/lit/ - Literature

>>10732037

>>10732039

>>10732045

>>10732049

>>10732054

>>10732062

>>10732068

>>10732075

Nearly all of these you can find on the /lit/ wiki, you know.

>>10732081

>>10732086

>>10732091

Oh look, it's the exact same thread posted a few days ago. In fact it's probably the exact same guy dumping all his charts.

>>10732096

>>10732106

>>10732037
Is there a Pomo chart?

>>10732108

this is all that /lit/ is good for

>>10732114

>>10732120

>>10732129

>>10732136

>>10732147

>>10732149

>>10732149
>>>/fringe/

>>10732153

Anyone have that chart on mathematics?

>>10732168

>>10732168

>>10732289
>those women's studies
Top heh

>>10732105
yes, it's one retard who doesn't read but who collects charts instead, thinking about reading.

>>10732037
>Hayek and Nozick conspicuously absent

>>10732419
Actually, I just wanted that chart on mathematics. I couldn’t find it, and I’d feel like a jerk if I requested without having anything to offer. So I dumped all my charts and asked for the math one. You guys can do what you want in this thread now

Dumping

>>10732037
'ere you go

http://imgur.com/gallery/U4OHY

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/trbj9m46a2brfqi/AADqcbk6yS8Dg6GZn30roVrQa?dl=0

>>10732536
I'm like 250p into the Sotweed Factor and it really isn't difficult. And I'm not even like a super smart reader

>>10732082
Not this

>>10732542
Damn America sucks.

anybody have that chart about books about living off the grid or as a hermit?

Best chart ITT is this pic.

It's not top quality, it's made in MSpaint, but you don't read this charts for quality, you read them for guidance.

>>10732518
The only cool chart in this snoozefest of a thread.

>>10732529
Cool chart as well.

>>10732536
I had no idea Pale Fire was considered difficult.

http://4chanlit.wikia.com/wiki/Recommended_Reading

>>10732542
>Tropic of Cancer

CANT STAND YA

>>10733752
one day they will be a revival
been so unpopular for years surprised /pol/tards arent using him to annoy those SJWs they so love

>>10734211
is this a shitpost

Is there a "books women will never get" chart? i know there's one with movies

>>10734211
I prefer this version

Anyone have the Dune chart? The one that shits on people who read beyond the first four? Mostly want for laughs.

>>10732419
The best librarian is one who doesn't read the books.

>>10735070
This one?

>>10732037
The people who make these charts should really try trimming down and only including the cream of the crop, you niggers put in too many fucking books. I mean seriously, who is going to be able to read all of these and actually be able to digest and understand what they are reading? Call me a brainlet if you wish, but these charts should be no more than 4 books max.

>>10732160
literature and evil by Bataille should be on here

>>10736876
Thanks anon!

>>10732496
I like that math chart so I'm glad you did what you did to get it desu, just ignore the projecting brainlets

>>10732496
people who start sentences with 'actually,' are always cockends from reddit

>>10732037
Some changes:
>Read Thucydides first
>Add the Politics of Obedience by Étienne de La Boétie before Machiavelli
>Switch Locke and Montesquieu
>Don't read Rights of Man until after Burke
>Read Jean-Jacques Rousseau before Paine
>Read Hegel before Mill
>Read the Communist Manifesto before Capital
>Add Karl Marx and the Close of His System by Böhm-Bawerk when you finish all three volumes of Capital
>Add Keynes' General Theory before Schmitt
>Replace Political Liberalism with a Theory of Justice
>Add Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia after Rawls

>>10732569
But how unlike one are you?

>>10736910
ok, which ones would you drop from the OP image?? Hegel? Kant? Locke?

>>10732039
I love how people create these big charts just to shill Virgil. You're not fooling anyone.

>>10736910
Agreed.

Books take a little while, for sure.

>>10738664
Half of those are just plain economics.

