/lit/ - Literature

>>21759730
Bunch of pseudo intellectual bullshit basing itself of assumptions of Euro life at the time. Natural rights and Machiavelli are good but there is no social contract. You do not owe your nation anything from birth and have the moral right to subvert and destroy said nation to your people's benefit if you so choose. If they lack the power to stop you then they didn't deserve their power. The domination of smaller groups over larger ones and the violent rebellions of subjected groups to the larger nation leading to new nations proves this. Hobbes was a fool. In truth individualism and the pragmatic pursuit of it under a realist macro level ideology is the perfect way of looking at it. Come together as needed to maximum individual freedom with agreed upon common laws left open to change while respecting natural rights of all sapients.

>>21759730
You're missing Plato, Montesquieu, Marx, Spinoza, and Rawls

J s McClelland. History of western political thought.

>>21759760
I think Plato's approach to political philosophy is always subsumed under the primary metaphysical and ethical parts of his philosophy. I think the Laws would be the part where he goes more directly into the effectively political, no?
As for the other names, indeed Montesquieu is important, Spinoza perhaps for his direct democracy and early exposition of social contract, but Rawls? I want the fundamentals, therefore the list should be short.

>>21759764
Hm. I'm more interested in primary materials for now.

>>21759748
Spoken like a true pseud.

>>21760467
Easy to declare, hard to prove. I know Locke is an idol for some reason but his ideas are all conjecture and reality disproves them much like Marx. Realism combined with some liberal controls is what you need. All this strongman stuff or collective guilting into obedience to a state is insect tier and if you haven't noticed a failed philosophy. I speak as one who simply observes reality and comes to conclusions on the results. You likely just hide in old books.

All of these are classical midwit choices, and you should go back way further. I see a lot of English and French authors, have you tried looking into the Druids?

>>21759730
I think the Young Hegelian critique of the state in writers like Marx, Proudhon and Wagner form a crucial element of political philosophy, especially in modern times. Whether you agree with them or not.

>>21759730
You must read history as well to understand the social context which shaped their views

>>21759730
Up to the date of the early 1800s, sure.

I get the inclination to read primary sources, but you're not going to understand the primary texts if you don't have adequate context. I think you'd honestly be better off if you just read Politics and Vision than you would reading the books you listed in isolation.

That said:
-Add History of the Peloponnesian War, or at least read about the siege of Melos
-Add the Republic, cut out NE.
-Cut Democracy in America
-Add the Marx-Engels Reader
-Add Genealogy of Morals

It's really tempting to tell you to cut out Locke and Rousseau -- your list is super heavy on social contract theory, and Locke's ideas in particular are kind of stuff you've already absorbed by osmosis. Plus he's a shitty writer.

I'd also say Rawls and Nozick are pretty fundamental if you want to understand the underpinnings of the current political climate. Maybe more relevant than Hegel.

I'd also say add Arendt's The Human Condition -- maybe a stretch to call that fundamental, but it's important IMO.

>>21759748
>Bunch of pseudo intellectual bullshit basing itself of assumptions of Euro life at the time
>Natural rights are good

kek

way too much focus on early modern to be a solid list for fundamentals

add plato, he is more fundamental than you think, read al-farabi's political writings and put more focus on augustine for some medieval lit, skip locke (if you really want more early modern, read spinoza's tractatus instead) and add de maistre. and read marx + nietzsche (mainly his genealogy) + rawls for modern fundamentals

>>21762035
>history
But our grasp on history is tenuous, at best. The mass majority of our history is just the presentivist lens looking at various objects, letters, etc. that is to say, our grasp on history is mostly just guess work.

>>21759730
add Carl Schmitt's Concept of the Political if you're already doing Prince and Leviathan

>>21759760
you can skip all of those guys except Plato to be quite frank
>I'd also say Rawls and Nozick are pretty fundamental if you want to understand the underpinnings of the current political climate
Skip these pseuds and read Foucault

>>21759730
Add the following:
Concept of the political - Schmitt
Propaganda - Bernays
Also, if anyone tells you to read Arendt, laugh in their face.

