Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.09 AVERAGE
4.09 AVERAGE
Sowell is an excellent writer, and this book is an excellent primer on exactly what its title says it's about. In the introduction he also cops to the limitations of the book, citing what becomes apparent the more one reads throughout, that it speaks very broadly to the issues and is not meant to be any kind of "call to action" or ideological rules set to adhere to. It's to increase understanding. The book is highly informative and an excellent jumping-off point for further study. It's also worth nothing that there is no small amount of food for thought from start to end and that it is almost certain that some, perhaps many readers will have their minds changed/adjusted in the course of the reading.
One day, when I am less academically busy, maybe when I'm old and have the energy for it, I will reread this and take notes. I learned a lot, as an overall summary, but I don't think I retained as much. Very helpful book, but imo a reread is needed in the future.
I cannot give this book enough praise. Sowell has provided an incredible framework for understanding the nature of political struggles due to competing worldviews and views on human nature. This book joins my personal canon of current issues and politics.
He convincingly shows the logical extensions of two primary worldviews. It would be an oversimplification to say that the "constrained" and "unconstrained" worldviews he identifies are synonymous with "leftist" and "rightist". This book offers a mind-blowing insight into why people of varying political perspectives use much of the same language and even hold shared values, but talk past each other. Sowell writes fair-mindedly showing how two competing worldviews can remain logically consistent albeit starting from very different views on human nature and the nature of social causation.
I wish everybody who joined in political discourse could read this book. This book could easily be turned into a year long college course. Sowell is a sage!
He convincingly shows the logical extensions of two primary worldviews. It would be an oversimplification to say that the "constrained" and "unconstrained" worldviews he identifies are synonymous with "leftist" and "rightist". This book offers a mind-blowing insight into why people of varying political perspectives use much of the same language and even hold shared values, but talk past each other. Sowell writes fair-mindedly showing how two competing worldviews can remain logically consistent albeit starting from very different views on human nature and the nature of social causation.
I wish everybody who joined in political discourse could read this book. This book could easily be turned into a year long college course. Sowell is a sage!
Allow me to simply relay a text message to you which I sent to the friend who recommended this book to me on her year-end book review list:
Wow! I finally got to reading Sowell’s Conflict of Visions (feeling desperate to try to understand the other side of the [political] aisle right now!)
I knew it would be helpful, but WOW! I didn’t know a book could simultaneous expound and solidify my ardent beliefs while at the same time make me more sympathetic and generous to the opposing positions!
So so so helpful! And I’m only on chapter 4!
I’m listening to the audio- ”Included with prime.”! Who knew?!
I think every high schooler should study this book.
To be fair, I have not finished this book…yet, but I did make it through much of the primary material. I said in the text above that I believe every high schooler should study this book, but now I would extend that to college students too.
This book was a difficult read for me—philosophically. Sowell’s writing is not particularly difficult, and his ideas make very logical and quite profound sense—which is why I heartily recommend this book—but it takes a bit of effort. This book is needed more than ever in our very divided nation. Go get it.
Audible Note: This book is “included with Prime.”
Wow! I finally got to reading Sowell’s Conflict of Visions (feeling desperate to try to understand the other side of the [political] aisle right now!)
I knew it would be helpful, but WOW! I didn’t know a book could simultaneous expound and solidify my ardent beliefs while at the same time make me more sympathetic and generous to the opposing positions!
So so so helpful! And I’m only on chapter 4!
I’m listening to the audio- ”Included with prime.”! Who knew?!
I think every high schooler should study this book.
To be fair, I have not finished this book…yet, but I did make it through much of the primary material. I said in the text above that I believe every high schooler should study this book, but now I would extend that to college students too.
This book was a difficult read for me—philosophically. Sowell’s writing is not particularly difficult, and his ideas make very logical and quite profound sense—which is why I heartily recommend this book—but it takes a bit of effort. This book is needed more than ever in our very divided nation. Go get it.
Audible Note: This book is “included with Prime.”
challenging
reflective
medium-paced
informative
reflective
medium-paced
"An analysis of the implications and dynamics of visions can clarify issues without reducing dedication to one's own vision, even when it is understood to be a vision, rather than an incontrovertible fact, an iron law, or an opaque moral imperative."
