Comments on: Are there any important books in political philosophy any more?

By: djw

djw — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:58:40 +0000

He’s so underappreciated I apparently can’t spell his name correctly…

By: djw

djw — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:57:23 +0000

Harry, I think it was you who got me to read Lomansky in the first place, which I should thank you for. I certainly never heard boo about him in my graduate education. Perhaps that’s because his book is squarely on the philosophy side of the philosophy/political science divide in political theory, whereas Nozick is an acknowledged shared text. Which is something that, someday, deserves it’s own thread. What makes for a “shared text” amongst political theorists and political philosophers. Is it a particular set of intellectual qualities, or are other factors determinant?

By: harry b

harry b — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:54:15 +0000

Have to agree with djw, almost exactly, about ASU versus Lomasky. Sure, Nozick is great, and I can see why everyone reads him, but I find it incredibly irritating to read stuff that is so clever but so half-baked at the same time. I’m sure Loren Lomasky doesn’t think he’s as good a philosopher as Nozick is, and he’s not, but his book is a much better defence of libertarianism, one that is far more careful, truly engaged with the compelling reasons people have for rejecting libertarianism, etc. Sure, I’m an anti-libertarian, so maybe I don’t count, but, well, its a book that deserves much more attention and a much bigger audience.

Talking of which, Schmidtz’s first book, which came and went like a flash, is super, too.

By: Thom Brooks

Thom Brooks — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:43:28 +0000

One question we haven’t discussed is whether the last two years or less has produced the next TJ or ASU is the right timeframe. Would the last five years be better….?

By: djw

djw — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 23:13:51 +0000

Chris, I more or less agree, but of course part of the reason ASU isn’t boring is because you’re too busy being driven mad by bad and misused analogies, astonishing gaps in logic, etc etc.

Lomasky’s book is, frankly, better. As is Schmidtz, and Tomasi. And they’re not that boring.

By: micah schwartzman

micah schwartzman — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 20:50:20 +0000

Combining (32) and (33), perhaps it would help to expand the timeline? Must-reads for political philosophers (or, alternatively, for those in related fields) over the last ten years might be a more interesting category. It’s probably not as long a list as one might think. This might be good for another post, just to keep the ball rolling.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 18:52:01 +0000

ASU “not that good”??

Well I take it that you think that there are other books of libertarian political philosophy that are somehow more complete, make fewer mistakes, provide arguments for their main premises etc. All true no doubt. But no-one ever died of boredom reading Nozick, he had a talent for vivid and compelling parables and examples, and a acute sense of the dialectic. Those other books (I’m thinking Lomasky for example) … zzzzzzzzzzzz.

By: Jacob T. Levy

Jacob T. Levy — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 18:23:45 +0000

I think that Jacob (and Jonathan) are under a misconception about what I was asking for. I wasn’t supposing that, to qualify, a book would have to be as comprehensive in its scope as TJ or ASU. Rather, as I said, the criterion was just that the book would be a “must read” for any self-respecting political philosopher.

Ah. Since the story started with a sociologist asking hwat he should read, I thought the idea was “political philosophy books that are must-reads across the human sciences,” not “political philosophy books that are must-reads in political philosophy.” For the latter, I certainly think Schmidtz and Nussbaum both meet the bar, to name two of the 2005-06 book that have been discussed.

(I also think that, while Law and Disagreement and Dignity of Legislation are an important complementary pair and people ought to read them both, those who are only going to read one should read the former.)

By: djw

djw — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 16:17:32 +0000

Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Also, it’s not that good. Indeed, there are several other broadly libertarian political theory books in recent decades that are better, but Nozick was temporally and professionally situated to write the big book.

By: wmr

wmr — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 04:44:07 +0000

What is the full title of ASU?

By: Carl

Carl — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 19:40:57 +0000

I forgot to add that “Are Women Human?” is published by Harvard University Press, 2006.

By: Carl

Carl — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 19:33:55 +0000

Thom and Patrick mentioned MacKinnon’s “Women’s Lives, Men’s Laws”. MacKinnon also has a newer book out, that is also terrific and is called “Are Women Human?” I strongly recommend it as well.

By: Patrick S. O'Donnell

Patrick S. O'Donnell — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:31:51 +0000

Thom,

Re: MacKinnon, I agree: It was in my list above.

Best,
Patrick

By: Thom Brooks

Thom Brooks — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 09:53:26 +0000

In addition to the Buchanan and Nussbaum suggestions above, I would add one more:

Catharine A. MacKinnon, Women’s Lives, Men’s Laws. Belknap/Harvard UP, 2005. (A terrific read)

I would also think Lacey’s biography of Hart a must read, too.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:12:54 +0000

Well I think you ought to read both, and that they are complementary rather than one being the baby version of the other. There’s more history of philosophy in DoL whereas LaD is aimed at the lawyers.