>>10738699
its political philosophy, so get rid of the romans and the medievels. i know cicero is a great read but he's not that important all things considered. also get rid of machiavelli, this isn't middle school.

get rid of kant and hegel. i suppose kant's ideas about morality are relevant but you don't need to read his metaphysics to grasp political ideas. if you want to go down that rabbit hole might as well add spinoza, hume, nietzsche, etc

add freud's civilization and it's discontents

add adorno, hayek, nozick, keynes, waltz (man, the state, and war), foucault, and maybe some political d+g (guattari's soft subversions has a lot of explicitly political material).

if you want to get really up to date, i'd add derrida's spectres of marx, fisher's capitalist realism, and some nick land (hate the guy but i think he's pointing towards where certain right wing movements will go in the next century)

>>10738680
har har har

>>10738922
Civilization and Its Discontents isn't actually super useful IMO. IR stuff like Waltz isn't really relevant to political philosophy. I would also argue that most of the econ stuff (IE Hayek, Nozick, and Keynes) is probably separable as well. the cultural theory stuff is def more relevant but it's more challenging and some of it isn't directly applicable.

and I guess I can get with just skipping over the Romans and medievals, but IMO Machiavelli is useful and good if you don't read him like an asshole. and then Kant is genuinely important to political philosophy, and Hegel even more so - although he's such a pain in the ass to read that people should probably read an introduction.

also Agamben if you're talking about up to date.

this is just off the top. I haven't read the rest of the thread yet.

>>10732037
When do I read Zizek?

Like, in all honesty, the problem with talking about images like the OP is that people aren't actually going to seriously read a lot of this stuff seriously enough, and pay enough attention to it, especially if they're just reading it on their own. Realistically, something like Leviathan is enormously fucking complicated and weird in what it's trying to say, and it's also long and windily written, and it's fucking hard to pay attention to it, and it is extremely difficult to tease out what Hobbes' views actually are. I don't think there's much point in recommending that people who are trying to be autodidacts read it on their own. People would be better served doing the thing where you start with more recent, secondary, general sources, in most cases.

>>10739127
ya i find lits dismissal of secondary sources retarded

>>10733264
I've fixed this picture to put the header of Georgism under both Henry George's book, and Elements of Pure Economics, which mathematically vindicates Geoism.

>>10739136
are any of these actually worth reading by anyone besides people doing a phd in history of economic thought? i hate it when lit recommends shit that while historically important is a total waste of time to actually read

>>10739145
Only one of those categories is really 'history'. None of those books are outdated, especially not The General Theory.

>>10739171
>none of those books are outdated
>adam smith
>labor theory of value

yeah ok

>>10732039
Fucking replace Poe with The Scarlet Letter for key united states text.

>>10738664
>Adds Karl Marx and a close to his system
I'm glad I finally memed that book here, impeccable choice my friend

>>10739175
That might be why that's the one under 'History'.

I think you might just be looking for an argument.

>>10739212
can u point me to an syllabus from an economics class where those are the assigned readings? other than some faggy two part survey of economic history freshman are forced to do and just skim wikipedia for

>>10739220
No, because Economics courses use textbooks where they condense all the thoughts of these thinkers into short little ideas or paragraphs.

It's kind of like reading a book on philosophy instead of reading the actual philosophers themselves.

>>10739221
and yet somehow people manage to get jobs in economics without reading a bunch of old wrong shit, weird!

>>10739233
Yeah well, we do not live in a perfect society. Anyone could tell you that. Plenty of people, rather than reading the foundations of what they know, just simply go to school for the designation it brings them, whatever it might be.

In this case, very little of what Adam Smith said is wrong. His principles of taxation still hold, his exposition of the formation of debt, his history of the development of nations, his very clear and concise explanation of the social principles of labor, everything.

Marginal economics is the only thing that proves the LTV wrong (modern economics regarding interest rates is just a mix of LTV and marginality), except for Keynes' functional unemployment which messed with how the supply/demand curves work for consumption.