/lit/ - Literature

>>16740375

>>16740375
Livy

>>16740375
Are you the guy who posted in Hobbes, de Maistre and Rousseau threads with a similar avatar (sorry, I'm not a fan of animu)? If so I salute you, your posts are always insightful and well informed, it's always a treat to read them. Continue the good work. Judging by your picks (you have two Nobel prize economists on the list) you are now interested in something in a common area between political economy and political theory. I'm not well versed in political theory but I studied economics, there is an incredible book I read while researching my examination essay in history of economic thought written by Albert O. Hirschman under the title "The Passions and the Interests: Political Arguments for Capitalism before its Triumph". It discusses how political theorists and political economists (Mandeville, Smith) in particular played a role in modern shift of emphasis from classical virtue ethics to the doctrine of enlightened self-interest. Hope you like this recommendation bro

Palgrave Studies in International Relations

>>16740491
Thanks for the recommendation, but i've already read Hirschman's 'Passions and Interests' (i'm actually planning on reading his other book, 'Exit, Voice, and Loyalty' soon). I agree, it was a great book.
>>16740545
I've read a bit in IR but i honestly wasn't a fan. I'm more interested in domestic politics. But thanks anyway.

>>16740604
Modernity and Political Thought?

Bump.

>>16740375
Always pleased to see you. Political science in an analytic way you mean?

>>16741190
That is preferred, but i wouldn't mind the more qualitative works. Public Policy, Public Admin, Political Economy, that kind of stuff. Less so Comparative Politics and IR.
I'll probably just scour some top university lists and see if i can put together a decent reading list from them.

>>16740375
>Not kiddie shit like Clash of Civilisations or End of History
Based. But Fukuyama's Political Order is good.

>>16741380
What's your education level if I can ask?

>>16741380
>>16741826
In terms of the subject

>>16741380
Karl Marx - Das Kapital (1988)

>>16740375
That annie-may lady makes me feel small :(

>>16741826
I have an undergraduate degree in political science and international relations. Though i had always focused on Political Theory in my extracurricular reading. Which is what i would now like to remedy before moving onto potential postgraduate studies.

>>16742003
Sincerely what drives anyone towards that degree or combination

>>16740375
Found this series https://b-ok.lat/s/Oxford%20Political%20science

>>16742003
>>16742158
This https://b-ok.lat/book/5218780/5e551f

>>16742150
In interest in politcal science and international relations.

>>16742163
Found a lot desu
https://b-ok.lat/book/5435036/369101
https://b-ok.lat/book/832107/c611d1
https://b-ok.lat/book/2883425/49f499
https://b-ok.lat/book/2517462/3d0752

>>16742166
Wtf

>>16742158
>>16742163
>>16742182
These aren't really what i'm looking for. Oxford Handbooks don't contain key articles but rather commissioned chapters on general topics. If i were to read that kind of survey, i'd rather it be a monograph than simply a chapter. Though, they may be a useful springboard for finding the key authors, texts, and articles. Thanks anyway.

Bump

An image is a serious portion of whatever content, both social cues and information, the post body contains. This is why people who commit to avatarfaggotry enter a serious "uncanny valley" to me. My brain reaches for what the image is transmitting when everything there is a red herring to "it is me". Everything is smothered like a creepy mask.

One last bump, though I'm not too hopeful. Maybe I'll make a chart for you guys in 6 months or so when i'm better versed in the subject.

>>16740375
Have you, by any chance, gotten banned for avatarfagging in the recent past?

>>16742312
I still have no idea what you're asking for and I'm honestly tempted to tell you to just read the economist or whatever. Like wtf is a key article?

>>16740420
Do people actually rate Rawls as a serious political philsopher? I always thought his thought experiments regarding the veil were such a failed concept and yet people seem to really rate him. Maybe its me who is weird

>>16745407
Have you read his work?

>>16742003
just read economists, policy is cringe

>>16745449
Yes, both of the books in the picture. That said i dont have a polsci/phil education so i dont know if i looked at it in the correct framework.

>>16740375
What you are looking for does not yet exist; the field as a “science” is too nascent. Give it 100 years and then you will have some great “poli sci” compilations.
I hate that stupid fucking meme language, but this is a situation where the “dust hasn’t settled” enough for an authoratative compilation like what you are looking for, especially if the Oxford and Blackwell/Routledge companion route doesn’t meet what you are looking for.
Course syllabi from top schools are pretty much the only real window.
Source: i have a PhD in poli sci from a top US school.

>>16745513
He is usually a springboard for critique now, my pol-sci friends at university used to shit on him constantly. Criticising the veil is a kind of rite of passage.

>>16745528
I’ll add: things like Designing Social Inquiry (published 1994) haven’t been out for even 30 years. Arrow’s theorem is older but hardly more “settled” in the field—e.g. it’s appearance on a given “core” poli sci course syllabi, unless its a methods course alone, is highly unlikely.
Things like APSA are designed to address what you are talking about, but that is an ongoing and continuous project that produces a number of specific “off shoots,” e.g. top articles in the restructuring of Eastern bloc economies post-soviet rule, etc., but is far less equipped to survey the field as a whole.
Different departments usually also endorse different poli sci cannons at this point—huge breaks down the line as to qualitative vs. quantitative, formal modeling, methods, etc.; these debates mean that entire volumes can and have been filled with subject- and method-specific articles, but that, again, an overarching “poli sci” bible of sorts has been necessarily excluded.

>>16745528
>>16745582
Not op but thanks

>>16745528
>>16745582
I feared that might be the case. But thanks for the answer.