Talk:Robert Nozick

on rejection of libertarianism in the examined life (or, why cite stephen metcalf?)

so this is just for my own reference later. this page needs some edits.

whole section on TEL needs a rework. "a collectivist politics" is a bit of a vague misnomer, he did endorse democracy but it is odd to call this view collectivist. he did have interesting things to say about taxation as well, but again it would be better to be more specific. iirc he says two substantial things, one about inheritance taxes and another about charity, which was captured here to some degree.

when going on to discuss Invariances as well, it would be better to synthesise these two topics. in TEL nozick outlines his "four layers of ethics" which gives credence to a more democratic state. but in Invariances, he says only the first layer of these ethics can be demanded, which only insists on non-coercion.

there is more than can be said about this, specifically with regards to nozick's "utopia" discussion at the end of ASU - but wikipedia is probably not a good place to have that discussion, so I probably won't visit that.

it would be much better to just cite what nozick says in the actual book basically. he straight up calls ASU "seriously inadequate" in one footnote - isn't that more interesting (and relevant) than whatever metcalf has to say? I'll get to updating this page sometime soon. Meikkon (talk) 06:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

alright, finally got around to overhauling this. changes have been fully charted in edit history if anyone is interested. this page is better than it was but still far from good; here's some notes on future work that needs to be done.

in Political philosophy:

-talk more about rawls, how his work was (/still is) commonly situated against rawls's theory, potentially worth talking about their personal relationship as well as they were both @ harvard at the time and did work with each other, I believe.

in Thought experiments regarding utilitarianism:

-major truncation of utility monster needed - too much detail here. leaving it for now, though, as I plan to move most of this over to the utility monster page where it would be better suited

in Later works:

-nature of rationality needs more detail added. will come back to this after I've read it fully; if someone else can help here it would be very appreciated though

in Later reflections on libertarianism:

-could someone verify this for bias, please? I'm trying to come across as balanced here but it is tough - I'm aware the ending of this section looks like I am trying to say nozick was "Libertarian til the very end yehhhh!!!!", but I'm not trying to do that at all.

any further feedback or suggestions are very welcome, especially outside of my specialty (i.e. anything non-politics related). tchau for now. Meikkon (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

personal life section

reading this back after a month or so. this seems pedantic but calling the second section "personal life" seems a little odd. that usually comes at the end of an article, it isn't usually the primer; most articles use personal life sections for areas of trivia / marriage etc.

to contrast with rawls' page, the second section there is "biography", which seems much more fitting: why did rawls believe what he did, what led him to these conclusions, etc.

right now nozick's section is nowhere near as long as rawls', but if I can find enough stuff to slam in there (which is relevant!) then we could make it more of a biography. I think this relabelling would be better in the long-term.

looks like I'm on my own with this one so I'm just going to use this as a kind of devlog diary until someone else helps me out (please! someone! anyone!) Meikkon (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, it seems like either the section should be kept where it is and renamed 'Biography' or moved after 'Career and works' and kept as 'Personal life'. I'm on the fence and am fine with whichever route you decide to go. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Ditto CWenger. Please don’t feel like you’re alone on this, @Meikkon, but obviously there’s only so much that we can do as a group. Be bold and make sensible edits as you see fit; most of us won’t have the time to devote to this page, nor the access to relevant resources you might have at hand. I will say, trying to match Rawls’s page is probably a decent idea here, but don’t get too sucked in on making pages match when sometimes the page will need to go in its own direction. — HTGS (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

thanks for the support guys. I think I'll match Rawls' page in so far as the biography section goes, since there is a lot of stuff out there I think which charts Nozick's route from socialism to libertarianism before he even started working on ASU. after that though you are right @HTGS, ASU (and Nozick's wider work, of course!) is very much it's own thing outside of the Rawlsian sphere so Nozick will need unique treatment.

depending on how things go (/how much info I find) I think a personal life section may still be good at the bottom, discussing his marriage and kids etc. will do some more research before making a final decision though. Meikkon (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

more notes and to-do list

not been as active as I'd like on this - but I've got a free evening, so gonna make some notes on things that (I think) need doing. going from top to bottom...hopefully this won't be too stream of consciousness, but we'll see.

feedback welcome and strongly encouraged! TL;DR is at the bottom for quick summary of work that needs doing.

intro section

I think I added this line, but honestly can't remember. the only meaningful description of ASU in the intro is this: "Nozick also presented his own theory of utopia as one in which people can freely choose the rules of the society they enter into". this is not exactly right - yes, technically, this was in the book, and could be interpreted as it's ultimate message. but ASU is not really a 'manifesto', it's a sustained philosophical argument. plus, the utopia claim was not the crux of his argument + to my knowledge few academics even discuss the final chapter of ASU. this needs to be more clearly related to the preceding clause, that it is an answer to rawls.

how exactly to phrase it though...I'm really not sure. an idea:

"...in which Nozick proposes his minimal state as the only justifiable form of government."

