/lit/ - Literature

I can recommend you a variety of economics texts. I’m almost finished Von Neumann’s book on Game theory

>>12867135
What would you recommend?

>>12867126
Anyting by E. Michael Jones pure red pills

>>12867126
Yes

>>12867126
How would you rate this one?

>>12867126
For politics? I’ll say that all the books on this list are worth reading, it’s just not all are books about politics, and the reading order is downright bizarre.

>>12867157
more like neolib pill. this list sometimes triggers me because a lot of neolibs thing they don't have an ideology when they clearly do.

>>12867157
A very meager list with rather unconnected works. Thucydides and Kissinger?
The only thing I would ask to know if a reading list is good or not is what's the reader supposed to take from it? Just some general, jumbled knowledge?

>>12867157
>Reading Kissinger's own bullshit
>Not Manufacturing Consent to get a deep understanding of his utter psychosis

>>12867157
It has the same problem as the first one. More or less all books you ought to read at some point, but it’s completely unstructured. It’s also way too sparse to really have a claim to neutrality

>>12867162
>>12867170
>>12867181
What books would you guys recommend for international politics and economics? Maybe not even those specific subjects in particular, but what would you recommend for someone who's ready to admit that they actually don't fucking know anything and they wan't to gain an insight into how the world works without being roped into any one ideology?

What do you guys think? Found on /x/ and it's been sitting in my pc for a few years.

>>12867208
My approach to any subject is to always focus on the author(s) and read eclectically in terms of schools of thought, though I always first try to finish first one school before moving to the other.
>economics
Here's the thing about this field of study, there's still no "canonical" science of economics in the same sense that there are for biology, chemistry and physics. Yes, yes, I know these things change too but they're less volatile. Here it really depends what you're interested in, if you're edgy and want to check out the heterodox schools then go for Marxism and the Austrian school (these two are my focus for the time being), if you want something that is more likely to land you a job then study whatever is thought in universities at the moment, which afaik is some version of Keynesian economics.
Other than that, the more an author is well known, the more likely you'll land on bullshit that distorts his ideas when looking for secondary literature. That's the case for Marx in my experience.
>politics
Can't help you much with that. But politics goes hand in hand with economics.
>without being roped into any one ideology
Not gonna happen.

>>12867199
>>12867157
>>12867170
Are the two top economic textbooks actually worth reading to get a solid understanding of economics or is there something better someone recommend?

>>12867226
>Kybalion
/x/ is kind of split on this one, most shit on it for being an incompetent and deceiving introduction

>>12867226
whoever made that list read less than 10% of those books

>>12867226
Is there a jungian or psych chart?

>>12867237
There are tons of books out there titled "Principles of Macro/Micro/Economics". I doubt there's anything special about those two except that they're fairly recent.

The guy commenting on that picture in the OP exposes himself as a pseud by asking why you should read the Discourse on Livy without first reading Livy

>>12867146
>>12867146
What kind of economics do you like? There’s a variety of schools

Austrian school
Keynesian school
Lausanne school
Neoclassical
Geoist
Game Theory

:3

>>12867237
I donno, I’d personally go for Paul Krugman’s Econ textbooks. There are way too many Econ 101 textbooks on the market.

>>12867339
Why read textbooks. :3 I hate when people read textbooks

Economic writers write a variety of books. Like actual works. Economics is similar to philosophy in this vein. Just read their written works

>>12867155
>>12867157
>>12867226
NAME YOUR FILES PROPERLY

>>12867126
The chart literally says it's for shitposting and showing off. Whoever took the time to epicly destroy this chart with FACTS and LOGIC is a faggot themselves.

>>12867365
Fuck off, dude; I have fucking eyes. I can see what I'm selecting in my libraries.

>>12867305
You've really went through all of those? I was more wondering in which order did you study.
>>12867390
>haha bro just read this dozen of 500-page books to make memes haha its just a joke bro

>>12867426
Yeah I’ve read a little of everything in there. There’s some overlap also.

