Whom do you read even though 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.

Recorded Neil deGrasse Tyson said elsewhere, not written here
The National Review, on occasion. An attempt to understand the brain wiring of as many points of view as I can.

Sean Illing, Vox, “9 questions” series, 25 March 2017 source ↗

Others on this question

View all 26 →
Kwame Anthony Appiah Professor of philosophy and law at New York University
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.
Recorded Five Books interview, published transcript source ↗
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 ↗
Richard White Margaret Byrne Professor of American History, Emeritus, Stanford University
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.
Recorded Eve Gerber, Five Books interview, published transcript, 26 March 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 ↗

More on attention & the world

Also answered this

Massimo Pigliucci, Richard Wolfson, Bill Nye, Paul Thagard, Lisa Randall, Fareed Zakaria

Search the directory for somebody in particular.

Explore further

Report this answer