>>21762244
They are good as in they are a baseline for you to decide if you are justified in forcing change. Argue that your natural rights aren't being respected as a justification for revolution, killing, and all that. Ultimately the gun decides things but everyone bleeds so the threat of that can keep those in power somewhat in line if the people are not cowards. Just look at Japan. They are a pretty cucked society but Abe still got his chest blown open for his bullshit.

>>21759730
I'd get rid of all of that except for Aristotle, and add Plato's Laws, Statesman, and Republic, De Maistre's Generative Principle, On the Pope, St Petersburg Dialogues, and optionally Dante's De Monarchia. You can add figures like Gustave Le Bon and Pareto if you want an additional sociological perspective. Otherwise there is not really all that much "political philosophy" worth reading.

>>21762231
Politics and Vision seems a really good introductory book on political philosophy. I was going to list a few secondary sources I plan to read and ask for recs too but that would expand too much the OP and thought it better to focus on primary material.
>History of the Peloponnesian War
As >>21762035 said, I don’t ignore history, I have a list with some titles but I also inteded not to mix with political philosophy in this thread, even though yeah they intertwine.
Now, you recommend me that because of Thucydides’ realism? I have postponed his book because Herodotus is important to have in mind before reading him, no?

I have read the Republic two or three times, what do you think that makes it more relevant (politically) than Statesman and the Laws?
Nicomachean Ethics is in fact too focused on moral philosophy and less on political philosophy, but I just put it in the list because the ending is basically the beginning of Politics, lol.

>cut democracy in America
Why :((, not gonna hide I’m really eager to read it.

>add Marx
Taking advantage to answer to >>21760634, I think it is too sectary, that’s why I’d leave it for later (and would get something like Kolakowski’s book before getting into Marx directly).

>Locke
Yeah, I share the same thoughts but I considerer I could find something not often spoken in this work of his. I’ll read the first chapters and then decide whether I continue or not.
>Rousseau
Now here I’d like an explanation. I think he is fundamental and huge influence on many theorists.

>Arendt
>>21764561
Please, debate. I have no opinion on her because I have never read anything from her and heard too little about her in order to form even a smattering of opinion. I want to hear both of you.

>>21759730
>no Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, or Burke
retarded
reflections on the french revolution is prime reading particularly for understanding the modern "left-right" discourse

>>21764561
>>21763056
Yup, Schmitt is mostly what this list prepares me for. Really want to get into him, but I wish a good foundation, that’s why he’s not listed.

>>21766341
adding to this, you definitely need to include some modern thinkers, such as Rawls. Despite the fact that I personally dislike Rawls and all his subsidiaries, it's important to understand the current discourse surrounding cosmopolitanism and the idea of marrying liberalism with pseudo-christian morality

>>21759730
I'd consider adding The Machiavellians by Burnham. It seems like you are trending in that direction already and it's a good primer on Elite Theory.

>>21759730
any of those books is ok as long as you actually make notes and think about them rather than just consume them, better if it's in the original greek though

>>21759730
hume and bentham are essential for early modern thought

>>21766395
or just read a book by a random youtuber commenting on those authors
>The 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump unleashed a wave of populism not seen in America since the Nixon era, which carried him into the presidency. Seen widely as a vindication of the people over elites, his failure to bring about any meaningful change was then seen as an aberration, a departure from a natural state where the people are sovereign and their representatives govern by their consent. This is the populist delusion.
>This book explodes that delusion. Beginning with the Italian elite school, Parvini shows the top-down and elite driven nature of politics by explicating one thinker per chapter: Mosca, Pareto, Michels, Schmitt, Jouvenel, Burnham, Francis, and Gottfried. The sobering picture that emerges is that the interests of the people have only ever been advanced by a tightly organized minority. Just as fire drives out fire, so an elite is only ever driven out by another elite.
>The Populist Delusion is the remedy for a self-defeating folk politics that has done the people a great disservice.