Dense reading, but gives me a better understanding of the political spectrum in the U.S. (though the text can apply equally to conflicting visions anywhere else).
Dense reading, but gives me a better understanding of the political spectrum in the U.S. (though the text can apply equally to conflicting visions anywhere else).
challenging
informative
slow-paced
Sowell is brilliant! He looks at the patterns found throughout history and describes the two competing visions of the world that define our social and political struggles. The constrained" vision which views human nature as fallen and self focused, and the "unconstrained" vision which see human nature as changeable and moving towards perfection. Sowell's writing is challenging, and yet understandable. A magnificent read.
A very strange book. On the one hand, did raise some very interesting points, on a number of social, political and economic ideas. In the other hand, the book completely fails two of its main goals. The first goal of being impartial - Sowell is clearly leaning towards his constrained category. But the second is far worse; I think his categorisation is completely bogus anyway. He discusses very many interesting points to try and draw a category, but he’s drawing categories where none exist (or he hasn’t persuaded me at all). I also don’t like he writing style overall, but he does write segments of sentences pretty well. Honestly I think having a table for constrained/unconstrained would have been much easier to understand without all the needless qualifications of which vision he’s trying to explain at the time, and his verbose style.
Worth a read for the ideas wrapped up in it, regardless of if the book did what he set out for it to do
Worth a read for the ideas wrapped up in it, regardless of if the book did what he set out for it to do
I read this book as part of my effort to catch up with some classic libertarian literature I missed out on back when I read little else. I expected some generic political or historical treatise, and was a little surprised when it turned out to be dealing with something far more fundamental: The general visions underlying different ideologies. If there is a text I'd describe as meta-ideological, it would be this one. I won't say that Sowells theoretical construct of two different visions with which one sees the world and mankind in it is not ideologically charged, but it still remains remarkably neutral.
The unconstrained vision, I would say, focuses on potential. Its first question is always: "What could be?". Human limitations are regarded as something to be overcome, and ideals as something to be actually realized. The constrained vision, of course, is the polar opposite, it focuses on human limitations. These two poles describe a spectrum, and while they appear exclusive, a person or ideology can take the unconstrained vision in one aspect and the constrained vision in another. For example, one can at the same time and without any contradiction believe in unlimited human potential for goodness and in the fact that statistically, only a minority will achieve a fraction of that goodness, with the implication that while it is possible for one person to rise above law and custom, the majority will never do so. Marxism is also a mixed case like that, with its belief that everyone will one day achieve the heights of Aristotle and its simultaneous belief that this development hinges entirely on material conditions. That is my interpretation, I should add, I don't remember exactly how Sowell - a former Marxist - framed it.
While I have seldom made use of the thinking tool Sowell developed here, it's always good to have it at the back of your head somewhere when you engage with different philosophies. Philosophical and political discourse would be far more productive if both sides had terms to describe their respective ideologies in respect to how they view human limitations. Right now, that discourse consists of vague charges to utopianism or cynicism and the odd reference to human nature.
One thing that irked me is that Sowell did not talk about any thinker from before the 17th century. His take on Platos [b:Republic|30289|The Republic|Plato|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1386925655l/30289._SY75_.jpg|1625515] would've been very interesting, and also supremely relevant, as that book presents the prototype of the political vision. Every utopian project owes to Plato, as the first man to wrote down his idea of the perfect society, with laws, offices, customs and an official ideology. [a:Rothbard|46810|Murray N. Rothbard|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1215371480p2/46810.jpg], [a:Marx|7084|Karl Marx|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1523865402p2/7084.jpg], [a:Rawls|74263|John Rawls|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1257280760p2/74263.jpg], [a:Rousseau|7994|Jean-Jacques Rousseau|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1182863711p2/7994.jpg], they all walked in his footsteps. Plato was also the first philosopher I know of who talked about social engineering, which suggests he belongs to the unconstrained end of the spectrum, yet he conceded that there are uncontrollable social dynamics that might doom his republic in the end, which sounds rather like his vision was constrained.
