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 Sarah Perry said elsewhere, not written here
I often hate-read the Daily Mail. It’s the worst of media and the worst of mankind distilled into one publication and in some ways it feels a moral duty to be familiar with it. Too often we all bolt ourselves into an echo chamber, which I think lacks courage, and can lead to a kind of intellectual conceitedness.

Sean Illing, Vox, “9 questions” series, 26 August 2017 source ↗

Others on this question

View all 26 →
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 ↗
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 ↗
Martha Nussbaum Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics, University of Chicago
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.
Recorded Sean Illing, Vox, “9 questions” series, 23 April 2017 source ↗
Bill Nye Science communicator and television presenter
I disagree with virtually everything I’ve ever seen on Fox News, but I watch it anyway.
Recorded Sean Illing, Vox, “9 questions” series, 17 June 2017 source ↗

More from Sarah Perry

View profile →

More on attention & the world

Also answered this · A–Z

Adam Gopnik, Alain de Botton, Antulio J. Echevarria II, Ariel Rubinstein, Beth Breeze, Bill Nye

Search the directory for somebody in particular.

Explore further

Report this answer