Before I dive into this book in particular, first let me say that regardless if your agree with his premises, Thomas Sowell's book are very well researched. He uses citations and quotations of highly regarded thinkers in whatever field he is writing about and I appreciate that.

So this book in particular, I think his theory of differing visions to be very insightful. Although he recognizes that in reality, thinkers often subscribe to a "constrained v. unconstrained" vision of the human condition in varying degree, use hybrid combinations of the two, or rely on other variables in tandem to formulate ideology, the simplistic model helps observes understand a portion of the "why" behind opposed ideologies.

I appreciated his metaphor Newton's gravitational equation. I'll paraphrase by saying, although when observed in reality, objects fall a different rates then predicted by gravitational equations because the equation doesn't account for atmospheric variables, this doesn't discount the value of the gravitational equation. The same can be applied to social science theories, which are inevitably convoluted by many more uncontrolled variables.

His theory of conflicting visions seems to me, a neat framework in which to view apparently opposing policy stances which both pernounce adherence to the same sets of values. My personal capacity for intellectual empathy will likely be expanded through use of this tool and I appreciate Dr. Sowell's contribution to that.

I read this book as part of my effort to catch up with some classic libertarian literature I missed out on back when I read little else. I expected some generic political or historical treatise, and was a little surprised when it turned out to be dealing with something far more fundamental: The general visions underlying different ideologies. If there is a text I'd describe as meta-ideological, it would be this one. I won't say that Sowells theoretical construct of two different visions with which one sees the world and mankind in it is not ideologically charged, but it still remains remarkably neutral.

The unconstrained vision, I would say, focuses on potential. Its first question is always: "What could be?". Human limitations are regarded as something to be overcome, and ideals as something to be actually realized. The constrained vision, of course, is the polar opposite, it focuses on human limitations. These two poles describe a spectrum, and while they appear exclusive, a person or ideology can take the unconstrained vision in one aspect and the constrained vision in another. For example, one can at the same time and without any contradiction believe in unlimited human potential for goodness and in the fact that statistically, only a minority will achieve a fraction of that goodness, with the implication that while it is possible for one person to rise above law and custom, the majority will never do so. Marxism is also a mixed case like that, with its belief that everyone will one day achieve the heights of Aristotle and its simultaneous belief that this development hinges entirely on material conditions. That is my interpretation, I should add, I don't remember exactly how Sowell - a former Marxist - framed it.

While I have seldom made use of the thinking tool Sowell developed here, it's always good to have it at the back of your head somewhere when you engage with different philosophies. Philosophical and political discourse would be far more productive if both sides had terms to describe their respective ideologies in respect to how they view human limitations. Right now, that discourse consists of vague charges to utopianism or cynicism and the odd reference to human nature.

One thing that irked me is that Sowell did not talk about any thinker from before the 17th century. His take on Platos Republic would've been very interesting, and also supremely relevant, as that book presents the prototype of the political vision. Every utopian project owes to Plato, as the first man to wrote down his idea of the perfect society, with laws, offices, customs and an official ideology. Rothbard, Marx, Rawls, Rousseau, they all walked in his footsteps. Plato was also the first philosopher I know of who talked about social engineering, which suggests he belongs to the unconstrained end of the spectrum, yet he conceded that there are uncontrollable social dynamics that might doom his republic in the end, which sounds rather like his vision was constrained.

I'd also be interested in whether the Reformation or the Counter-Reformation was more constrained. I am no expert on the Reformation, but from what I did read about it, it sounds like Luther, Zwingli and Calvin qualify as constrained, proposing the impossibility of living the celibate life, or of bettering your standing with God by doing good works, and in fact of living a virtuous life at all without the grace of God. Calvin takes this the furthest, claiming that we do not even have the free will to choose God. Yet, the Anabaptists sound very much unconstrained to me, with their charismatic spirituality and liberal theology. Catholic doctrine, I would say, strikes a balance, emphasizing both that we have to rely on God in everything we do, and that living a virtuous life is something we choose.

That is the kind of discussion I'd have liked, but like many modern intellectuals, Sowell does not seem to know that much about the history of thought before the 17th century. To me, that's a wasted opportunity, although I give Sowell credit for looking up some more obscure figures from that time period instead of picking the obvious such as Adam Smith and Rousseau.

All in all, while this book didn't blow me away, it was still a decent read.

I've always admired Sowell's work in economics but may enjoy his political thought even more. A great summary and comparison of two fundamental visions that guide ideologies. It contrasts political theorists such as Burke, Locke, Hayek, Adam Smith with Dewey, Condorcet, Godwin, Rousseau and Rawls. Sowell presents complex material in a brilliantly clear manner.