But yeah man I’ve read a lot of economics, mathematical and non-mathematical. I have to say that non-mathematical economics pales in comparison to mathematical, but there are some sociological aspects of it, as discussed in Hayek’s Road to Serfdom (or exemplified in George’s Progress and Poverty) that could not be expressed mathematically.

I like the discipline, and I think it might be able to help fix some aspects of society if used well.

Every real economist studies economics because there are ‘problems’ that need to be solved, like quality of life etc etc

>>12867426
>>haha bro just read this dozen of 500-page books to make memes haha its just a joke bro

And why not? Where do you think you are?

>>12867450
So which model/school would you say got it right so far?
Why do non-mathematical economics take a back seat compared to mathematical? Is this what Austrians call "econometrics"?
And what's your opinion of Menger?
Lastly, what's the current take on the theory of value? Right now I've been studying Menger in-depth and plan to make a comparative study of his and Marx's theories of value, but I'd like to add more contemporary ones as well.

>>12867466
because it never stops there

>>12867126
ok now do part 2

>>12867450
Actually George was a bad example, because Walras expressed his ideas mathematically.

But yeah stuff like hayek, who is arguing that any governmental interference at all renders people less free, but takes a Rousseauian stance and stipulates that a certain restriction of freedom is necessary for the sublimation of the physical struggle, obviously that sort of stuff is not mathematically expressable

>>12867146
start with adam smith. I am sick of arguing with retards who haven't read Adam Smith but think they know economics from Fox News platitudes.

>>12867476
>because it never stops there
But it always comes back to it.

>>12867126
https://vocaroo.com/i/s0GDAwdipnEi

>>12867476
>>12867476
>>>12867476
>So which model/school would you say got it right so far
Nothing in academics is that simple my friend.

I believe Henry George is absolutely correct, but I wonder if the political pressures will ever be alleviated for landlords so they can make a larger land tax, on addition to a larger estate tax

>Why do non-mathematical economics take a back seat compared to mathematical
Because there are many things that can be expressed mathematically in a more efficient way than non-mathematical. I already listed the example of George and Walras (see above) accidentally. There are many examples of this. Since I am constantly reading verbal AND mathematical works I can verify that this is the case. Pareto devoted an entire book in his Manual to this idea: that many of the economic concepts there expressed could not be conveyed without mathematics. Mathematics is just another language that can help explain things. Here are some prominent examples I’ve run across in my reading:

Book III and its mathematical counterpart Book VI of The Optics.
Book IV and its mathematical counterpart book V of The Optics
Menger’s Principles of Economics and its mathematical equivalent Walras’ Elements of Pure Economics
George’s Progress and Poverty and Walras’ discussion of consumption tax mathematically expressed in the aforementioned book


It’s actually funny usually trying to express mathematically correct concepts in English, sometimes you just can’t period. I mean it’s interesting seeing people try to do it. You’d need at least some graphs like Pareto utilizes in his Manual to do it.

This is a big issue: whether the concepts can be expressed better mathematically or verbally. I’m in the mathematical camp, until it becomes necessary to discuss the broader sociological/philosophical concepts of government intervention into people’s lives.

Both Keynes and Hayek disliked mathematics in their economics. Keynes used equations, but from a footnote later on in the work you discover he disliked ‘algebra’. Lol.

Yeah Menger is a scientist just like Walras, but he uses no mathematics. Even so, his findings are absolutely correct. Sometimes viewing things through a Mengerian lens actually helps understand Walras a little better so maybe you should read his book? All you need to know is a bit of functional calculus

>>12867511
Czech'd and kek'd

>>12867511
seething

>>12867126

>>12867534
Also utterly garbage.

>>12867532
damage control

>>12867511

Fucking crying at this

>>12867126

>>12867511
Absolutely based

>>12867226
>Alan Watts
>Instead of
>Carl Gustav Jung
>Choosing the copy
>the fake
>over the original

>>12867511
>focuses on the joke about being a 16th century Italian noble
>ignores the fact that the chart advises reading Kant and Hegel with hardly anything beforehand and that it only includes two Nietzsche books
>"haha! youa gowna doie alowne, keed! Haha, ma fuckin accent makes me re-ed peeled! Ha!"
We can't tell the difference between your "retard voice" and your real one because of that repulsive accent. You're probably just the shit-brained cretin that made this awful chart and you're upset because someone called you out on its superficiality. Guess what? You're going to die alone and the only thing people will remember you for is this bike helmet-tier chart. Not OP or the guy who edited the chart btw.

