/lit/ - Literature

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(Hobbes_book)

>>12969122
moldbug the god

Anyone that rightly consider the Founding Fathers to be communism

>>12969122
Hamann

>>12969135
secular enlightenment filth

>>12969122
Literally anything written before ~1850.

The thing about the alt right is that it was always nothing but a passing populist movement. Neoreaction is more of intellectual and elitist movement .

If you want to understand land you have to read deleuze. One of the post modern neo marxists lel.

Land did what others were too scared to do, communicate with the outside. His whole ideology is basically just being a lovecraft death cultist but substituted with AI instead of Cthulhu.

In this way he has evolved a level beyond the typical right winger. Rather than racism, he is anti human.

Hobbes
Burke

>>12969242
part 2?

>>12969122
You can read the American founders or if you want explicit reaction the folks of the German conservative revolution. Nicolás Gómez Dávila would be another thinker on that spectrum. It really depends on what you're looking for since practically anyone in the past could be considered a reactionary thinker by now, reason being that the current ideology of our system is just a front for the rapacity of soulless capital.

>>12969122
Norman Bridwell

>>12969122
There is literally nothing about intellectual about being a right winger.

>>12969335
The american founding fathers are pretty far from reactionary by any reasonable stretch of the word, what are you getting at here?

>>12969333

>>12969417
Depending on who you're speaking to reaction at this point means justifying things like the process of law. It also gives insight into the concern the founders had about the system degenerating into Athenian democracy.

>>12969335
>antimonarchist liberal revolutionaries founding a nation on enlightenment values are reactionary

lol

>>12969492
>level one is Hobbes
>level four is Ron Paul

>>12969492
The nut-succ current is for brainlets. the libertarian is only good if you are rich which I guess is why it appeals to Amerikkkans who think they will become millionaires(lol). The reactionary has semi-good arguments but is impossible to achieve.

>>12969122
Karl Marx

>>12969379
>nothing about intellectual about being
Based tankies can't even word a sentence.

>>12969122
Thorazine should prime you well enough for whatever pseudoscientific horseshit comes your way

>>12969168
Moldbug's sources are great, every writer he rec'd has stuck with me, list off the top of my head:

Carlyle
de Maistre
Nock
Pobedonostsev
HS Maine
Froude
Hutchinson
Peter Oliver

Gives you quite a different perspective on history

What to read by Land? If you say Fanged Noumena, get the fuck out of here. That's peak word salad.

galkovsky and bohemicus

Pius IX
Pius X
Leo XIII

>>12970827
if you mean reactionary Land then read his Dark enlightenment essay

Fanged Noumena has interesting stuff in it though

>>12970848
In which texts? There's so much bullshit there.

>>12970865
I read it years ago so I dont remember that well but the first 5 or so essays were interesting. I remember points about Kant, Trakl, Heidegger, Deleuze, Bataille, and Nietzsche

>>12970881
Heidegger is going to come back.
Is there any good and contemporary (or edgy) work on the guy?

>>12970897
this board talks about Object oriented ontology a fair amount, which is definitely Heidegger related

>>12969492
>>12969242
This list is bad and you should feel bad for even making/recommending it.

>>12970923
I seriously doubt you've read even half the books on there

>>12970927
Wanna try me? I can list you the books I've read from part 1 because part 2 is mostly garbage.

