/lit/ - Literature

you wouldnt want people breaking their id pol meme illusions do you

because none of the obscure ideologies we'd be talking about here would ever get used in the real world... why bother?

>>13573960
they do a lot?

>Rothbard

Opinion Discarded

>>13574341
>libertarian chart
>not including rothbard
?

>>13573960
Because practical politics are boring as shit. And you can't discuss alternative positions without being called a larper or idealist so it's a waste of time unless your ideological framework is grounded in the Overton window

I mostly read political philosophy and the reason i don't make threads about it is that /pol/tards and /leftypol/tards are attracted to anything even tangentially related to politics and will hijack threads to bloviate their received wisdom. You can't go 5 posts without someone mentioning Spergler, Hitler, Marx, Mosley, Evola, etcetera, and any thread that touches on a particular ideology is doomed from the beginning. When it comes to politics, people would rather be cheerleaders than interlocutors. Basically, you can't discuss anything related to politics here as /lit/ has the unfortunate fate of being on the same website as /pol/. If you post anything related to a specific book (especially if its not a meme book), you will get maybe 7 responses if you're lucky. I think your image typifies the problem with politics: people read to become a "non-retarded libertarian" rather than for any agnostic interest in the subject matter—you've already chosen your ideology, and merely read to become a better advocate for it. I know it may be old-fashioned to say this, but: shouldn't you merely be interested in the truth (as far as that exists) of politics? Isn't that what philosophy is all about? It's all so tiresome...

>>13573960
>ordered bottom-to-top
What?

>>13574928
>shouldn't you merely be interested in the truth (as far as that exists) of politics?
LOL. Everyone likes to call themselves a champion of the truth. You can never truly be an open minded "truth seeker" because humans have confirmation bias AND there just isn't enough time to read and hear from every viewpoint.

>>13574953
That makes more sense - you start with the foundations, then you build up on top of that.

the only important thing in politics is economics and economics are boring.

>>13574928
>shouldn't you merely be interested in the truth
The best way to get to the truth is by trying to disprove your own argument - and to try to do that - you have to know it. The best way to know the most about the libertarian (say) argument, is to read libertarian lit. Otherwise you’re just reading about other ideologies that build on their own assumption, and either don’t address what you’re interested in, or if they do - they strawman it horribly for their purposes.

>>13575023
I'm not saying your shouldn't read books that advocate a certain ideological view, or to better understand an ideology. I'm saying that you shouldn't read to become an ideologue. There's a difference between holding a position to be true and being dogmatic about it, likewise there is a difference between discussing it and advocating for it. You should precisely be interested in the various assumptions which different ideologies build their normative framework on, the veracity of these assumptions, how they manifest, whether you think they are correct or not, whether they pertain to the position you advocate or not; that's what a general interest in politics means. One doesn't go into a study of metaphysics and only reads plato and neoplatonic writers simply because you think the theory of forms is the sickest idea there is. It is as ridiculous to do the same with politics (again, if you're interested in the topic itself, and not merely a single position). I'm loathe to use such a cliche quote, but as Aristotle says: you should be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

>>13574957
Yes, we all know about the theory dependence of observation. But that doesn't mean you can't make conscious efforts to minimize your bias or to entertain, to the best of your ability, the position as accurately as its proponents do. You may think it ridiculous, but i do think that the truth(s) is out there and we can find it, despite our human limitations.

>>13573960
>non retarded libertarian
lol

>>13575023
>>13575296
I agree with anime anon, OP is actively trying to destroy any attempt at self-education. Otherwise they wouldn't advocate skipping all that "Roman Cringe."

>>13574370
tbqh a libertarian "political" chart is not worth the time to make.

>>13573960

Everything is subsumed into politics, so politics is always discussed despite the best efforts of anyone who may tire of its most obvious affects.

>>13575018
What is Enlightenment? Enlightenment is politics' emacipation from its self-incurred servitude. Servitude, in the inability to practice itself without being the thrall of economics. This servitude is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of ability, but lack of resolution and courage to act without the guidance of economics. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Non ducor duco: Have courage to practice your own discipline!

>>13573960
Because political science is settled: It's liberal democracy forever.

I study metaphysics and whenever someone says they study political philosophy I picture an American standing in a sun-bleached parking lot wearing an oversized sports jersey drinking syrup water from a "Big Gulp" cup and saying "Is Plato a democrat or is he ain't?"

Then a posh, thin, effete British man in a sweater vest walks up to the American and says "Plato was a Tory, and the suggestion that he was a Whig is simply preposterous. Clearly Aristotle was the Whig!"

Thank god I study real philosophy.