>>12867478
Honestly part 2 is much easier to read than part one.

>>12867534
>brainlet list
apart from many things the greatest tragedy is putting Freud within instead of Jung. You'r putting in an inferior version (Freudian psychology) of the same thing (psychology) that doesn't even need to be read for the greater and later version (Jungian psychology).

>>12867578
>Jung is greater than Freud
Elaborate

>>12867590
In every respect that Jung and Freud both wrote on.

>>12867126

>>12867511

>>12867566
>assumes he must be defending the chart just because he pointed out how much of a flaming faggot the editor is
>I'll make fun of his accent, that'll show 'em
lel, you fucking retarded niggerfaggot.

>>12867566
Anon face it, you got completely and utterly obliterated. No matter what everyone is on the 21st century Italian nobleman's side cause of 1. How much he just fucking tossed you and 2. How fucking funny it was.

Your only chance of a comeback is to make a Vocaroo Voice message like he did, it would also be extremely funny.

>>12867566
>>12867656
Oh and I forgot to say it 3. Cause he was right, so I guess try to prove him wrong with the Vocaroo.

>>12867511

The Grapes of Wrath

>>12867656
>>12867660
Sure. I'm not going to make a vocaroo so I guess it's disqualified but I'll type it out anyway.

>>12867511
>you cannot read XYZ
You can read whatever you want retard. The point of the edit isn't to discourage from reading any of the texts mentioned but to discourage from reading in a random, disorganized way. Sure, you can grab The Republic and start reading it without any prior knowledge, you can do it for fun for all I care. But these charts are clearly meant to be instructive in helping learn a certain field, and telling people that are interested but have no background to start from works that require context is stupid.
There's also a tendency to "read the classics" for no apparent reason besides them being classics. It scatters the aim and sidetracks with largely unconnected works. There's no particular reason to throw in The Prince, Wealth of Nations and the New Testament together.

These are the two main problems that popular reading charts suffer from. Really, your vocal shitpost doesn't amount to anything except whining that I called the original maker of the chart "dumb". Don't take it that personally, faggot.

>>12867126
No one is too dumb to read leviathan. Hobbes writes in some of the most easily readable language of any modern philosopher.

>>12867738
>what is extrapolation
>what is inference
>what is google
you fucking retard

>>12867756
>don't worry it will all make sense eventually
>just google it
Really? That's your rebuttal?

>>12867738
>Sure. I'm not going to make a vocaroo so I guess it's disqualified but I'll type it out anyway.

Well at least it's something.

>>12867738
I started with the Republic in yr 10 with very little knowledge in philosophy and only some basic knowledge of Greek mythology from childhood interest.

I loved it but it slowly got increasingly boring and repetitive.

>>12867738
you know, i thought the OP pic was pretty mean, but i get your point here.
we need to get some sort of professional/academic reading list material from multiple sources to make a new /lit/ infographic outlining a proper list of books that encompass a general liberal arts education. its really hard to work out which books you need to read before you can really understand the next set of books, especially in fields like philosophy and economics.

>>12867511
...

>>12867511
Why can't I like this?

>>12867804
april fool's is over you stupid redditor

>>12867776
yep, if you're not a fucking brainlet with no middleschool (or equivalent) level of education, you will understand most philosophy, literature, and even fucking science if you have google at your disposal

>>12867821
no it's not. It is never over.

Here you go, a list with structure and order, with nothing superfluous. It's not the prettiest to look at, but it gets the job done.

>12867738
You are too fucking autistic to fucking live.

>12867776
Yes his argument is unironically good, you being an autist might not understand this, but normal people who see a chart like this aren't going to mechanically read it front to back like a fucking robot. They are going to use it as a jumping off point for their studies, they are going to jump around on it, skip things, google other things. Discover what they like as they go and weave their own narrative of how they understand philosophy and history.

