/lit/ - Literature

>>14050104
what books have you read so far?

>>14050104
Start with Plato.
Take your time learning about a philosophy you are naturally inclined towards.
Learn about modernity and another historical period you are interested in.
Return to Plato.
Repeat as necessary.

(Ignore the linear Start With... fags)

>>14050124
From the top of my head: Leviathan (Hobbes), Capital (Marx), The general theory of employment, interest and money (Keynes), Nicomachean Ethics (Aristotle), International history of the 20th century and beyond, Politics (Aristotle), The Republic (Plato), Utopia (Moore), 2nd Treatise on government (Locke), Constitutional documents of the USA, On liberty and utilitarianism (Mill), Towards perpetual peace (Kant), De rei publica and the Laws (Cicero), The Prince (Machiavelli), Elements of the philosophy of right (Hegel), Anti-Oedipus (Deleuze & Guattari), The Spirit of the Laws (Montesquieu), Vindication of Natural Society (Burke), Democracy in America (Tocqueville) academic political articles. Some Wollstonecraft and Hayek will be my next targets, but the more I read the number my mind feels and the more detached I feel from the world and can form summative stance on it. Anons, please cure me.

>>14050233
and what exactly do you want. how do you feel like you've not learned anything?

>>14050254
I don't know how to word it properly, but I feel like I only understand / experience politics in the abstract. A few months ago I had the pleasure of meeting an MP who had 0 education in politics but was such a noble man with genuine beliefs and an informed opinion which he could defend and had a clear vision of what he wanted for his constituency, and ever since I have been feeling very distressed. As I mentioned in OP, the extent of my political experience is purely abstract. I study politics and want to care about its everyday use, because otherwise what's the point, but I honestly never seem to care about anything at all / enough, but this apathy doesn't stem from ignorance or from my own will. I am hoping that any of you anons could tell me how you found your political orientation and started caring about your political landscape.

>>14050254
When I read a book / the books I have listed and consider opposing views, all I think is 'okay'. I see the points they're making and can see why others might find them valid, but I never find myself strongly agreeing or disagreeing? Am I just too centrist?

>>14050299
>>14050308
do you actually have formed beliefs?

>>14050322
About certain abstract things I do, like art, but not about anything that truly makes me a human in a society. Not to turn this into an open diary, but I grew up in a very religious family an academic background in theology, but like most ended up becoming alienated from my faith, but not to the degree of godlessness, I still write religious works, but I'm not a real Christian. My moral compass is all over the place. I wouldn't describe myself as a bad person, but my apathy is venomous. Having you question me like this really makes me realise how much of a ghost I am. How do you go about forming beliefs? Must you take a leap of faith and trust that you're holding a subjectively 'correct' view in spite of one's own ignorance?

>>14050403
try taking a break from philosophy per se and try reading fiction with philosophical undertones or narrative histories with great moral undertones.

>>14050466
Thank you for engaging and aiding me in this short moment of introspection, anon. You're probably right. Is there anything you recommend?

>>14050403
>>14050530
Hey, I just wanted to say, I appreciate your posts. It kinda describes how I feel about politics and the like. I’d say I’m well read on theory and historical development, but I feel relatively apathetic about its applied consequences. I think the problem is that I can understand a lot of points of view, do I want to see it in a Hobbesian way? Montesquieu? Materialist? Idealist?

I think absolute empathy spawns absolute apathy in a way.

>>14050530
Study their lives

You start with a moral system.

>>14050562
It's good to find someone in a similar situation.Hopefully this thread will hep us and anyone else in a similar situation orient themselves.
>>14050586
Thanks. I will definitely look into it.
>>14050597
This is arguably the locus of all of my distress. How does one go about that?
I, the OP, will be going to bed now. I will reply to any future posts if this thread is still up when I'm back.

>>14050104
>How does one form a reasoned political opinion?
By getting to the bottom of things first and actually understanding the reality of """politics""" instead of dealing with fantasies.

Read David Icke's The Biggest Secret, and The Omega File, for the basic foundation.
http://www.whale.to/c/biggest_secret_15.html
http://www.ignaciodarnaude.com/textos_diversos/Icke,David,The%20Biggest%20Secret.pdf
https://www.globalgreyebooks.com/omega-file-ebook.html

It's no different than someone trying to be politically informed yet having no idea who the Rothschilds are, what The City of London is, and how Central Banking works. But really, it doesn't stop there. You need to get /x/---you need to take the greenpill.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fwrz0-dnZIA

As for blogs,
https://web.archive.org/web/20180130200730/https://deusnexus.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/rothschilds-vatican-crown/

>>14050104
Start simple. What is politics?
A quick definition from a source i've long since forgotten: Politics has three parts.
1. Policy - Somewhat self-explanatory, it just covers someone's stance on something. For example X thinks immigration should be limited to a minimum for this and that reason.

2. Polity - Usually defined as the state, but in essence is a politically distinct entity of some sort. A polity can also be defined on the micro-level (such as a household, anarchist commune etc.).

