/lit/ - Literature

Some other charts on the same topic, how would you rate them compared to the first one?

>>22047136
I've read five of them.

A friend of mine read The Wealth of Nations just to do it, and said that is it written in archaic language that makes it very difficult to read. Furthermore, its principles have been so ingrained into modern thought that it is almost self-evident (although it might not have been at the time of writing).

I suspect other titles are similar.

The redpill about politics is that there's not much you need to read about it. There are only 4 possible forms of government:
>rule by the few
>rule by the many
>ruled of a mixed sort
>rule by none

There's unironically only about 5 or 6 poli sci books you need to read and you basically have a PhD level education on the subject. Of course political scientists will object to this, but this is cope.
Will post the essential books in another post when I fully look at the chart.

>>22047191
keep in mind that you are talking to a complete beginner when it comes to philosophie. I imagine myself drowning rather fast in complex matters

This chart was clearly made by someone who never read any of these books and just googled "Political books that will make me look smart."

>Trial of Socrates
Entertaining read, but barely politics. The only part of this that can be considered politics (as we know it today) is the Crito, which is the first ever formulation of social contract theory. Read it if you are interested, but it's better articulated elsewhere.
>Republic
One of the dumbest books ever written. Plato was a pseud and wrong about nearly everything. He would fit right in today with the "you vill eat ze bugs" crowd. Anti-humanist scum.
>Nicomachean Ethics
Ethics is meaningless. Also not politics. And even if it wasn't, Aristotle's idea of "just be a virtuous person" is vague and arbitrary and has no business in politics. Machiavelli rightly pointed that out 2000 years later.
>Politics
Despite being called Politics, there's not much actual politics in this book. Aristotle was not a political theorist like Plato was. Aristotle was more interested in cataloging the types of governments and comparing them.
>Thucydides
Not politics. I assume it made the list because of the "might makes right" speech, but that's like one paragraph out of 900 pages. Absolutely inessential.
>Cicero
Also not politics. Probably good to read if you want to take a path into law, but even then, we are so far removed from Rome that there is almost nothing in it that applies to today.
>St. Augustine
Christcuck bullshit. Not politics.
>Aquinas
Christcuck bullshit. Not politics.

Stopping here because this is where the list finally gets decent.

>>22047191
Not OP, but would you mind recommending the top 3 or so to check out?

>>22047211
Dont you think its possible that the author of this chart had an ulterior motive by including the books that do not strictly focus on politcs? Basically as a ground layer.
You talked about Cicero focussing more on law and thus its not appliable for politics, but isn't law at some points relevant for politics? For example legalizing haschisch, which is law but also politics.

>>22047219
Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau are basically the trinity of political science. There's not much more that can be said beyond this. All subsequent political scientists are just variations on the ideas of these 3.

Hobbes is essential because he is the first ever person who not only proposed an ideal form of government, but actually put forth an argument for why you should listen to him that wasn't simply just "God wills it" like the medievals or "I'm right, just trust me bro" like Plato.
Hobbes advocated for monarchy and totalitarianism, and while you may sneer and giggle at that if you are pro-democracy, the argument he puts forth is incredibly compelling and you will actually come out going "Damn, maybe need a king after all." He's that good.

Locke is next because virtually every government on earth follows his ideas (at least on paper). I would even go so far that Locke is the single most important person who ever lived. He invented modern liberalism, empiricism (which made science explode in the 1800s), and the idea of separation of church and state (which basically ended the reign of the church). Whether you agree or not with any of this, he still was incredibly influential.

Rousseau is the beginning of radical thought. He flirted with socialism and anarchism and a good intro to left-wing thought if you are already going down that path or want to hear their arguments. Just my opinion, but I think Rousseau was the best of the 3 because he saw the big picture. While all political thinkers before him analyzed politics in a narrow sense, Rousseau analyzed politics anthropologically, possibly the first person to ever do so. People before him analyzed societies simply using the knowledge of their society or past societies, but Rousseau factored in human nature, social behavior, primitive psychology, and really tried to get to the root of why we set up the types of governments that we do.

>>22047242
I was being a little bit inflammatory in my post to get (you)s, but my points still stand for the most part. I can see why the books were chosen.
There's actually a great summary book called The History of Political Philosophy by Leo Strauss, which is probably the best one volume book on the subject. It's a huge book, but it saves you the time of reading all of these. I bring it up because it seems as if the maker of this chart followed this book, because there too is also a chapter on Thucycides and Cicero (which are both traditionally not taught as political scientists). Read this book if you want to get a good intro.

