[I have split my answer loosely across ‘themes’ to strike a balance between spamming answers and allowing more fine-grained voting/discussion.]
Something that has more of a “humanities” flavor and/or helps you understand that perspective rather than triggering “this is just crazy/empty/???” reactions. Maybe some people can get this from Wittgenstein, or from Rorty (e.g. Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity), or from Deirdre McCloskey (e.g. this paper [might be paywalled] or this one) …
I also kind of think everyone should read at least one biography, in particular of people who have become scientifically, intellectually, culturally, or politically influential. (Robert Caro’s The Power Broker on Robert Moses might be a particularly interesting one but it’s also very long …)
This one is a bit whacky, but I think there are some important points in Carl Schmitt’s The Concept of the Political, specifically how he tries to define ‘the political’ by saying “the specific political distinction … is that between friend and enemy.” But yeah then he also says a few terrible things.
This from the SEP probably gives you a rough idea of what to expect: “Schmitt is often considered to be one of the most important critics of liberalism, parliamentary democracy, and liberal cosmopolitanism. But the value and significance of Schmitt’s work is subject to controversy, mainly due to his intellectual support for and active involvement with National Socialism.”
I agree that reading some political realist literature (like Schmitt) could be valuable to a lot of EAs who have an interest in politics. This article gives a useful overview of the tradition.
Thanks! Your link doesn’t work for me—seems like there’s an EA Forum part before the SciHub one, but if I use just the SciHub part it won’t work either.
I might want to add Martha Nussbaum to this list. She is quite systemic and analytical while also engaging with a wide variety of philosophers (e.g. Aristotle, Marx, Mackinnon). Maybe Sex and Social Justice or Frontiers of Justice. (although I haven’t read the latter yet).
I also kind of think everyone should read at least one biography, in particular of people who have become scientifically, intellectually, culturally, or politically influential.
Some biographies I’ve enjoyed in this vein:
Frank Ramsey: A Sheer Excess of Powers
The Price of Peace: Money, Democracy, and the Life of John Maynard Keynes
Came here by searching for Frank Ramsey on the forum. I considered writing a post about the same biography you mentioned for the forum. It’s very humbling to see how much he already thought of, which we now call EA.
A related work I can recommend is “Exact Thinking in Demented Times: The Vienna Circle and the Epic Quest for the Foundations of Science”
Do you have a preference between biographies vs autobiographies? Like intuitively biographies are better because they’re more objective/they aren’t trying hard to “sell something” but personally I’ve found autobiographies more interesting/information-dense. If I were to come up with potential legible reasons for this intuition (note that this is coming up with reasons after-the-fact, rather than because I carefully analyzed the merits and downsides of each before reading):
Autobiographies tend to be shorter
Getting the first-person view gives me a better sense of how someone thinks (or at least how they think they think).
Biographies (at least recent ones) might be heavily skewed towards modern sensibilities and ways of analysis, autobiographies feel more raw and gives me a better glimpse of different worldviews (though at the risk of higher probability of misunderstanding)
I think the only autobiography I ever read is Emma Goldman’s Living My Life. It was at a time not too long ago when I had felt particularly fed up with the EA community, and so was motivated by a peculiar kind of escapism. It did its job, but I feel like leaves me in a poor position to compare biographies to autobiographies more generally. :)
Incidentally, I’ve recently read John Stuart Mill’s autobiography, and I’m currently (slowly) going through Wu Lien-Teh’s Plague Fighter. Next I plan to read either From Third World to First or Double Helix.
Btw, I’m not sure if “autobiographies tend to be shorter” is right? Even if it’s correct on average, there certainly are some biographies that are fairly short.
E.g. I read a very short biography of Peter Kropotkin and a short biography of Hannah Arendt. And a short “dual (partial) biography” on Churchill and Orwell.
I think it was OK, but nearer the bottom of biographies I’ve read. In hindsight I would probably rather read a biography on just Churchill (but this might just reflect what I’m more interested in, and whom I happened to already know more about).
[I have split my answer loosely across ‘themes’ to strike a balance between spamming answers and allowing more fine-grained voting/discussion.]