I'd also be interested in whether the Reformation or the Counter-Reformation was more constrained. I am no expert on the Reformation, but from what I did read about it, it sounds like Luther, Zwingli and Calvin qualify as constrained, proposing the impossibility of living the celibate life, or of bettering your standing with God by doing good works, and in fact of living a virtuous life at all without the grace of God. Calvin takes this the furthest, claiming that we do not even have the free will to choose God. Yet, the Anabaptists sound very much unconstrained to me, with their charismatic spirituality and liberal theology. Catholic doctrine, I would say, strikes a balance, emphasizing both that we have to rely on God in everything we do, and that living a virtuous life is something we choose.
That is the kind of discussion I'd have liked, but like many modern intellectuals, Sowell does not seem to know that much about the history of thought before the 17th century. To me, that's a wasted opportunity, although I give Sowell credit for looking up some more obscure figures from that time period instead of picking the obvious such as [a:Adam Smith|14424|Adam Smith|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1244624882p2/14424.jpg] and Rousseau.
All in all, while this book didn't blow me away, it was still a decent read.
The unconstrained vision, I would say, focuses on potential. Its first question is always: "What could be?". Human limitations are regarded as something to be overcome, and ideals as something to be actually realized. The constrained vision, of course, is the polar opposite, it focuses on human limitations. These two poles describe a spectrum, and while they appear exclusive, a person or ideology can take the unconstrained vision in one aspect and the constrained vision in another. For example, one can at the same time and without any contradiction believe in unlimited human potential for goodness and in the fact that statistically, only a minority will achieve a fraction of that goodness, with the implication that while it is possible for one person to rise above law and custom, the majority will never do so. Marxism is also a mixed case like that, with its belief that everyone will one day achieve the heights of Aristotle and its simultaneous belief that this development hinges entirely on material conditions. That is my interpretation, I should add, I don't remember exactly how Sowell - a former Marxist - framed it.
While I have seldom made use of the thinking tool Sowell developed here, it's always good to have it at the back of your head somewhere when you engage with different philosophies. Philosophical and political discourse would be far more productive if both sides had terms to describe their respective ideologies in respect to how they view human limitations. Right now, that discourse consists of vague charges to utopianism or cynicism and the odd reference to human nature.
One thing that irked me is that Sowell did not talk about any thinker from before the 17th century. His take on Platos [b:Republic|30289|The Republic|Plato|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1386925655l/30289._SY75_.jpg|1625515] would've been very interesting, and also supremely relevant, as that book presents the prototype of the political vision. Every utopian project owes to Plato, as the first man to wrote down his idea of the perfect society, with laws, offices, customs and an official ideology. [a:Rothbard|46810|Murray N. Rothbard|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1215371480p2/46810.jpg], [a:Marx|7084|Karl Marx|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1523865402p2/7084.jpg], [a:Rawls|74263|John Rawls|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1257280760p2/74263.jpg], [a:Rousseau|7994|Jean-Jacques Rousseau|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1182863711p2/7994.jpg], they all walked in his footsteps. Plato was also the first philosopher I know of who talked about social engineering, which suggests he belongs to the unconstrained end of the spectrum, yet he conceded that there are uncontrollable social dynamics that might doom his republic in the end, which sounds rather like his vision was constrained.
I'd also be interested in whether the Reformation or the Counter-Reformation was more constrained. I am no expert on the Reformation, but from what I did read about it, it sounds like Luther, Zwingli and Calvin qualify as constrained, proposing the impossibility of living the celibate life, or of bettering your standing with God by doing good works, and in fact of living a virtuous life at all without the grace of God. Calvin takes this the furthest, claiming that we do not even have the free will to choose God. Yet, the Anabaptists sound very much unconstrained to me, with their charismatic spirituality and liberal theology. Catholic doctrine, I would say, strikes a balance, emphasizing both that we have to rely on God in everything we do, and that living a virtuous life is something we choose.
That is the kind of discussion I'd have liked, but like many modern intellectuals, Sowell does not seem to know that much about the history of thought before the 17th century. To me, that's a wasted opportunity, although I give Sowell credit for looking up some more obscure figures from that time period instead of picking the obvious such as [a:Adam Smith|14424|Adam Smith|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1244624882p2/14424.jpg] and Rousseau.
All in all, while this book didn't blow me away, it was still a decent read.