>>21766405
>vaguely feminine-sounding south asian name
>mentions trump
discarded

>>21766341
>Plato
I mentioned Plato's Laws, but I'm curious why it should be classed among the fundamental ones. But I guess Statesman and the Laws should indeed be included. As for the Republic I justified above that it's aim is not political philosophy mainly and that there's too much of metaphysics dominating it.
>Augustine
Yeah, City of God might be important. But how as fundamental?
>Aquinas
How is he relevant?
>Burke
Interesting. I have forgotten completely about him and maybe you have a point here.

>>21766359
I just haven't thought of 1900s theorists because generally they demand background and as said I'm more concerned with fundamentals for now.

>>21766565
you sound like you have already decided what you want to read desu and you see the 'fundamentals' as early modern political phil, no one is going to convince you to read augustine or aquinas because you dont care about the relevance of metaphysics to politics and see politics as its own domain (itself an early modern invention - see spinoza's TPP)

>>21766598
And you sound like a neurasthenic who can't bear the slightest disagreement. I'm adding Plato and Burke to my list. I'm considering Augustine (which is not an easy decision seeing that City of God is 800 or more pages) and I'm simply demanding an explanation for Aquinas' relevance regarding political philosophy.

>relevance of metaphysics to politics
I regard it of extreme relevance, but rhetorical, not substantial. Why should I read 10 volumes of metaphysical speculations constructed upon Platonic-Aristotelian metaphysics occasionally being branched off to politics instead of, say, Kantorowicz's analysis of medieval politics, which considers the sacred, not in its metaphysical rhetoric, but in its anthropological and social relevance?

Locke, Rousseau, Hegel and Tocqueville are not early modernity, by the way.

>>21766659
just get a copy of 'aquinas political writings' my guy, and no mainly considering the sacred only in the light of its anthropological and social relevance isn't quite right as it almost always hides some sort of reductionist attitude towards the sacred - as you say, it being only of 'rhetorical' rather than substantial relevance. otherwise you'd have a very different list of 'fundamentals' and you wouldn't see 800 pages of city of god a slog while happily reading 800 pages of hobbes. not a bad thing, just dont fight against your current instincts

>>21766757
How’s social and anthropological inquiries of religion rhetorical, lmao

Bump

>>21766443
Pakidemic Agent bros… it’s over

>>21766565
>How is he relevant?
Aquinas wrote A LOT on political philosophy (commentary and original work). For Straussians, Aquinas is a crucial bridge between the ancients and moderns, as they see both the presence of natural right and natural law in his work. Honestly, Aquinas’s political writings did a lot more to increase my faith in God than any of his famous proofs.

>>21759748
Finally, someone has a nerve to say what everyone is thinking

>>21759730
It's only good for understanding Western European and American political philosophy, which is gay. It won't help you understand actually based political philosophy like the Byzantium worldview where religion and the state are inseparable. You'll learn a bunch of liberal crap whose conclusion is invariably today's world: tranny ideology. And I read almost all the books on your list, and I was dissatisfied so I talk from personal experience. Hobbes is a liberal. It's all about individualism, consent, rights, etc.

>>21766359
No it's not important, it's a waste of time and you're a pseud.

>>21759730
What is this, a fast track to mien kampf?
You don't need background to read proletariat literature that's the whole point, the arguments and premises are self contained.

Rouesseu is a dishonest writer who is frequently trying to obscure his weak premises, honestly the prince is a featherweight and if you're reading discourses you can skip the prince.

This is a funny mix of light and heavy reading

>>21768061
Aquinas work was often apologies for the catholic Church and in some arguments he's begging the question.
Undoubtedly his COPE about the interface between good/evil- order/disorder was seminal in catholic thinking but for classical thinkers its a bizarre step backwards from republicanism.

Read the Strauss/Cropsey History of Political Philosophy but avoid Straussianism

>>21769623
It's a standard undergraduate syllabus in political theory/philosophy

The only one I’ve ever read who was honest about shit is Machiavelli. The rest are idealists who ignore human nature. Even fools like Hobbes who try to determine human nature falls back on honor and dignity.

>>21769631
In which political arguments is he begging the question?

>>21769969
The one where he assumes God exists

>>21769463
>where religion and the state are inseparable
I thought this was the case in Western Europe until the Renaissance.