Something that has more of a “humanities” flavor and/or helps you understand that perspective rather than triggering “this is just crazy/empty/???” reactions. Maybe some people can get this from Wittgenstein, or from Rorty (e.g. Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity), or from Deirdre McCloskey (e.g. this paper [might be paywalled] or this one) …
I also kind of think everyone should read at least one biography, in particular of people who have become scientifically, intellectually, culturally, or politically influential. (Robert Caro’s The Power Broker on Robert Moses might be a particularly interesting one but it’s also very long …)
This one is a bit whacky, but I think there are some important points in Carl Schmitt’s The Concept of the Political, specifically how he tries to define ‘the political’ by saying “the specific political distinction … is that between friend and enemy.” But yeah then he also says a few terrible things.
This from the SEP probably gives you a rough idea of what to expect: “Schmitt is often considered to be one of the most important critics of liberalism, parliamentary democracy, and liberal cosmopolitanism. But the value and significance of Schmitt’s work is subject to controversy, mainly due to his intellectual support for and active involvement with National Socialism.”
I agree that reading some political realist literature (like Schmitt) could be valuable to a lot of EAs who have an interest in politics. This article gives a useful overview of the tradition.
Thanks! Your link doesn’t work for me—seems like there’s an EA Forum part before the SciHub one, but if I use just the SciHub part it won’t work either.
Sorry about that, not sure why because the link works for me. But the article is Galston’s [Realism in Political Theory](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1474885110374001).
I might want to add Martha Nussbaum to this list. She is quite systemic and analytical while also engaging with a wide variety of philosophers (e.g. Aristotle, Marx, Mackinnon). Maybe Sex and Social Justice or Frontiers of Justice. (although I haven’t read the latter yet).
Thanks! I suspect I might enjoy Martha Nussbaum, but Sex and Social Justice never made it from my reading list into my actual bookshelf.
Some biographies I’ve enjoyed in this vein:
Frank Ramsey: A Sheer Excess of Powers
The Price of Peace: Money, Democracy, and the Life of John Maynard Keynes
Karl Marx: a Nineteenth-Century Life
Came here by searching for Frank Ramsey on the forum. I considered writing a post about the same biography you mentioned for the forum. It’s very humbling to see how much he already thought of, which we now call EA.
A related work I can recommend is “Exact Thinking in Demented Times: The Vienna Circle and the Epic Quest for the Foundations of Science”
Interesting. Can you say a bit more about what aspects of EA Ramsey had thought of, in your view? His views on discounting and probability?
I would love to read such a post!
Agreed — I think the Ramsey/Keynes-era Apostles would make an interesting case study of a ‘proto-EA’ community.
Gavin Leech has recently jotted down some thoughts on Ramsey here.
Do you have a preference between biographies vs autobiographies? Like intuitively biographies are better because they’re more objective/they aren’t trying hard to “sell something” but personally I’ve found autobiographies more interesting/information-dense. If I were to come up with potential legible reasons for this intuition (note that this is coming up with reasons after-the-fact, rather than because I carefully analyzed the merits and downsides of each before reading):
Autobiographies tend to be shorter
Getting the first-person view gives me a better sense of how someone thinks (or at least how they think they think).
Biographies (at least recent ones) might be heavily skewed towards modern sensibilities and ways of analysis, autobiographies feel more raw and gives me a better glimpse of different worldviews (though at the risk of higher probability of misunderstanding)
Autobiographies make me feel more ambitious
I think the only autobiography I ever read is Emma Goldman’s Living My Life. It was at a time not too long ago when I had felt particularly fed up with the EA community, and so was motivated by a peculiar kind of escapism. It did its job, but I feel like leaves me in a poor position to compare biographies to autobiographies more generally. :)
Incidentally, I’ve recently read John Stuart Mill’s autobiography, and I’m currently (slowly) going through Wu Lien-Teh’s Plague Fighter. Next I plan to read either From Third World to First or Double Helix.
Btw, I’m not sure if “autobiographies tend to be shorter” is right? Even if it’s correct on average, there certainly are some biographies that are fairly short.
E.g. I read a very short biography of Peter Kropotkin and a short biography of Hannah Arendt. And a short “dual (partial) biography” on Churchill and Orwell.
Sure, my tendency claim is about averages (and also anecdotally grounded than because I did a full survey).
Would you recommend the short dual biography on Churchill and Orwell?
SammyDMartin has now posted a review of the Churchill + Orwell biography.
Thank you, I enjoyed the review and probably would not have read it if you didn’t link it.
I think it was OK, but nearer the bottom of biographies I’ve read. In hindsight I would probably rather read a biography on just Churchill (but this might just reflect what I’m more interested in, and whom I happened to already know more about).
Hey Max, there is no link to the McCloskey paper.
Thanks, fixed :)