/lit/ - Literature

>>19867930
No, it is just a massive fucking loser trying to equate anyone who hasn't read his basic-bitch twitter book to an uneducated cretin. Ignore him.

>>19816497
Is that fucking back hair creeping over his shoulder?

>>15207955
>He really was a wholesome person
>murders or arrests his political opponents
>orders the sterilization of hundreds of thousands of people
>murders hundreds of thousands through forced euthanasia
>starts the bloodiest conflict in human history
>facilitates some of the most horrific human experiments in history
>causes the deaths of 17 million people in concentration camps
>attempts to actively eradicate several ethnic groups through industrialised extermination methods
>rapes and pillages the entirety of Europe for his own greed, destroying the cultural artifacts that he couldn't steal
>even wishes for the death of his own countrymen when they had lost the war
>He really was a wholesome person

>>15090436
Why do /pol/tards believe that anyone who is annoyed with their antics and recognizes them as uneducated in all social and political matters must be a communist?

>>15043824
It is the view that all people are of equal moral worth. The reality is, even if it is the predominant philosophy, people only pay it lip service. If you wanted to trace its genealogy, i would say it's:
Humanism <---- Enlightenment Liberalism <---- Christianity <---- Stoicism.

>>14911784
There is no problem with Plato's logic here unless you add your own hidden claim of:
>All male guardians are better than the best female guardian
or more weakly:
>There are x amount of male guardians better than the best female guardian, where x is equal to the capacity of guardians in the republic.
There is no problem unless either one of the above is also true.
There may be a problem if we assume that there will be more women suitable individually to be guardians than spots available for them, but the same could be said of all the possible male guardians (i.e. there will be more individually suitable male guardians than the city's capacity for guardians in general). But all this presumably is taken care of by the noble lie and magical Pythagorean birth lotteries.

>pseudtube
>plebbit
>midtwitter
>dumblr
>duncecord
>thik
>intsbecile
>telettante
>nobooks

leave this place and never return.

>>14514209
>>14514229
there is a very meaningful difference between the someone who believes a certain pantheon of gods literally exist and someone who holds admiration for a character they believe is fictional. Say i am an ancient greek colonist setting sail to a distant land to set up a new city state. as i set out, i pour libations and make an offering to poseidon to grant me safe travels across the sea. now, why do i do this? is it because i respect the idea of poseidon as a fictional entity? no, it's because i hold as part of my metaphysical understanding of the world that the sea is controlled by a higher power, who, if i respect and worship, will be able to affect the world to my benefit. that is, there is an expectation that the worship of a particular character or entity will render real tangible results. paganistic religions did not simply like the character traits of their gods, they actually believed that they existed and played a real role in the operation of the world.
now, take someone who admires a comic book character. they do not hold batman to be a part of our metaphysical reality. they do not believe that these characters exist beyond fiction. they do not believe that they control the forces of the world. they do not believe that worshiping them will change anything about the world. they do not believe that the character is actually looking upon them and judging them, or that they have prescribed any instructions that must be followed. thus, the relation between the individual and the character is, at most, an enjoyment of the ideals that these fictional characters represent.
these two relations are not comparable in the slightest. marvel characters are closer to a folk tale than a replacement religion.

>>14494453
well, you're going to have difficulty avoiding some IPE because two major theoretical perspectives (neo/liberalism and neo/marxism) are explicitly economic. also, the discourses may have been machiavelli's best work of political philosophy, but it certainly isn't the work which characterises his major lasting influence (discourses is important in the republican tradition, but not really the "realist" tradition). In truth, i only dipped my toes into IR and found the water not to my liking. anyway, as for some books:
>(neo)liberalism:
Soft Power - Nye
Power and Interdependence - Keohane & Nye
After Hegemony - Keohane

>(neo)marxism:
Imperialism - Lenin
Selections from Prison Notebooks - Gramsci
Worlds Systems Theory: An Introduction - Wallerstein
Social Forces, States and World Orders: beyond international relations theory + Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method - Cox

>History of International relations:
Diplomacy - Kissinger