>>21769632
I was trying to avoid secondary literature in this thread but I guess this is inevitable. But yeah, I considered reading Strauss’ book on Plato and Aristotle while I read both of them, for example. His History of Political Philosophy is huge but I guess it is worth having by the side.

>>21759730
Garbage. Those are modern secular politics, good for bigots but not for understanding it.

If you want to understand anything read:
Thucydides the history of Peloponnesian War

>>21769991
>I thought this was the case in Western Europe until the Renaissance.
Do you realize all your books aside from Aristotle are post-Renaissance?

>>21770270
Yes, and? My question does not concern the list in the OP, but solely your claiming ''the Byzantium worldview where religion and the state are inseparable'' excluding the antiquity and the medieval West.

>>21770424
What question retard? You don't understand what you're looking for or what you're reading.

>>21770527
You made a claim as if the conjunction of state and religion was an exclusive characteristic of Byzantium, you dumbfuck. You are the one who has no idea what you're talking about. Leave my thread.

>>21770551
You can't even read 4chan posts, drop this hobby immediately and do something else with your life.

>>21759730
Missing Thucydides

>>21770581
I wish I couldn't read, thus I wouldn't try to correct retards like you. Leave my thread. Out. Now.

>>21770615
>Leave my thread. Out. Now.
Lmao are you 12?

>>21770622
Age is but a number. LEAVE MY FUCKING THREAD. NOW! LEAVE!

>>21770622
You already spoiled the thread with your stupidity.

>>21770643
That’s not me.

>>21770655
This is not me. Please, leave my thread. It's my fucking thread, and I'm tired of this crap.

>>21767560
No one ever seems to breach the “poo question”

>>21769981
Fuck off fedora

>>21770668
>>21770655
>>21770643
>>21770615
>>21770551
>>21770424
>>21769991
OP, I regret to inform you that no matter how much liberal politics you read, you will NEVER be a woman. I know you think that reading the same ideas said in different ways over centuries will help you impress people about your vast knowledge, but you're unintelligent, illiterate, and entirely confused about life. Your brain is too feminine for this yet you will never be a woman. It's sad.

>>21770701
Look, I know I'm a midwit. But I'm so goddamn tired to get BTFO by these stupid leftists. I want to punch back, I want to be respected too. Now that you know, get out of my thread.

>>21759730
check out Robert Dahl for some modern democratic theory.
If this is your first time with philosophy or pol philosophy in general, you won't get much out of Aristotle.
See attached pic for some more suggestions

>>21762061
2 good modern politics books, now

>>21771022
Why do people recommend Adorno when he's such a midwit?

>>21762564
you're a fucking idiot. this is something someone would only ever say if they've never read any history

>>21771167
t. seething MSM tranny

>>21771204
Why would Adorno call himself a midwit?

>>21771213
Antithesis

>>21771213
wtfffffffffffffffffffffff what is this deformerro

>>21765779
>>21759730
>>21759930
if anything skip aristotle's politics. He is too pragmatic so most of the book is only really useful in the context of ancient greek politics. A lot of his definitions and refutations simply do not apply today. Add the republic instead. By starting with metaphysics Plato's arguments are essentially timeless, and believe me it is an almost complete political framework unlike what >>21759930 says; the Laws are supposed to be more pragmatic suggestions (ive never read them admittedly), ideas you could put into practice, but in the republic there is real gold that can be used today. In fact, the more interesting parts of aristotle's politics are where he argues against the points in the republic.

>>21771228
Jewish phenotype

>>21759730
How about you start reading the books before adding to your multi-year-long reading journey?

>>21772966
>>21771263
>>21771022
Leave my thread.

>>21759748
this is so clear and well phrased wtf

>>21759730
https://politicalscience.yale.edu/sites/default/files/political_theory-reading_list-2015.pdf

This should be an okay starting list, follow the asterisks and you can feel free to go into the supplementary material if you like.

>>21774241
It covers basically everything everyone has suggested up until now anyway, and more

You should generally only take advice from those who have put their own lessons into practice. All others should be scrutinized to the highest degree. That should answer your question.