>>13576745
Huh. I didn't study either of them, but in my uni most everyone who did Philosophy was a pseud who wasn't good enough for the traditional high prestige disciplines (except for the rare PPE types, who were merely no good enough for Oxford). People who did anything political were careerists aiming for admin/EU jobs.

>>13576829
You're British. The British haven't done philosophy in universities since the Cambridge Platonists (and Collingwood by accident, but he was an archaeologist).

>>13573960
Who the fuck thought it a good idea to make a chart bottom to top

Political philosophy has a better grasp of the mind then psychology.

>>13573960
any political organisation is good as any other if it is devoid of theocratic principles.

>>13576745
>this reddit spacing
>this post
>Thank god I study real philosophy.

>>13575296
Anyone have similar charts like op’s but for other ideologies ?

>>13577016
what is reddit spacing?

>>13574928
Exactly. Real political philosophy is wonderful. It’s like a breath of fresh air and helps you in real life.

Modern politics is trash and assumes all Americans/voters/blacks are stupid and victims. I hate this current media crisis.

>>13574928
Goddamn it, completely agree with you, and the best proof of your claim is the responses you have received. >>13574957
>>13575023
Hoped more people of you existed anon.

>>13576745
>>13577040
The gap between a redditors pussy and his asshole (mouth).

>>13577128
How do you agree with 2 people who contradict each other >>13574928
>>13575023

I am a post-humanist leftist. What book would you recommend me to change my political allegiance to yours? Whatever you are. Libertarian, fascist, liberal.

>>13577318
this is not just for OP btw. just a general question

because this board is terrified of Marx

>>13577318
well I'm a catholic leftist so keep it up bit read some Ruskin maybe lol

>>13577318
Hegel

>>13577393
specifically?

>>13573960
Why the fuck does this read bottom to top. I almost feel it necessary to discredit the whoever created this list entirely because of this.

>>13574953
>>13576848
>>13577502
Does this trigger you as well?

>>13577669
Yes

>>13577371
I think humanity is terrified of Marx. When will his bloodlust be completed? After he has killed 20 gorillion more people? :3

>>13573987
When are you going to grow up and recognize that entire civilizations have been and are ruled by the words of some dead author in obscure books?

>>13577798
You might be autistic desu

>>13573960
Most here are libtards. Also /pol/.

>>13577029
I was thinking of making some, but i'm not sure if i'd be able to do justice to every ideology out there.

>>13573960
As not-libertarian, I must say it's even good chart

>>13580073
Just do the ones that you know the most about

>>13576624
funny

>>13580168
If i were to do some preliminaries. It is difficult to zero in on what are the most important and which are superfluous.

>>13580920

>>13580924

>>13580927
really not sure about this one

>>13580931
or this one

>>13573960
The only politics I need in my philosophy is the Dao De Ching.

>>13577279
i was showcasing that i agreed with >>13574928
and the reason he was right was the response he got.
>>13574957
>>13575023
sorry about the confusion.

>>13580931
I don't think Hayek was arguing for a libertarian state per se, it was more just general scepticism of government action

>>13576624
memebook

possibly unrelated, just felt like pasting this somewhere
>Once, upon being challenged for masturbating in the marketplace, Diogenes regretted that it were not as easy to relieve hunger by rubbing an empty stomach

>>13574928
>bloviate
You misused this word and it applies to you and all dumb lefties for that matter

>>13583956
>instantly politicizes everything

thanks for being part of the problem

>>13573960
>non-retarded libertarian
Isn't that an oxymoron anon?

These are great and all, but if you really want to be hip to political theory, you should read the collected works if John Adams. It’s an over seven hundred page anthology of his best writings, and even contains his personal letters! I highly recommend it!

>>13573960
>John Stuart Mill

Dismissed.

>>13584142
One of the greatest.

I'll bet you've never even read his work on economics? Such a great view of economics and productivity. The only other economists whom I've seen tackle 'productivity' correctly are Adam Smith and Henry George. The largely amiability of economics during that time period -was- idyllic, but it led to some important realizations and mechanisms that many modern economists have forgotten. The morals of why economics is a science.

Louis Kelso touched on some productivity in his explanation of capital production. :3

>>13584142
Really, that's where you draw the line in this chart?

>>13583991
No, it's redundancy

>>13577669
STRAYA CUNT

>>13573960
>chart on how not to be retarded
>can't even order a chart right

>>13573960
We do it all the fucking time. We barely get to talk about actual literature for all the political literature and theory we blab on about.
Now get the fuck out of here, and don't come back until you've learned to shut the fuck up and lurk before posting.