The only issue you seem to have here is that you are under the delusion that anyone is going to take a list like this so fucking seriously that they are going to read it without thinking critically. Nobody is that fucking stupid, and if for the sake of argument someone actually is, why do you give a fuck about helping some retard to not waste their time? They are retarded, and no edits to some chart are going to help that.

>>12867511
Relatable.

>>12867850

I would add to this that I am not even saying I think that list is in any way good. I'm just saying that your edits are dumb, pointless, and add no value whatsoever. Moreso they probably add negative value by making it less likely someone might read those books. If you make a good chart YOURSELF and add positive value to the conversation you can redeem yourself. Until then you are nothing but a useless parasite OP.

can someone archive this thread? I want to add it too my collection of threads in which this guy>>12867511 makes an appearance.

>>12867534
Hermeticum? All the freaking apocrypha?! You aren’t ready for Kant. Or Hegel, holy shit...fine whatever. >>12867578 Freud? Your complaint I it should be worse gibberish? No that whole line can go. And everything after it really. Oh I guess read PI by witty.since You breezed through Hegel.

>>12867869
Why does anyone even think what that guy said is good? All he said that was worth mentioning was that the OP's pic was stupid for stating that the greeks were too hard for anyone. OP probably didn't even make the edits to that image. The rest was just pulling a jim carrey imitation of an italian and internettoughguyism.

>>12867511
Nice Triumph/Bill Burr impressions, who else can you do

>>12867534
>/lit/, what's your favorite part of the Bible
>the Pseud testaments
pottery

>>12867534
This would take a person ten years to get through even without supporting texts, and they will have learned absolutely nothing from any it.

>>12867837
absolutely patrician book covers
but seriously who the fuck is this and what's the point of reading any of it

>>12867982
If you don't find it funny there is probably something wrong with you dude.

>>12867995
Book lists aren't meant to be taken seriously, they are just fucking memes you tard. Nobody is going to read all of that in isolation or even a fraction of it.

>>12867226
>kybalion
>montalk
>blavatskij
>SHITLOADS of robert anton wilson
yeah, no. some great books in there, but it lacks Plato and Jung most of all.

>>12867511
One of the best things I saw in this place desu

>>12867982
It was pretty funny dude, comedy gold. Here's another example:

>>/ck/thread/11985518

>>12868026
The guy you are replying to is OP pretending not to be OP, that is the only reason why he isn't getting what is funny.

>>12868018
>Plato and Jung most of all.

This, but the Kybalion aint that bad although it best to start with the original Hermetic works.

>>12868035
>but the Kybalion aint that bad
it's fucking terrible my man, it wouldn't be so bad if it just presented itself as the bullshit new thought/christian science work that it is, but as of now it just serves to confuse newcomers as to what the fuck hermeticism really is.

>>12868012
>something wrong with you
Adversion/"cringing", mainly.

>Nobody is going to read all of that in isolation or even a fraction of it.
I don't believe that, knowing this place.

>>12867339
I started with an A-level revision booklet (pic related), since it'll give you a working summary at a level above high school without jumping straight into a university textbook.

>>12868068

Yeah nice try OP, everyone knows you are fucking retarded at this point. Either post a list that YOU created or stop shitting on other peoples you worthless parasite. Create good content or fuck off why should we care that you want to complain for 30 posts about other peoples content. You know what you could have done in that time? Created good content.

But you can't because you are a worthless tard.

>>12868071
*forgot pic

>>12868034
Oh I see, well dearly noted anon thank you.

>>12868058
I agree there is a lot of bullshit and it could of been written better but I mean as far as occultist works go they aren't that bad. It don't compare to the original but aint that bad.

>>12867126

This list of lyric prose is full of gold

https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/15538.Lyric_Prose

>>12868026
That sounds like the same exact guy, actually..

>>12868074
Thanks for the (You) but uhh I'm not OP. :)

>>12867511

>>12867126
>don't read the prince because you're not a 16th century italian noble

Holy crap, who made this atrocity?

>>12867511
ungodly based

>>12868105
>That sounds like the same exact guy, actually..
Huh, well things are getting weird.

