"It is, from another angle, an attack on requiring proof in philosophy. And it's also the case, I guess, that my temperament is to like interesting, new, bold ideas, and to try and generate them"
About this Quote
Nozick is admitting, with disarming candor, that some of his philosophy is a jailbreak. The “attack on requiring proof” isn’t a sloppy shrug at rigor; it’s a strategic refusal of a certain philosophical piety: the demand that every interesting claim march under the banner of airtight demonstration. In context, this is the animating ethos of Anarchy, State, and Utopia and The Examined Life: he treats philosophy less like geometry and more like conceptual engineering, where the point is to test what a view can make us see, not merely what it can deductively guarantee.
The phrase “from another angle” signals his method. Nozick often works by rotating problems: thought experiments, surprising comparisons, and “what if” machinery that shifts the burden from proving to revealing. Subtext: proof can become a gatekeeping device that protects reigning assumptions. If only arguments that close perfectly are allowed in, the discipline rewards caution, not insight, and the most radical questions never get asked.
Then he pivots to temperament: “I guess” softens the bravado, but it’s also a manifesto. He’s telling you his work is driven by intellectual taste - a preference for boldness, novelty, generative speculation. That’s not mere self-portraiture; it’s a preemptive defense against critics who want him to litigate every premise to exhaustion. He’s staking out a different success condition for philosophy: not finality, but fertile provocation.
Nozick’s wager is that a field obsessed with proof risks becoming correct and irrelevant. His counterproposal is a philosophy that earns its keep by producing ideas that are hard to unthink.
The phrase “from another angle” signals his method. Nozick often works by rotating problems: thought experiments, surprising comparisons, and “what if” machinery that shifts the burden from proving to revealing. Subtext: proof can become a gatekeeping device that protects reigning assumptions. If only arguments that close perfectly are allowed in, the discipline rewards caution, not insight, and the most radical questions never get asked.
Then he pivots to temperament: “I guess” softens the bravado, but it’s also a manifesto. He’s telling you his work is driven by intellectual taste - a preference for boldness, novelty, generative speculation. That’s not mere self-portraiture; it’s a preemptive defense against critics who want him to litigate every premise to exhaustion. He’s staking out a different success condition for philosophy: not finality, but fertile provocation.
Nozick’s wager is that a field obsessed with proof risks becoming correct and irrelevant. His counterproposal is a philosophy that earns its keep by producing ideas that are hard to unthink.
Quote Details
| Topic | Reason & Logic |
|---|
More Quotes by Robert
Add to List
