Scan barcode
stinekristin's review against another edition
3.0
Wow, finally got through this one.
It's quite a heavy read, and Nozick goes through his theories in an extreme mathematical logic - often literally. Sometimes this makes parts of the book almost unreadable, and I had to read through several pages again and again until I finally believed I understood, and sometimes I just had to accept that I completely did not understand what Nozick meant.
Nozick raises every question imaginable that can be raised about this books main subjects. All in all it is well thought through, although half the book is almost unreadable.
I didn't like how, in the first part, he often justified his theories by presenting them as if everyone would have the same economic benefits (e.g. buying protection or other goods from other people or the state). The first part of the book struck me as a very American way of thinking about society as a whole.
I did however like Chapter 8: Equality, Eny, Exploitation, Etc. (in part 2) a lot, I found this chapter profoundly interesting, despite Nozick's analytic rationality. It is interesting how Nozick himself writes that he does not believe he is absolutely correct about his theories, and that he has changed his mind during over the years working with these subjects.
This book is not flawless, and in my own opinion contains quite a few weak arguments, but it raises many interesting points.
Even if you don't understand it all, it certainly gives you a lot to think about. All in all this is an intelligent, well-written, and reflected book.
It's quite a heavy read, and Nozick goes through his theories in an extreme mathematical logic - often literally. Sometimes this makes parts of the book almost unreadable, and I had to read through several pages again and again until I finally believed I understood, and sometimes I just had to accept that I completely did not understand what Nozick meant.
Nozick raises every question imaginable that can be raised about this books main subjects. All in all it is well thought through, although half the book is almost unreadable.
I didn't like how, in the first part, he often justified his theories by presenting them as if everyone would have the same economic benefits (e.g. buying protection or other goods from other people or the state). The first part of the book struck me as a very American way of thinking about society as a whole.
I did however like Chapter 8: Equality, Eny, Exploitation, Etc. (in part 2) a lot, I found this chapter profoundly interesting, despite Nozick's analytic rationality. It is interesting how Nozick himself writes that he does not believe he is absolutely correct about his theories, and that he has changed his mind during over the years working with these subjects.
This book is not flawless, and in my own opinion contains quite a few weak arguments, but it raises many interesting points.
"So is this all it comes to: Utopia is a free societ?" Utopia is not just a society in which the framwork is realized. For who could believe that ten minutes after the framework was established, we would have utopia? Things would be no different than now. It is what grows spontaneously from the individual choises of many people over a long period of time that will be worth speaking eloquently about.
Even if you don't understand it all, it certainly gives you a lot to think about. All in all this is an intelligent, well-written, and reflected book.
volbet's review
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
Nozick is one of those philosophers where you can disagree vehemently with his conclusions, but you have to admire the artful manner in which he makes his argument.
If you enter into Anarchy, State, and Utopia with a foundational acceptance of Nozick's methodology and assumptions, then finding proper counter-arguments to Nozick's case for the minimal state is a steep, up-hill battle. As it stands, this is probably the most systematic, coherent and convincing argument for Anglo-American libertarianism.
Also, what Nozick did to poor John Rawls can only be described as the philosophical equivalent of being smothered to death. Never before have I seen such tough love on public display.
There are certainly arguments to be made against Nozick. Although, they're almost bound to take a methodological angle, critiquing Anarchy, State, and Utopia on terms different from its own.
Like, Nozick's reliance on counter-factual epistemology at the center of his broader political epistemology is often baffling, and his justification of his methodological individualism is deafening in
If you enter into Anarchy, State, and Utopia with a foundational acceptance of Nozick's methodology and assumptions, then finding proper counter-arguments to Nozick's case for the minimal state is a steep, up-hill battle. As it stands, this is probably the most systematic, coherent and convincing argument for Anglo-American libertarianism.
Also, what Nozick did to poor John Rawls can only be described as the philosophical equivalent of being smothered to death. Never before have I seen such tough love on public display.
There are certainly arguments to be made against Nozick. Although, they're almost bound to take a methodological angle, critiquing Anarchy, State, and Utopia on terms different from its own.
Like, Nozick's reliance on counter-factual epistemology at the center of his broader political epistemology is often baffling, and his justification of his methodological individualism is deafening in
More...