>>12867511
is this a slav or bill burr thats berating anon in the

>>12867511
Absolutely based

>>12868184
something far far worse... A 21st century Italian nobleman

>>12868194
gabagool

>>12868201
I think you mean Gahool.

>>12868215
ah, a fellow /kino/isseur

>>12868226
Indeed, although I can't find account, could you link it good sir?

>>12867126

I'm cringing more at the edit than the original

>>12867155

This is trash.

>>12868239
this one?
https://youtu.be/44vY4v7hjh0

>>12867999

He basically founded the traditionalist school. Messed about with Sufism. Didn't like Arabs though.

>>12868264
Indeed, I was afraid o you fellow kino bro. Let me take off my tophat for you.

>>12868291
afraid? why?

>>12867511
Based Based Based Based Based Based Based Based Based Based Based Based Based Based Based Based Based Based Based Based Based Based Based Based Based Based Based

Take the
CARTESIUSPILL:
1618. Musicae Compendium. A treatise on music theory and the aesthetics of music written for Descartes' early collaborator, Isaac Beeckman (first posthumous edition 1650).
1626–1628. Regulae ad directionem ingenii (Rules for the Direction of the Mind). Incomplete. First published posthumously in Dutch translation in 1684 and in the original Latin at Amsterdam in 1701 (R. Des-Cartes Opuscula Posthuma Physica et Mathematica). The best critical edition, which includes the Dutch translation of 1684, is edited by Giovanni Crapulli (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1966).
1630–1631. La recherche de la vérité par la lumière naturelle (The Search for Truth) unfinished dialogue published in 1701.
1630–1633. Le Monde (The World) and L'Homme (Man). Descartes' first systematic presentation of his natural philosophy. Man was published posthumously in Latin translation in 1662; and The World posthumously in 1664.
1637. Discours de la méthode (Discourse on the Method). An introduction to the Essais, which include the Dioptrique, the Météores and the Géométrie.
1637. La Géométrie (Geometry). Descartes' major work in mathematics. There is an English translation by Michael Mahoney (New York: Dover, 1979).
1641. Meditationes de prima philosophia (Meditations on First Philosophy), also known as Metaphysical Meditations. In Latin; a second edition, published the following year, included an additional objection and reply, and a Letter to Dinet. A French translation by the Duke of Luynes, probably done without Descartes' supervision, was published in 1647. Includes six Objections and Replies.
1644. Principia philosophiae (Principles of Philosophy), a Latin textbook at first intended by Descartes to replace the Aristotelian textbooks then used in universities. A French translation, Principes de philosophie by Claude Picot, under the supervision of Descartes, appeared in 1647 with a letter-preface to Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia.
1647. Notae in programma (Comments on a Certain Broadsheet). A reply to Descartes' one-time disciple Henricus Regius.
1648. La description du corps humain (The Description of the Human Body). Published posthumously by Clerselier in 1667.
1648. Responsiones Renati Des Cartes... (Conversation with Burman). Notes on a Q&A session between Descartes and Frans Burman on 16 April 1648. Rediscovered in 1895 and published for the first time in 1896. An annotated bilingual edition (Latin with French translation), edited by Jean-Marie Beyssade, was published in 1981 (Paris: PUF).
1649. Les passions de l'âme (Passions of the Soul). Dedicated to Princess Elisabeth of the Palatinate.
1657. Correspondance (three volumes: 1657, 1659, 1667). Published by Descartes' literary executor Claude Clerselier. The third edition, in 1667, was the most complete; Clerselier omitted, however, much of the material pertaining to mathematics

110 posts but still no good reading guides? What's up with that?

>>12868380
maybe they haven't been made yet. i suggest a new thread with a less baselessly critical image that insults the intelligence of the viewer.
i trust that there are academics in /lit/ willing to lend their experience to the creation of a reading guide that properly encompasses a general/simple liberal arts education

>>12867511
HAHA Based and redpilled.

>>12867511
actually embarrassing, but still kinda based ngl

>>12868380
>>12867786
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/edit?usp=drivesdk

>>12868515
is this a serious project?
It's barely been touched in at least 4 months.