3. - Politics: Politics regards most if not all questions about the distribution of goods and services. Who gets what? Where do they get it? From who do they get it? Who is excluded from these goods and services? Et cetera.

This definition covers a lot of stuff. You are probably not interested in all the things that can fit into this definition. What is it that you care about? Narrow that shit down. Despite your references to your own apathy, you weren't apathetic when you sat down and read all those books!

What you have listed as source material seems deeply theoretical and philosophical. Try something more "practical" maybe, more oriented towards something specific. For some fucking reason I became really taken with Indonesian politics. I went on to write my bachelor's thesis on corruption there. Fun stuff.
Some sources about Indonesia if you're feeling adventurous: http://folk.uio.no/ollet/

Also, unless you are deeply conspiratorially minded, a bit of source triangulation could help solve some of the uncertainty you feel about news outlets. Simply, do other sources say the same about a given event? If not, what differs? And why does it differ? If your conclusion is "lizard people" or "jews", you're probably a conspiracy theorist (and most definitely an asshat).

As for your comment about being "too centrist". I think of myself as a centrist, yet there are political things I care deeply. While my studies have shown me a lot of different political viewpoints, and I've thought of them as having merit it hasn't stopped me from forming my own opinions.

Fuck David Icke, fuck Suharto, fuck Nazis. I'm out.

>>14050530
Not that anon, but I second the opinion to read more fiction, and I'd recommend Russian classics like Tolstoi and Dostojevski, as well as Epics in general. It wouldn't hurt to read some Jungian texts and the following psychoanalytical literature, as well as some neuroscience.

>>14050403
Christcuckery ruined you. Become a holy fool in repentance and in your next life you may have better luck.

Why do you want to form a political opinion? Do you fantasize about winning a debate? Do you imagine yourself teaching someone else about your political theories? Do you wish to be percieved as intelligent? Of what possible use is a political opinion?

You're asking two different things here. Understanding political theory has already been explained. Understanding "daily politics" is something different. In that regard, there's two types of media: that which you are paying to tell you things (directly or indirectly), and that which someone else is paying to try to tell you things. Unless you're rich, the first doesn't apply to you at all.

The second, you need to use your best judgement for. Alex Jones is a very reliable source for finding out what Alex Jones thinks. CNN is very reliable for finding out what the American coastal elite want you to think. The Economist is very good for figuring out what Harvard social scientists want you to think. Are these good sources for uncovering much else? Not really, but maybe after investigation you'll disagree. ZeroHedge has accurately predicted every economic downturn and upswing since it's founding: It's also predicted thousands of events that did not happen. In hindsight, these random predictions are indistinguishable from each other. Look at where important people get the information that makes them move their money, not their mouths.

>>14050104
All of these answers are wrong. If you want a reasoned political opinion don't read books from 1645. Just search around for some textbooks on political science/economics and then read academic journals and debates on any issue that interests you.

>>14050233
>>14050299
Hello my fellow lover of politics and political theoryfag. I can't say i've ever been in your position, but here are some questions that should help you along the way. You should notice this is a similar process to many of the great thinkers that you've read.
First, Start with your meta-political position. Ask yourself: What, at its core, is politics? Is it the facilitation of public goods? is it managing the distribution of resources in society? is it the organization and direction of society? Is it just a product of evolutionary fitness? Is it the realization of a certain ethical principle? Is it the domination of the strong over the weak? is it the pursuit of power over power, which ceases onely in death? any consistent view must be founded on a metaphysical description of what politics is all about. You should be describing the phenomena first and foremost, oughts can come later.
From this, you can begin to ask normative political questions: If politics is [x meta-political view] then what should do and how should we feel about it? Say, if i hold the meta-political view that politics is nothing but the domination of the strong over the weak, then i can go a few ways: 1.) yes it is and that's a good thing! politics is and ought to be about making sure the most able lead and the least able follow, as is their rightful place. or i might say 2.) yes it is, but that only demonstrates that we need to abolish the state if we want everyone to be truly free and equal. And from these two positions, specific policies intuitively follow. please mind the is–ought gap.
From this process, you can derive a consistent set of principles, an ideal of sorts. Now you can judge contemporary political issues and events. Say, i think that politics really is about the realization of some ethical principle, and normatively i say that one of those ethical principles ought to be self-determination. Now if i look at the Hong Kong protests and ask: are the protesters promoting self-determination? is the government infringing on self-determination? whatever your answer is, you should support.
Now, what i have described is the Ideal of politics, you could say political principles. You could call it political perfectionism. But, that is hardly all of politics. secondly you have to ask: well, what is possible to be done, given the current circumstances? given the limits of human nature? given the time-frame, etc, etc.
So i could say, yes, i support the Hong Kong protesters who are fighting to realize their self-determination, BUT, the reality of the situation is that they have no hope of succeeding so they should just accept that there position in China is fait accompli.