>>22047204
Politics is barely philosophy. It's probably the only branch of philosophy that can be read independently of the rest of philosophy and you won't miss anything in terms of comprehension. The only part that might be a bit of a head scratcher is when Plato rambles on about Forms but that's about it.

>>22047259
I see.
>The History of Political Philosophy by Leo Strauss
skimmed over the table of contents, looks great. Thank you for the recommodation.
I will probably start with this, after i've finished "Think" and then i will see how my interests are formed.
As i said, its the first time im dipping my toes into philosophy, and the political aspect seems like a good start since it doesnt seem too intimidating and i get bragging rights when discussing with others

The idea of the state of nature is also probably the most important concept in all of political science.

Devised by Hobbes, the idea is this.
What was the world like before governments existed? This is the thought experiment. Can you imagine? Have you ever thought about this?
Hobbes proposed a hypothetical "state of nature." In this state, he famously said that life is "nasty, brutish and short." Everyone is at war with each other, no laws, no justice. If I want to rape your daughter and steal your veggies, cry more bitch nigga. What are you going to do about it? That's right, nothing. That's why Hobbes said we need daddy government, to protect us from this hellish existence.

Locke expanded more on this idea, but he disagreed with Hobbes about how we solve the state of nature. Giving up our rights to a monarch is pointless because it literally defeats the entire point of creating a government in the first place. We have certain "natural rights" that no government has a right to deprive us of.

Rousseau of course, had the most radical formulation of the state of nature. He felt that Hobbes and Locke mixed the mark. The state of nature was not a terrible place where everyone was killing each other, but it was a place of peace and brotherhood and harmony. He argued that we can only conceive of humans as being "naturally" evil and selfish because we only see them through the lens of society, which is what corrupted them in the first place. So in other words, it's not the state of nature that makes people bad, it's living in society that turns people vain, and narcissistic, and social-media-consumed, and vindictive, and spiteful, and it is only in the state of nature that we can be truly free. This thought process is why some have interpreted Rousseau to be an anarchist.

>>22047249
You're out of your mind if you think that Hobbes and Rousseau are suited for philosophy tourists

>>22047191
>There's unironically only about 5 or 6 poli sci books you need to read and you basically have a PhD level education on the subject.

>>22047320
Yes. Cope.

>>22047249
Thanks for the recommodation, that simplifies matters. What about the philosophers that came after those 3, is there anyone of importance?

>>22047329
I mean, Marx obviously. Marx is essential reading if you both agree with him or disagree with him. Possibly even more so if you disagree.
Whether or not you agree, Marx basically changed political discourse forever. He was the first to bring up the elephant in the room of capitalism and now you basically can't have a political debate without at least subconsciously speaking on an issue that Marx touched on first.

>>22047322
Name them then. Go ahead. I’ll love to see what volumes you pick that managed to cram a Phd level of everything from political economy, IR, comparative, history, theory, etc etc all in under 7 books.

>>22047318
What do you expect out of a retard that things 5-6 books is sufficient for a PhD level understanding of anything?

>>22047136
You might get filtered by a lot of it if you go in with the mindset of looking purely for the 'political' aspect of many of these works or of philosophy in general. Most people in this sense already implicitly hold the separation of church and state and take in their modern assumptions about the nature of politics when they read these works. Many will find the metaphysical discussions in the Republic irrelevant for this reason, even if they have paramount significance for the place of the political in Plato. But the same is true even for modern day thinkers

For that reason its good to aim for a general and holistic philosophy education with a focus 'tending' towards the political. Read much of Plato and Aristotle outside of the listed texts.

The chart itself is fine but misses what I would consider many important writers, like Spinoza, de Maistre, or Strauss for modern politics. Capital is also a horrible text for trying to get into Marxist thought.

I hope some of these thoughts are at least helpful starting points for you.

>>22047333
Leviathan
Second Treatise
Social Contract
Capital
Mein Kampf
Selected Writings of Bakunin

Anything outside of this is superfluous. And gay milquetoast centrists like Nozick and Fukuyama is not political science. Again, cope more.

>>22047338

>durr you need to read hundreds of books to understand a subject
Pseud thinking. The only subject this logic applies to is mathematics.

>>22047356
Being filtered is a "fear" of mine. A sin of mine is that i want to be "prepared" before I start a book, or a book series. I think my hesitations with starting are holding me back - no path is worse than not walking on the perfect path.
Thank your for the example with the state and church, i get what you mean. Not taking our modern mindset as a filter for the older books sound logical

>>22047377
It is the same for me, I always especially had a fear of not appearing educated enough on a subject, and of holding stupid or unworthy views.

