeste Ng Novelist
Well, I almost never agree with anything anyone in the current administration says, but I read their press releases and interviews and late-night tweets regularly, because I need to stay informed.
Recorded Sean Illing, Vox, “9 questions” series, 5 August 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