Vastly learned. Very informative. The same my second time through in 2020.

I am about 1/3rd of the way through the book. Based on what I have currently read, I think this book is essential reading for both those on the left and the right (and center) of the political spectrum. In this book Sowell doesn’t advocate either vision. What he does is articulate the foundations of the visions that are the primary drivers of both the left and the right.

If you are on the right and can’t understand what is driving folks on the left to do what they do, or if you are on the left and cannot understand why folks on the right are so resistant to your ideas, you need to read this book.

Reading this book is finally allowing me to make sense of what is currently happening in our society, and why.

This is one of the most brilliant political philosophy books I've ever read. It takes centuries of thought and is able to, in a very convincing manner, condense things down into two strains of visions. Results vs process. Solutions vs trade-offs. Sowell is able to sum up in layman's terms the differences within which these two visions, the constrained and unconstrained, operate and the implicit assumptions they rely on. It is a remarkably perspicacious work.

I have a lot of thoughts about this book. First, I’ll say that this is the first book I’ve read which really looks under the hood and examines what I would argue is the root of all political differences.

This book answers questions that have stumped me such as “why do people tow the party line on 47/48 topics usually?”

Sowell identifies the root causes as a difference in vision, namely differential beliefs in the constrained vs unconstrained view of human nature. Boiled down, the unconstrained view posits that human nature is something like perfectible. Of course, wildly different ramifications stem from your belief about the ceiling of human perfectibility.

In this way, Sowell says the unnamed part out loud, giving an identification to something that’s been just beyond identification for me and on the tip of my tongue for 5 years at least.

Sowell succeeded in convincing me that the clash of visions (constrained vs unconstrained view) is likely the correct underpinning of most irreconcilable political differences but I felt like Sowell wasn’t able to do it justice. I felt like Sowell tried to be objective but his analysis was tainted with bias. Furthermore, Sowell acknowledges degree of constraint to be a continuous variable but this book treats it too much like a binary variable.

The book wasn’t as in depth as I’d like but it was a great appetite whetting. Sowell has written so many books that I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s followed up this work several times over.

I’d like to see an empirical analysis of the claims and disputes in the book and tbh this is not a fundamentally unanswerable question so I expected that in this book with Sowell being an economist.

I’d like to read 20 more books on the topic.

This was the most perspective altering book I’ve read since Noise and The Selfish Gene. It deserves a 5 star rating, I’m being petty with this 4 star rating.

Sowell’s theory of visions is a great analysis for differences in social beliefs and is very intuitive. However, I thought the book was sometimes unnecessarily repetitive in some parts, while vague in others. It’s easy to occasionally get lost as Sowell doesn’t always thoroughly explain the various beliefs used as evidence.

A fantastic work by Sowell who is really underrated and underutilized to solve our problems. He breaks down political struggle into the constrained and unconstrained visions. The constrained vision looks to build systems and processes by which people can get through life and run society. The unconstrained looks to obliterate those systems in favor of equal outcomes for everyone.

Sowell breaks down why both visions do what they do and how their philosophies anchor their respective visions. This is a fantastic reveal of how political struggle works especially in America today.

To me, his most essential work.

Adam C. Zern offers his thoughts . . .

"Quite honestly, this was the book I didn't know I was waiting for. Thomas Sowell lucidly and convincingly makes the case that nearly all (with some caveats) political struggles come down to a basic conflict of the visions that is espoused by the participants. He breaks them into two fundamental groups: the constrained and unconstrained visions. In our modern vernacular, in which the ideological scale-left to right-is basically useless, Mr. Sowell presents the conflicts in a way that makes intuitive and intellectual sense.

For anyone that wants to begin to understand modern political struggles and the various parties that participate in them, this book is an excellent introduction and significant explanation of why the struggles even exist. Mr. Sowell explains that one reason why parties and people conflict may simply be because the words they use to discuss and debate-equality, justice, freedom-may have completely different meanings. In other words, many people don't realize they aren't even debating the same thing.

I would not hesitate to recommend this book to anyone willing and eager to expand their knowledge of ideology, the importance of ideas, or the political struggles found within any society.

Wonderful book."

http://thethousanderclub.blogspot.com/

5 Stars for A Conflict of Vision (audiobook) by Thomas Sowell read by Michael Edwards.

This is a really in-depth look at why people are liberal or conservative. The different sides fundamentally see the world in different ways.