But it is inevitable that one will always have a myopic standpoint the first time around. I remember that I thought Plato was silly the first time I read him, but after years of studying and retrospective knowledge, I see him as probably the wisest philosopher there has been. You have to be fine with that, and if you push through, it will really be no time before you look back at yourself and realise how much more knowledgeable you are.

>>22047357
So you have nothing on international relations, nor for that matter on comparative politics, or anything that even remotely touches upon modern, contemporary politics, and only one work of major political economy that has been rendered almost entirely obsolete by 150 years of economic and political developments. You place everything from Machiavelli to Wolin to Moore to C W Mills to Mosca to Quigley and everything in between as “superfluous”, while including mein kampf as part of your top 6 lol. What you’ve given is a sophomore level reading core + hitlers diary. I appreciate your response, because it helps clarify that you’re a textbook Dunning-Kruger pseud.

>>22047367
>le heckin hundreds of books instead of my retard core of 6 books
Yes, now stop shitting up the thread

>>22047136
>start with plato dialogs
>cut out all the fluff and write down arguments and counters
>after you have grasped the arguments read the fluff
If you can't do this drop it

>>22047421
Look I get it. I know you spent the best part of your life reading dry political scientists, when you could have been getting laid. I've been there too. But coming to terms with the fact you wasted your prime years reading utterly pointless things that will never help you in life is something you absolutely need to come to terms with or you won't progress as a person.

International relations, comparative politics, all that shit you mentioned. Memes. All of it.
In case you haven't looked outside in the last 5 years, we are living in literal clown world. Leaders and politicians violate their own laws on a minutely basis. Reading politics in 2023 is like reading a book called How to Live on Land if you are a fish. Utterly pointless.
Economics is also a pseudoscience. It's even less of a "science" than political science. They make up models, and then when the model fails, they make a model to explain the model failure. It's like astrology for me.
All of this shit at the end of the day is just some guy's opinion, and you listen to it because you are utterly terrified of having an opinion of your own.

>>22047449
You sound like a bitter, impotent, apathetic cuck who will surmount to nothing. Opinion fully trashed.
Got plenty of pussy while going to college for this stuff btw

>>22047470
Sure bud. I'm sure you squeezed in fuck sessions in between reading a chapter of Quigley lmao.

>>22047473
Just to spite you I’m going to read a chapter of him now, and when the gf comes home I’ll ream her then read another chapter after.

>>22047479
k

>>22047409
How did you decide which direction of philosophy is worthy of your time?

>>22047211
People reading this thread may be interested to know that this chart was originally made on /pol/ in 2015. I was in the thread where it was made originally, being put together by suggestions from various anons. I don't remember much else but I'm pretty sure I suggested a book that I hadn't read, and it was included (yes I was a retarded pseud at the time). I'll dig through the archives and see if I can find the original thread.

>>22049235
So the credibility of the chart is doubtful if just some randos came up with it, or how should i take this?
>I was a retard pseud
Proverbs 28:13,
Wer seine Sünden verheimlicht, hat kein Glück, wer sie bekennt und meidet, findet Erbarmen.

>>22047146
Get the book Politics as Vision if you can't attend a real lecture course. As with any branch of Philosophy, your going to need a teacher, and this book is the best option for a thourough overview.

>>22047191
There's actually only one: rule by few.
Everything else is a veneer designed to placate those who disagree.

>>22047357
ok, I'll bite, but what's Kampf doing there?
What amazing insights into political science did Hitler introduce that he didn't get from some Rosenberg, Gobineau or H. S. Chamberlain?

>>22049528
the failures of internationalism, capitalism, communism, parliamentary "democracy", the ethos of a nation-state, social Darwinism, what creates meaning in people their lives, new economic system based on labor.

>>22047421
>Noooooo you have to read modern neoliberal slop written by jews to really understand political science

>>22047148
Not a bad list desu

>>22049521
this guy gets it.

>>22049521
Redpilled

>>22047554
For me, I always knew the purpose of my philosophising was to live a better life and to attain to a more secure joy and happiness. So that allowed me to sift through things that were not relevant to me. Yet at the beginning there is still a period of groping in the dark where one must read a bit of everything, in order to see for oneself whether it is good for you or not.

So having clarified intentions is the best for figuring out what is worthy. Indeed, there are a lot that aren't necessarily worthy. A lot of philosophers even if well respected are still just random people sharing their opinions. They often are not fully enlightened Tathagata's and so on. It's not good enough either to have a vague intention like just wanting to be educated in philosophy. You need to really ask yourself - why do you want to be educated? And keep digging and digging and digging. And your reasons will have to become self-evident.

