Product Details
|
Tag this product(What's this?)Think of a tag as a keyword or label you consider is strongly related to this product.
Tags will help all customers organize and find favorite items. |
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most helpful customer reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
The Ground Zero of Ideological Thought,
By
This review is from: A Conflict Of Visions: Idealogical Origins Of Political Struggles (Paperback)
I have read several essays by Mr. Sowell, and have always been impressed. In A Conflict of Visions, Mr Sowell attempts to explain the basic grounding that people have, in regards to their political points of view. There is the constrained view of human nature, versus the unconstrained view. The constrained viewpoint feels human nature has restrictions, that must be considered at all times. The unconstrained viewpoint feels that there are no limits to human nature. All that is needed is someone smart enough to figure out a solution to societies problems.Sowell also goes onto explain how different political systems fit into his model. This is a great book, to help you understand how other people form their political viewpoints.
3.0 out of 5 stars
A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Stru,
By
This review is from: A Conflict Of Visions (Paperback)
In this clearly written book, Sowell divides world visions or ideologies into two basic types: constrained and unconstrained. The constrained view accepts human nature and historical experience roughly as they are. The other philosophical perspective highlights the perfectability of humanity, widening the range of individual choices without saying when or how far. Various hybrid positions are sketched. Sowell shows Marxism, for example, to embody a constrained past under slavery and bourgeois capitalism, but foresees an unconstrained future under socialism. Fascism imposes constraints upon followers but not on its leaders. The author relies mainly on the great theorists for his illustrations. Hobbes, Adam Smith, Malthus, Burke, F. Hayek, and M. Friedman, among others, convey a constrained philosophy. Rousseau, Godwin, Condorcet, Veblen, and Galbraith tilt toward unconstraint. The dividing lines, however, are rarely sharp. This book is not anchored as it should be in history or in systematic comparisons of societies. Nothing is said about the civilizations of India, China, Africa, or Latin America; the focus is upon Western societies and their ideologies. For this reason, the work is somewhat limited
4.0 out of 5 stars
Good Read,
By
This review is from: A Conflict Of Visions (Paperback)
This book was helpful in seeing other sides of issues. It enforced my belief that most people are attempting to do what is right. They have logically come to their visions of what is right based on differernt premises. One minor detraction is Sowell's altruistic contention that both visions do and should do what is best for society rather than what is best for oneself. He mostly ignores rational individualism as moral.
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
Want to see more reviews on this item?
|
Most recent customer reviews |
|