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 →
Myra Strober Labor economist; professor at Stanford’s School of Education
I like the introduction where she says that ‘the solution does not lie in government regulation or getting men to do more around the house, although that would be nice.’ I disagree with her about government regulation.
Recorded Sophie Roell, Five Books interview, published transcript, 10 June 2015 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 ↗
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 ↗
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 ↗

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