A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
On This Page
Description
In this book, which the author calls a "culmination of thirty years of work in the history of ideas," Sowell attempts to explain the ideological difference between liberals and conservatives as a disagreement over the moral potential inherent in nature. Those who see that potential as limited prefer to constrain governmental authority, he argues. They feel that reform is difficult and often dangerous, and put their faith in family, custom, law, and traditional institutions. Conversely, those show more who have faith in human nature prefer to remove institutional and traditional constraints. Controversies over such diverse issues as criminal justice, income distribution, or war and peace repeatedly show an ideological divide along the lines of these two conflicting visions. show lessTags
Recommendations
Member Recommendations
by anonymous user
by anonymous user
Member Reviews
Sowell is brilliant. This I knew, because I read his [b:Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy|3023|Basic Economics A Citizen's Guide to the Economy|Thomas Sowell|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1388328985l/3023._SX50_.jpg|812361]. But this was a completely different field and contained so much philosophical research that I was almost convinced he was a different Thomas Sowell.
His main, and, again, maddeningly neutral,* thesis centers on the two different over-arching visions traceable throughout history. His exploration of Marxism was perhaps the clearest and most succinct that I have ever read (seriously). Similarly, his view of the Nazi party was fascinating. I especially loved the show more last section which, possibly, illustrates the sources of some of the generational disconnect we're experiencing at the moment. I highly recommend this book---If only to help you understand where the other side might be coming from and why it is so difficult, for some, to see your point of view.
*Tell me which vision he prefers? I'm pretty sure you can't get it from this book. show less
His main, and, again, maddeningly neutral,* thesis centers on the two different over-arching visions traceable throughout history. His exploration of Marxism was perhaps the clearest and most succinct that I have ever read (seriously). Similarly, his view of the Nazi party was fascinating. I especially loved the show more last section which, possibly, illustrates the sources of some of the generational disconnect we're experiencing at the moment. I highly recommend this book---If only to help you understand where the other side might be coming from and why it is so difficult, for some, to see your point of view.
*Tell me which vision he prefers? I'm pretty sure you can't get it from this book. show less
Illuminating.
Sowell brilliantly distills the history of human conflict into a battle of irreconcilable worldviews: the constrained view of humanity and the unconstrained view of humanity. The former assumes man is morally crippled and selfish at its foundation. The latter assumes that man is merely broken by circumstances. Sowell expounds on these worldviews and discusses their implications in a variety of different areas including justice, war, and power. However, he does not do that dogmatically, but rather lets the thought leaders' original writings, and those of their contemporaries do the talking. This book is well-researched and convincing.
Go read it.
Sowell brilliantly distills the history of human conflict into a battle of irreconcilable worldviews: the constrained view of humanity and the unconstrained view of humanity. The former assumes man is morally crippled and selfish at its foundation. The latter assumes that man is merely broken by circumstances. Sowell expounds on these worldviews and discusses their implications in a variety of different areas including justice, war, and power. However, he does not do that dogmatically, but rather lets the thought leaders' original writings, and those of their contemporaries do the talking. This book is well-researched and convincing.
Go read it.
This book was a seminal event for me. It put into words many things that I sensed I believed, but had no words to describe. It taught me things about thinking, about going back to the root and following thoughts to their logical conclusions.
The book digs at the roots of the differences between conservative and liberal thinking. It is not a political hack piece that is intended to get a certain party elected, but a political philosophy that has been digested over many years of thought and put down as a wake-up call for us.
It exposes the dangers of policy by emotion, making policy choices based on what seems good, but gets us back to judge policy not by intent but by result. It goes back to the very definition of conservative and liberal, show more not as a party affilition, connotation, or label given by the opposition, but root beliefs that drive decisions.
It challenged me to look at why I did things, why I made the choices I made. It challenged me to look at what I really believed and make choices from that foundation.
If you are a talk-show conservative, you need to read this book. The level of thinking of most hosts is extremely shallow. If not, they give it to us in bite-sized pieces for easy digestion. Don't go through life not knowing why you believe what you proclaim to believe.
If you are a liberal, you need to read this book. It will help you understand the underpinnings of the decisions that conservatives make or should be making. It will challenge you to look hard at the foundations of your thought processes. Perhaps it will open some dialogue and cure our current polarization. show less
The book digs at the roots of the differences between conservative and liberal thinking. It is not a political hack piece that is intended to get a certain party elected, but a political philosophy that has been digested over many years of thought and put down as a wake-up call for us.
It exposes the dangers of policy by emotion, making policy choices based on what seems good, but gets us back to judge policy not by intent but by result. It goes back to the very definition of conservative and liberal, show more not as a party affilition, connotation, or label given by the opposition, but root beliefs that drive decisions.