Plato : Read symposion (banquet) in first year undergrad phil. Read Politeia (republic) second year.
Machiavelli : Read and own the Prince.
Hobbes : Had many uni lectures on hobbesian political phil, I can talk about it for hours at times. TL;DR : Hobbes is a rationalist and challenges natural right theory.
Smith : Worked on Wealth of Nations many times in political philosophy classes. I'm an enthusiast of modern political philosophy so I know the context and general trend of early political economy very well, read about Mandeville's fable of the bees.
Huxley : it's literally a book of fiction ive read as a kid
Same for 1984 and animal farm, these are commonly read in middle school where I live.
Aristotle : I'm working at the very moment on the Peri Psukè (de anima, on the soul), very important to understand thomism and natural right theory
>Thucydides : actually foundational, the most scientific ancient greek historian, his work is remarkable in many ways, good points on stasis etc
>Augustine : Haven't read as of yet but very familiar with the posterity of his thought and the general theological thematics evokes (predestination, sack of rome)
.>modern political philosophy, spinoza, rousseau, montesquieu, etc
Read Jonathan's Israel history of enlightenment and radical enlightenment. Half of the books quoted are nowhere near as important as they're portrayed, other very foundational works are poorly sorted. Theologico-political treatise is the very simple stuff, Political Treatise of 1677 is foundational and Spinoza's Ethics is IMO the most important text of the history of philosophy.
>Kant below the meme sanity line
>Hegel phenomenology of spirit :
Important if you're a historian of philosophy (I am and although I haven't read the book entirely (the end is pretty bad), I do know what it is about.
>Heidegger
Mystification devoid of any theoretical and practical use, jargon of authenticity.
>Schopenhauer
Worse spinoza
>Marcus Aurelius
Better read Seneca if you really wanna read the stoics, although I do prefer Spinoza.
>Dialektik der Aufklärung
Actually good.
>Nietzsche
Rather genealogy of morals than Beyond Good and Evil but still solid suggestion.

>>12971015
>Read Jonathan's Israel history of enlightenment and radical enlightenment.
Obviously meant Jonathan Israel's history of enlightenment and the radical enlightenment.

>Still reads Land
fun deleuzian nightmare but little more

Is this chart better?

>>12971134
It is, although I'd rework a few things. It's largely missing Spinoza unfortunately but this seems to be a general trend of the anglophone history of philosophy.

>>12971134
>>12971143
Also IMO missing key sociology/history books. Thucydides is good but he's a bit lonely there.
But then, this is a right-wing ideology thread and the right-wing grasp of history is dubious.

>>12971134
I made that like two years ago now, I updated it a couple months later (pic related).

I should update it more generally though so it doesn't stick so closely to the liberal condition (how I left out Bakunin, or the Fascist manifesto, for examples, I don't know). Maybe I'll do that today, I haven't got much else to do other than thesis work.

>>12971143
What books would you recommend? Not asking you to make a chart, just a brief list for an introduction to politics

>>12971156
Not to mention the order (why did I put Rousseau *after* Burke's reflections on the French revolution? I don't know.)

>>12971015
You're saying ridiculous things about people like Heidegger and Schopenhauer, and disregarding the Part 2 which has most of the right wing stuff in it.

you should at the least read some de Maistre or something

>>12971143
why is spinoza being left out ?

>>12971179
>You're saying ridiculous things about people like Heidegger and Schopenhauer
Very likely given I have not much of an interest in Schopenhauer and even less for Heidegger. I never said this is an objective reading, just that I do know what I'm talking about.

>>12971159
I'll make a recommend readings chart but basically it's more how a general approach to history of philosophy & philosophy that boils down to "know your chronology, eg who came before whom" and "know the intellectual filiations and opposed schools of thought"

>>12971194
More complex question that it sounds but generally most of the work on Spinoza has been done by french scholars (Deleuze's "Spinoza, practical philosophy" or neospinozist works like Frederic Lordon or Alexandre Matheron) so the language barrier explains a bit of the issue. Another is that Spinoza was always branded as a heretic and dangerous thinker and the anglo (but largely french too) institution ignored his thought and rather focused on less critical figures of authority such as Montesquieu, Locke and Voltaire while the real flagship of the enlightenment was Spinoza. Jonathan Israel talks about this, you can read about him online, he has several lectures/talks on youtube.
Spinoza is basically left out because he's too radical and seen as an oddball even by philosophers themselves.

>>12971550
>on less critical figures of authority such as
Figures less critical of authority**
At some point you could get kicked out of acamedia for being suspected of being a spinozist and Fichte himself got kicked out of Iena uni for that reason.

>>12969242
>imagining someone being unironically introduced to the canon in this manner/order/everyfuckingthing
Oh god fucking dammit anon why

>>12969122
>right wing
you're already lost, OP.

>>12971015
>>Schopenhauer
>Worse spinoza
Get out

>>12971134
Are you retarded? You can't just plop the fucking republic down onto an abortion and expect anything but gross exaggerations and misappropriations. AT LEAST recommend
Gerasimos Santas or someone, if not out of the kindness of your heart, do it for the canon.

>>12969122
you