>>14053119
It's tragic but they should recoup their losses and try find some other way about it. Or to go back to a previous example, i might think that politics is the rule of the strong over the weak, and that it really ought to be, but also realize that it is human nature to resist arbitrary domination. As such, i may have to compromise with my principles and throw some fodder to the masses, a bread and circus, to keep them content while the big boys get on with business. Or another example, i posit that politics is about the distribution of goods, and that goods should be distributed to all equally. But, then i look at my available resources and find i only have enough schools, teachers, textbooks, etc to properly educate 50% of the population. In that situation, i might compromise and and prioritize proper education of the few rather than an inadequate education for the many, because i realize that having competent engineers and doctors is better in the long term for the sustainment of society than everyone only knowing basic arithmetic.
There, you've just found out how to form consistent political opinions of your own. Most people don't go through this process, at least not consciously, but rather follow a received opinion that takes place at the normative level. Most people follow the hegemonic opinion definitionally!, based on their reflexive attitudes, education, cultural upbringing, and identity.

>>14053124
Now, as to how you should care about this, is a more difficult question. I care dearly about politics and the future of humanity, for all the achievements and depravity that we have done and are capable of. I guess you could say that i love the human spirit unconditionally, as gay as that sounds. That is enough to fuel strong emotional commitments to what i think is right and what we ought to do. Instead, i'll turn to minds far greater than mine to give you advice there:
William James, Principles of Psychology
>A practical observation may end this chapter. If belief consists in an emotional reaction of the entire man on an object, how can we believe at will? We cannot control our emotions. Truly enough, a man cannot believe at will abruptly. Nature sometimes, and indeed not very infrequently, produces instantaneous conversions for us. She suddenly puts us in an active connection with objects of which she had till then left us cold. We realize for the first time,”we then say, ‘what that means!” This happens often with moral propositions. We have often heard them; but now they shoot into our lives; they move us; we feel their living force. Such instantaneous beliefs are truly enough not to be achieved by will. But gradually our will can lead us to the same results by a very simple method: we need only in cold blood act as if the thing in question were real, and keep acting as if it were real, and it will infallibly end by growing into such a connection with our life that it will become real. It will become so knit with habit and emotion that our interests in it will be those which characterize belief. Those to whom “God” and “Duty” are now mere names can make them much more than that, if they make a little sacrifice to them every day.
Pascal, Pensées
>You want to find faith and you do not know the way.-* You want to cure yourself of unbelief and you ask for the remedies? Learn from those who have been bound like you, and who now wager all they have. They are people who know the road you want to follow and have been cured of the affliction of which you want to be cured. Follow the way by which they began: by behaving just as if they believed, taking holy water, having masses said, etc. That will make you believe quite naturally, and according to your animal reactions.' 'But that is what I am afraid of.' 'Why.? What do you have to lose.'' In order to show you that this is where it leads, it is because it diminishes the passions, which are your great stumbling-blocks, etc.

>>14050233
How on Earth you'd ever formulate a politicial opinion with so narrow focus of reading? Expand to other areas of non-fiction as well as fiction, classics, and wisdom emerges.

>>14050104
You don't. Uncertainty and fallability, as well as finity of all things are part of human condition.

Note that every political opinion eg. an articulated set of values in practical setting is a leap of faith. Their value as 'truth' is only valid by practical application and results of such.

You watch CNN and recite word for word what your professors and /leftypol/ taught you about history and philosophy. Also its important to pretend you have read Marx.

bump

Hi, OP here again. It's been a long day, and I'm happy to see all of these replies. Even though I will not answer every single one of them, I appreciate the contribution and I will definitely be coming back to this thread long after it has been archived and maybe even update you guys on any future progress.
Just to clarify this, the books I listed were in reference to the first question which I thought very clearly wanted to know what I had read in regards to politics proper. I thought it was a safe enough assumption to make that I do read other things other than political theory and philosophy. But much like my interest in music, I was, until now, more interested in form, structure and architecture and prose, than melodic content / story, so great works of fiction have never informed me morally or politically. Perhaps a Copernican shift o focus will help me orient myself.
Once again; thank you to everyone who has contributed to this thread.

>>14055051
Terrible post.

>>14050104
Mencius Moldbug
https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/

Follow Nick Land on Twitter
@outsideness
Every night (he's on China time) he posts good articles.
Here is an example:
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/were-in-a-permanent-coup

Peter Thiel. His book is worth reading, but you'll get most of his content through talks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGVVRnM50yY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aswsnLvtEOA

>>14056735
>But much like my interest in music, I was, until now, more interested in form, structure and architecture and prose, than melodic content / story
This statement is almost meaningless. You can gather moral / political form from fiction, and I say that as a person that prefers non.

From all you say you've read, you'd think you'd be able to form a patchwork of thought. I'd suggest learning about the current system as it is, both in its structure (laws, government) and its actions, that you can glean. If, from there, you don't have your own opinion on it, then I don't know what to tell you.