It challenged me to look at why I did things, why I made the choices I made. It challenged me to look at what I really believed and make choices from that foundation.
If you are a talk-show conservative, you need to read this book. The level of thinking of most hosts is extremely shallow. If not, they give it to us in bite-sized pieces for easy digestion. Don't go through life not knowing why you believe what you proclaim to believe.
If you are a liberal, you need to read this book. It will help you understand the underpinnings of the decisions that conservatives make or should be making. It will challenge you to look hard at the foundations of your thought processes. Perhaps it will open some dialogue and cure our current polarization. show less
I can see why Sowell considers this among his best three works. In A conflict of Visions, he presents a generalized philosophical model that frames every major economic and political viewpoint. He references many prominent thinker on both sides of his model, which is based not on left vs. right, nor authoritarian vs. libertarian, but instead on constrained vs. the unconstrained visions. So many ideological discussions about politics, religion, trade, and social justice would be far more enlightening if participants had considered them within the context of Sowell's brilliant and well-written analysis.
Forget about all the clowns and comedians today posing as valid pundits, the man to clarify the American political debate is Thomas Sowell. For me this was the sort of tremendously-challenging book I came across only a couple of times in a decade that really makes me shift my assumptions and rethink my worldview. - Adam
Extremely helpful in understanding the differences between groups of people that Sowell argues can be grouped as having a constrained vision (emphasizes process conducive to desired results) or an unconstrained vision (emphasizes desired results over process) and how such visions effect polity, science, and pretty much all issues of culture. I think if Sowell were a Christian he’d appreciate that the constrained vision is simply a recognition that mankind is fallen and our worldview must account for this.
Why do we usually see the same people squaring off at each other on subjects as diverse as capitalism vs socialism, military expenditures, judicial activism, aid to third world countries, etc?
In this book, Thomas Sowell's answer is that, at the heart of the matter, there is a conflict between two visions of human nature. The constrained vision, and the unconstrained one. Simplistically, the former views man as an inherently limited creature that no amount of effort can substantially change, while the latter views man as a creature that has a great potential to become perfect or close to it.
Sowell shows that starting with each of these two different views as assumptions one can reach drastically different conclusions on many political show more and economical issues.
The great value of this book is in crystallizing one's world view and making it easier to understand the world view of opponents.
Another important lesson that can be learned from this book is that people seeing different visions of man often do not even speak the same language. Concepts such as power, equality, justice and freedom have very different meanings in each of the visions. This often results in fruitless debates in which each side attacks not the other side's actual positions, but merely perceived ones. show less
In this book, Thomas Sowell's answer is that, at the heart of the matter, there is a conflict between two visions of human nature. The constrained vision, and the unconstrained one. Simplistically, the former views man as an inherently limited creature that no amount of effort can substantially change, while the latter views man as a creature that has a great potential to become perfect or close to it.
Sowell shows that starting with each of these two different views as assumptions one can reach drastically different conclusions on many political show more and economical issues.
The great value of this book is in crystallizing one's world view and making it easier to understand the world view of opponents.
Another important lesson that can be learned from this book is that people seeing different visions of man often do not even speak the same language. Concepts such as power, equality, justice and freedom have very different meanings in each of the visions. This often results in fruitless debates in which each side attacks not the other side's actual positions, but merely perceived ones. show less
Members
- Recently Added By
Author Information
Thomas Sowell is the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
Awards and Honors
Notable Lists
Work Relationships
Common Knowledge
- Canonical title
- A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles
- Original publication date
- 1987
- Epigraph
- Every man, where he goes, is encompassed by a cloud of comforting convictions, which move with him like flies on a summer day.
--Bertrand Russell - Dedication
- To my wife, Mary, with love
- First words
- (Preface): This book has been more years in the writing than I realized, until I looked back over my own work of the past decade or more and noted how often the concept of "visions" has appeared.
One of the curious things about political opinions is how often the same people line up on the opposite sides of different issues. - Last words
- (Click to show. Warning: May contain spoilers.)Dedication to a cause may legitimately entail sacrifices of personal interests but not sacrifices of mind or conscience.
Classifications
- Genres
- Politics and Government, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Sociology, General Nonfiction, History
- DDC/MDS
- 303.372 — Society, Government, and Culture Social sciences, sociology & anthropology Social processes Coordination and control Social norms Belief systems and customs
- LCC
- HM681 .S69 — Social sciences Sociology (General) Sociology Social control
- BISAC
Statistics
- Members
- 1,074
- Popularity
- 23,747
- Reviews
- 17
- Rating
- (4.28)
- Languages
- English, Hebrew, Portuguese, Spanish
- Media
- Paper, Audiobook, Ebook
- ISBNs
- 16
- ASINs
- 12