I prefer this overall. it gets to the core of what nozick is (remembered for) proposing. I'll mull it over, but otherwise this section is decent.

personal life

see the previous talk post on this. I actually think this is mostly good insofar as it covers most of the major important events, it just doesn't elaborate on how this informed nozicks' later ideas / paved the way to making ASU. that said, there is very little on his life after ASU! but yeah, will emulate rawls here, although I think nozick is not quite deserving of the same kind of lengthy treatment rawls has, if only because a) his personal life is not as well documented, and b) he isn't really as prolific.

(sorry bob, but if we're being honest, rawls was prolly the more influential thinker overall...definitely not as readable though)

career and works

political philosophy subsection is good. I would just like to double check the 'separateness of persons' claim made in relation to kant. I'm pretty sure I wrote this, and I think it is right, but if I'm being totally honest my kant knowledge is inexcusably poor given my interest in nozick.

the following subsection is...kinda okay? I've said this elsewhere (but still not done it) that the "kantianism for people" thing needs to be moved elsewhere. that said I don't think this section is as terrible as I once did, reading it back now. it doesn't get too wayward on the animal rights thing so I guess it's fine.

I feel like nozick has some other thought experiments that are worth mentioning here, although these are the big two people usually remember. I'm going to do a full super critical re-read of ASU later this year, probably after I finish socratic puzzles and invariances, so I (personally) am shelving revisions of this subsection until after that.

epistemology

epistemology is not my bag really but this looks fine. perhaps consider adding some of the response to this claim, as it is quite a big / bold one, and was subject to fairly extensive academic discussion iirc. some critics in this section might be a good idea.

later works

happy with this. as I've said, I'm still yet to finish socratic puzzles and begin reading invariances, so may circle back later. the cosmology thing sounds good even though it is so out of my area lol - whoever added that is the real G, top thanks to you.

Later reflections on libertarianism

worried this might be too long now. I would rather someone else touch this though, I have nothing else to add and have no idea what to remove in order to convey the ultimate message that his 'ultimate' position was kinda confusing / contested.

philosophical method

deserves to be longer, but not much longer. it has often been noted that nozick was an especially eccentric writer in philosophy, with incredibly extensive footnotes and constant doubts being case in the ellipses next to his arguments. see anthony gottlieb's review of TNR:

"From Mr. Nozick you always expect fireworks, even if some of them go off in their box. His questions, hints, counterarguments and suggestions come so thick and fast that it is next to impossible to appreciate all of them. Start pondering a sentence and you will find yourself led away prematurely by a parenthetical question; think about the question and you will be dragged into a discursive footnote; from the bowels of the footnote, another parenthetical query will leap out at you. If you escape back to the main argument with your concentration intact (unlikely, after a while), the whole wearing business just starts over again. Yet it is worth the effort -- certainly for regular readers of philosophy, and often for others."

since nozick is so often doubting himself, this could be tied into wider discussions on his intellectual humility, which has been discussed by some scholars. cf brennan [1], sanchez [2] and whitcomb et al [3]. not entirely sure how relevant this last point really is though, so I'll think about it.

popular culture

not seen the sopranos so I cannot speak to the validity of this claim. however I can speak to the fact that, expressed here, this point makes zero sense as there is not enough context. "take a position in the debate" - which debate? what position? presumably this is expanded upon in the links provided so I shall read those...and watch the sopranos. why not.

the experience machine has probably had a much bigger impact on popular culture, as detailed rather extensively in the wiki page of it. whether or not this can really be credited to nozick though, I'm not so sure. just can't shake the feeling that this section is missing something...

ANYWAY, that's the notes I have on the whole page so far. TL;DR for future me and fellow wikipedians:

-refine intro section and make ASU's link to rawls's theory of justice very clear.

-turn "personal life" into short biography, somewhat akin to rawls's but shorter. perhaps move misc personal life elements (wife, family, etc) to a new section at bottom of page.

-add critics of nozick's counterfactual theory of knowledge

-refine "reflections on libertarianism"; make shorter

-add to "philosophical method"; discuss how nozick's footnotes were excessively (and eccentrically) detailed. Meikkon (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

class B

repasting from history: I'm going to be bold and move this to a B-class article. there's still a lot of work to be done, and I think this page is somewhat deficient in supporting materials (criteria 5, infoboxes etc), however I am much happier with this than I once was.

to expand on history, the main reason as to why I'm bumping this up is that every single one of Nozick's work is covered in some way, and are generally related back to (what is perceived to be) his most important contributions to knowledge (libertarianism). other wikipedians are welcome to disagree, of course, and bump this down to a C given that criteria 5 has barely been met, or meaningfully engaged with.

balls in their court, though...and uh, I think I'm the only person actually in the court right now. either way, gonna take a break from this page and focus on other nozick-adjacent stuff for a bit. see ya. Meikkon (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)