Thomas Sowell and a Conflict of Visions Interview

I'm watching the video right now

re: #2 ggt

You said on the thread:

I still haven't gotten to that one. I have to take Sowell in small doses. One book every few months. I'm still trying to get thru Basic Economics. I really, really enjoyed his autobiography, BTW.

I'm in a real fiction mode right now. Found short stories on audible.com for under $1. Classical Literature! Many by authors I've known, but now get to enjoy more of!

I have to be honest- this isn't an easy book to read. You will read it small doses anyways. At times a page or two of reading would cause me to stop and think for days before returning to the book. So perhaps you'll want to have some other reading in between- I read another book while reading visions, as I needed a small break from the thinking.

That's my main advice to anyone picking up this book- be prepared to think.

re: #3 Sharmuta

You said on the thread:

I have to be honest- this isn't an easy book to read. You will read it small doses anyways. At times a page or two of reading would cause me to stop and think for days before returning to the book. So perhaps you'll want to have some other reading in between- I read another book while reading visions, as I needed a small break from the thinking.

That's my main advice to anyone picking up this book- be prepared to think.

I agree.

It is like a very rich food. Small bites are best.

re: #3 Sharmuta

One of the intersting aspects of Sowell's dichotomy for me is watching people who are not thinking in his terms switch back and forth between constrained and unconstrained reactions to political events. It's rare that you see anyone who is truly consistent in one vision or another unless they have devoted a lot of thought to what they really believe.

re: #5 jaunte

I am on my second reading- even slower than the first. This time, the first thing to make me stop and think for days on end was in the prologue:

We will do almost anything for our visions, except think about them.

So true.

My first thought was of Leonard Piekoff's book The Ominous Parallels --he begins by explaining the difference between Aristotle and Plato --and it's reverberations thru-out history.

Then I'm reminded of Ayn Rand's Philosophy, Who needs it?

It seems that Sowell's book is a continuation of those themes.

Unfortunately, I've not read either of the above books in some time and can't discuss them in any meaningful detail.

I am continually dismayed that the "dead white-man subjects" are neglected by our current educational know-it-alls. We need those subjects --our founding fathers were classically educated, even Booker T Washington was classically educated.

re: #7 ggt

I agree about get a more classic style back into our schools. The book has a lot to say about the visions and education.

Conflict of visions. The unconstrained vs. the constrained vision. A good follow up is Sowell's discussion Housing Boom and Bust:

Thomas Sowell discusses how we got into the current economic disaster that developed out of the economics and politics of the housing boom and bust.

Government impacts on housing prices through regulatory influences, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc. are a result of unconstrained visions. This video has related examples and the housing bust which is a result of unconstrained policy.

When Senator Kennedy passed, I remarked that it was an easy thing to grant the man his sincerity in his attempt to make this a better world.

For those of us who favor the constrained vision, granting someone of the unconstrained persuasion their sincerity is easy. It is something that means a great deal to them and nearly nothing to us. (see Sincerity Versus Fidelity, pg 60, 2nd edition.)

The thing that surprised me in wake of his passing was how many of those who style themselves as conservatives were unwilling to grant him even that. They described him as been a hateful creature who by their perception did evil for the sake and deliberate purpose of doing evil.

The characterization of Sen. Kennedy as a person who did evil for the sake of doing evil is a hallmark of unconstrained thinking. “Sincerity is so central to the unconstrained vision that it is not readily conceded to adversaries, who are often depicted as apologist or venal.” (pg 59)

Was their hostility to Kennedy, there willingness to deny him his sincerity to do good, a reflection of their vision, or a reflection of the frustration and frenzy of the moment?

Could there be other valid explanations?

re: #10 Syrah

Was their hostility to Kennedy, there willingness to deny him his sincerity to do good, a reflection of their vision, or a reflection of the frustration and frenzy of the moment?

I think it has to do with the non-constrained right. Religious fundamentalists are unconstrained, fascists are hybrids. The more religious right is unconstrained, and the white nationalists/racists/bigots are more hybrid. Where the particulars lie would lie with each individual.

I thought that comment you made to Senator Kennedy was gracious of you, even though I knew it bothered you nor I to grant it to him not a bit. ;)

Still- I do away with much of the notions of right and left, and focus on the underlying assumptions. This is where we can get a better handle on where the wires are getting crossed. I see a lot of constrained elements on the right, and it's not good. I see on the left there are moderates who are more constrained who would make better allies than these unconstrained rageaholics.

I had not considered this aspect of the passing of Senator Kennedy, Syrah. Thanks for a great topic. :)