"I guess my tendency is to think essentially that the new wrinkles won't do the job if the old major idea didn't, and so you have to try something different. Then maybe they can all be combined in some coherent piece"
About this Quote
Nozick’s line reads like a diagnostic for intellectual stagnation: if an “old major idea” failed, dressing it up with “new wrinkles” is mostly theater. The phrase is quietly devastating because it targets a common academic reflex - revision without rupture, tinkering that preserves the prestige and safety of the reigning framework. “Wrinkles” signals cosmetic complexity: more caveats, more footnotes, more technical scaffolding that can make an argument look updated while leaving its core inertia untouched.
The subtext is methodological dissent. Nozick isn’t simply urging novelty for novelty’s sake; he’s warning that incrementalism can function as a defense mechanism, a way of avoiding the embarrassment of starting over. Philosophy, like politics, loves reforms that keep the architecture standing. Nozick’s suspicion is that some architectures are load-bearing lies: if the central picture is wrong, refinements just distribute the error more elegantly.
Context matters: Nozick’s work, especially in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, is built around testing “major ideas” by imaginative stress tests (thought experiments, counterexamples, “what if” scenarios) rather than by polishing a single system into invulnerability. That’s why the last sentence lands: after the leap to “something different,” you can “combine” insights into “some coherent piece.” Coherence isn’t the starting point; it’s the hard-won result of letting competing approaches collide. The intent is both critical and pragmatic: stop mistaking sophistication for progress, and treat synthesis as an outcome of risk-taking, not an excuse to avoid it.
The subtext is methodological dissent. Nozick isn’t simply urging novelty for novelty’s sake; he’s warning that incrementalism can function as a defense mechanism, a way of avoiding the embarrassment of starting over. Philosophy, like politics, loves reforms that keep the architecture standing. Nozick’s suspicion is that some architectures are load-bearing lies: if the central picture is wrong, refinements just distribute the error more elegantly.
Context matters: Nozick’s work, especially in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, is built around testing “major ideas” by imaginative stress tests (thought experiments, counterexamples, “what if” scenarios) rather than by polishing a single system into invulnerability. That’s why the last sentence lands: after the leap to “something different,” you can “combine” insights into “some coherent piece.” Coherence isn’t the starting point; it’s the hard-won result of letting competing approaches collide. The intent is both critical and pragmatic: stop mistaking sophistication for progress, and treat synthesis as an outcome of risk-taking, not an excuse to avoid it.
Quote Details
| Topic | Reason & Logic |
|---|
More Quotes by Robert
Add to List
