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 Skye C. Cleary said elsewhere, not written here
It’s short. About 50 pages. I don’t agree with everything she says because, despite her interlocutor and friend being homosexual, she makes a few homophobic comments. I chose this book because it’s witty and fun, it raises some fundamental questions about the nature of love, and also it’s a fascinating insight into society at the time.

Nigel Warburton, Five Books interview, published transcript, 3 September 2018 source ↗

Others on this question

View all 26 →
Ariel Rubinstein Professor of economics at Tel Aviv University and New York University
Firstly, Bob Aumann is a very special man. I disagree with him about his political views – he is a right-wing person. I disagree with him about his current position on “what game theory is about”. From time to time he expresses views – about politics for example – backed with the authority of the great game theoretician. I don’t like those statements. In spite of this fact, I admire him for his academic work and personality.
Recorded Sophie Roell, Five Books interview, published transcript, 6 December 2016 source ↗
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 ↗
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 ↗
John Gray Political philosopher; emeritus professor at the London School of Economics
I would include among philosophical writings some liberals. For example, John Stuart Mill, even though I disagree with him profoundly — a very resourceful and intelligent thinker.
Recorded Tyler Cowen, Conversations with Tyler podcast, published transcript source ↗

More on attention & the world

Also answered this · A–Z

Adam Gopnik, Alain de Botton, Celeste Ng, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, Harry Sidebottom, Henry Rollins

Search the directory for somebody in particular.

Explore further

Report this answer