>>22049717
Why not just read Kjellen and Haushofer then, pretty sure they expressed this all in less vulgar and more academic terms than Hitler did.
The organism-state, autarky, etc

these charts are a great catalog but it's 2023. you don't need to do all the heavy lifting from scratch. find a used textbook, overview, primer whatever for cheap cause it's a few years old - dw nothing new has happened in decades of neoliberalism.

Furthermore tracing development of ideas is fun and all but if you're trying to understand what the fuck kind of world you've been born into you really ought to focus on the last hundred years fight between fascism, communism and liberalism. Those are ideologies founded on idealistic ideas but it's also important that you find someone's narrative with a materialistic perspective on how resources and technology are the real drivers of change, ideologies steer the wheel

>>22047148
>>22050157
dumbass posted the ant edition though

>>22047211
People like you should be shot

>>22050656
This is trannypols guide to political "philosophy" fuck off

>>22047211
>christcuck

Interesting to get the inner workings of the Jewish mind on many masterworks

Not surprised

>>22047136

Just read the following, in any order:
>Discourses on Livy
>Wealth of Nations (you can find a condensed version on the Adam Smith foundation, so don't waste your time on that antiquated 1700s style of writing)
>Federalist Papers
>Thomas Paine's 'Common Sense'
>Edward Bernays 'Propaganda'
>'Bowling alone'
>Dale Carnegie's 'How to Win Friends' is basically a modern 'The Prince'

Aftrr this just read economics, psychology, and history books and form your own political ideas, because "politics" is an activity and you're better off learning it by actually doing it.

>>22050649 me
see my point similarly made by this anon, lots of developmentally significant stuff but would take you years to get through and for little gain considering alternatives
>>22050656
this chart is pretty good for covering post industrial revolution that's most prudent for you. don't listen to this guy >>22050692
if you couldn't tell he is butt hurt and seething about trans boogeymen cause his irrelevant daddy's of 3rd rail mystic fascism that plague this board aren't listed

>>22050723
Let me add: there's more to "political activity" than just running for government; non-government politics is a thing, obviously. Dont conflate "politics" only with "state governance"

>>22050649 (You) me
see my point similarly made by this anon >>22047211
, lots of developmentally significant stuff but would take you years to get through and for little gain considering much more efficient alternatives available to you in this day and age

>>22050656
this chart is pretty good for covering post industrial revolution that's most prudent for you. don't listen to this guy >>22050692
if you couldn't tell he is butt hurt and seething about trans boogeymen cause his irrelevant daddy's of 3rd rail mystic fascism that plague this board aren't listed

>>22050649
>>22050737
great. The anon you quoted made a similar suggesting by recommending The History of Political Philosophy. You are right, my time would probably be wasted reading for years about political phil without any intention in ever getting into this field as a job or similar.

>>22049846
None of the authors mentioned there are neo-liberals you pigshit-headed moron

>>22050708

>if you don't worship a kike religion you are a kike!
Quintessential Christian brainrot.

>>22047473
fucking kek

>>22051085
No authors at all were listed in the reply I commented on. Imagine being this smug and wrong. Go read Rawls or something gay like that instead of the classics

>>22047136
as long as you're more than 16 y.o. i think you can start no problem with the republic, the prince or leviathan

>>22047146
>The Sexual Politics Of Meat
I remember Rush Limbaugh talking shit about this book when I was 12 years old, good times

>>22051375
Christianity isn’t Jewish. The Jews hated Christ but I’m sure you’re too stupid to tell the difference

Go back to your containment board on /his/

>>22051443
I unironically read these three books back-to-back-to-back when I was 16.
In hindsight I really shouldn’t have but I don’t regret it.

>>22052688

>worships a Jewish rabbi
>worships a Jewish god
>originated in Jewish lands
>90% of Christianity is also believed by Jews
>follows Jewish ethos and practices

>all of this is somehow not Jewish

>>2205371
You could fill your head pollution and never drop an iq point; a marvel of a gaping hole.
Yes the roots are the same, and? That does not make them the same. The most important part of Christianity, the whole anchor IS the resurrection of Christ. Without it you have NOTHING. And it is a tardism to say theses two beliefs overlap more than 40%. Christianity doesnt even maintain the same God, as Christ said, whoever does not know the Son, does not know the Father. You are also neglecting 2000+ years of church history that has outright rejected most Jewish theology.