>>12868706
>is this a serious project?
No, it's a 1st April joke.
>It's barely been touched in at least 4 months.
It's been around for literal years.

>>12867305
Marx Marx Marx

>He hasn't grown a mustache yet

Someone give me a basic guide to Daddy Kierkegaard

Plz

>>12868076
>CGP books
Absolutely based, they got me through my A-levels

>>12867534
>Complete neglect of Ancient Roman philosophy
>Complete neglect of Middle Age philosophy
>Incomplete Early Modern canon
>No Analytic philosophy outside of Wittgenstein
>Weininger, Nick Cage, Krishnamurti

I'd rate it as obvious HONK tier.

>>12867478
Does anyone know where I can get (a translated) "the battle for Berlin" ?

>>12867126
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8_RRaZW5X3xwztjZ4p0XeRplqebYwpmuNNpaN_TkgM/mobilebasic
Some litizen made this for philosophy.

>>12868706
It’s not perfect, but it’s overall pretty good, and definitely the best thing that exists so far.

It just completely cuts off when it gets to 1900, the links to the analytical and continental guides are useless.

>>12868252
——-> the joke

your head

>>12867511
Amazing

>>12867999
Lurk more newfriend

>>12867578
HAHAHAHAHAHAVAHAHAHAJJAJAJAJSJFJFJDJKELEÖ2LWLELFI

>JUNG BETTER THAN FREUD
GJHSJAJAJAJAJAJJAJAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHhhaHhahahahahavvahshahqjqkebahhqhwhqheh2uh

Jung is a hack, there is a good reason why freudian methods and terminology survived while jung became compeltely obsolete. NAME A SINGE JUNGIAN CONCEPT THAT IS IN ANYWAY USEFUL OR INSIGHTFUL

>>12869725
Don’t get too uppity there. Name someone outside grievance studies that still values Freud’s science.

you are actually such a faggot

>>12869767
Jung is vague esoteric drivel, while terms like projection and freudian talk therapy are still valid today- atleast in broad concept. Freud influenced the modern world profoundly while jung influenced, sects, McKenna and peterson. He is as flimsy as islam- whenever you try to refute him somebody will just state that you misrepresented his genius. He is a fraud, a smarter l ron hubbard at most. Name a single jungian concept that stood the test of time

>>12869952
I'm not saying Jung is good, just Freud is bad. Perhaps equally so, if you disinclude historic impact. Also that women's studies hasn't noticed Freud was discredited.

>>12869725
Dr. Peterson likes Jung, ergo he's relevant.

>>12868515
>>12869397
can someone make this into a finely crafted JPEG image w/covers so i dont have to dox myself on google docs?

>>12867126
There's no need to read any of that to progress human thought. You've already been exposed to all ideas in human history through shit pop culture. All you need to do is think.

>>12867126
I like Harold Bloom’s western canon list unironically though I would suggest supplementing it with light reads

>>12870012
The whole reason it’s good, compared to just image charts, is the commentary that guides you along.

>>12870056
I would second this, I thought it was a meme at first but after reading his book I would definitely say it has a lot of merit. He didn't create it lightly.

Ye

Whoever suggests reading Hegel ever is iq 89.

>>12868184
pretty sure he's some kind of WOP

>>12869216
>>Complete neglect of Ancient Roman philosophy
>>Complete neglect of Middle Age philosophy
>>Incomplete Early Modern canon
>>No Analytic philosophy outside of Wittgenstein
based

>>12867511
Based

>>12867135
>>12867146
Economics In One Lesson and Basic Economics are probably the best books for a beginner who wants to have a serious understanding of economics.

>>12867511
>https://vocaroo.com/i/s0GDAwdipnEi
Site uses flash in 2019

>>12867155
This is actually good, but I'd start with Dianetics first.

>>12867126

>>12868306
Pardon my lateness I was watching silence of the lambs. Anyhow the fear was for what you might link.

>>12871229
Werson of Polor?

>>12867226
That's the goypill.

>>12872256
I don't even get the joke