/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11741356]

Board aside, is this agreeable?
Also Is there a leftwing equivalent template like this?

[Anonymous No.11741361]

And the same question for the 2nd part

[Anonymous No.11741384]

>>11741361
>Implying anyone who has read that many phil books is going to become a lolbertarian

[Anonymous No.11741411]

>>11741356
>>11741361
Not really.

Who takes Hoppe and Evola seriously outside weirdos? And why would you recommend Filmer after Locke's Treatises? Locke spends the first half of that work putting Filmer down. Dude didn't even get Hobbes, he had to get all mystical like de Maistre, but with less pizzazz.

[Anonymous No.11741540]

"just read critique of pure reason and phenomenology of spirit"

The absolute state of /pol/

[Anonymous No.11741602]

>>11741540
Feel free to make an argument anytime.

[Anonymous No.11741609]

i mean as a leftist i can say this is actually a pretty good chart

[Anonymous No.11741625]

part 1 is alright, part 2 is cringe

[Anonymous No.11741639]

>>11741411
Fuck you. We're ending Kali Yuga and raising Thule with or without your champagne-sipping candy ass.

[Anonymous No.11741642]

>>11741356
This is a ruse, you will never make it out of the first level.
If you chose your battles its ok doe. But its like that /g/ "programming projects chart" where the first couple are a mix of trivial problems and hard as fuck shit that looks simple on first sight

[Anonymous No.11741645]

>>11741356
they were both made by brainlets who haven't read half those works
>>11741609
that's because you don't know what you're talking about
>>11741625
the left branch on the second pic is actually good and useful

[Anonymous No.11741771]

Obviously a leftypol hoax to get people to read the 3/4 of the recs that are leftwing and/or completely irrelevant. 0/10. Come the fuck on >Foucault's Pendulum >LotR >DUGIN?? Might as well have included the Strassers, Vox Day and Varg, hell, might as well have included some Juche.

[Anonymous No.11741789]

>>11741771
Mad cause most good literature will lead to left wing conclusions. The state of /pol/.

[Anonymous No.11741795]

>>11741356
This is leftwing though. Classical liberalism is left wing.

[Anonymous No.11741805]

>>11741771
This.

[Anonymous No.11741819]

>>11741795
this, but unironically. /pol/ is a left wing board because libertarianism and classical liberalism is left wing

[Anonymous No.11741867]

>>11741789
>good literature
Other than the three novels, which have no literary merit, none of those works are literary! And no one reads them outside of academia. >Spinoza >Hegel >Heidegger >lit
>The state of /pol/.
And how! Full/pol/ remains staunchly leftist, punches right as often as left; half/pol/ is simply reddit.

[Anonymous No.11741888]

>>11741867
Thanks for the reply, made me smile.
>Full/pol/ remains staunchly leftist
That's pretty funny my friend. Full/pol/ is more reddit than half/pol/.

[Anonymous No.11741903]

>>11741356
These are all basic bitch books. Any actual /pol/ list worth its salt would have pic related.

[Anonymous No.11741944]

It's bizarre to me that the New Testament is included but the Old Testament is not. The Christians who are most active politically are the ones who believe in a vengeful Old Testament god.

[Anonymous No.11742023]

>>11741944
The ot God and the nt God are the same. Paul is politically very authoritarian and socially conservative, and advocates total submission of laity to clergy, slaves to masters, wives to husband's, and subjects to rulers. He also said rulers are agents of God's wrath and have the authority to put sinners to death on God's behalf

Here is a better chart, op

Conservative /lit/ discord too
https://discord.gg/c5Vga4E

[Anonymous No.11742027]

>>11741356
>>11741361
This is the most autistic shit I've ever seen

[Anonymous No.11742144]

>>11741903
I can't read anything I don't agree with, get this globalist filth out of my face.
And I had to click way too many buses to post this to not call you a faggot for making me post this, so you're a faggot for making me post this.

[Anonymous No.11742156]

>>11741356
Yeah when I feel like studying politics I just whip out my KJV New Testament. I also shudder when I hear the name Marx.

[Anonymous No.11742161]

>>11741771
This, really. I made the effort to actually read the sparknotes on one of such "/pol" lists and guess what, half of it is written by Steins and Bergs actually promoting lefty books with a couple meme books like Mein Kampf in between.

>>11741789
So, that's why by todays standard everyone before the 19th century which isn't jewish would be considered a hardcore right winger. Hm, inderdasting.

[Anonymous No.11742170]

>>11741356
>>11741361
I don't trust guides that doesn't describe the books they're recommending since it seems like the people who make many of them will just include random or vaguely related shit because they don't know any better. They haven't read the books but they feel like they should be included anyway.

[Anonymous No.11742172]

>>11742161
>Someone living in the past would be considered a conservative/traditionalist
The absolute state of /pol/.
Also >everyone disagreeing with me is a jew.
Go back to your containment board, thanks.

[Anonymous No.11742235]

Try this instead.

[Anonymous No.11742281]

>>11742235
Did you just make this?
Could you remove the white and write the titles out in text and maybe a reason for the books? I would love you for this.

[Anonymous No.11742313]

>>11742172
>muh /pol/
>muh jew
>muh containment board
Do you people get payed extra using as many buzzwords instead of arguments as possible?

[Anonymous No.11742315]

>>11742281
Dont be such a lazy cunt and fucing read into the books yourself.

[Anonymous No.11742323]

>>11742313
>>Someone living in the past would be considered a conservative/traditionalist
I gave an argument you brain dead fuck.

[Anonymous No.11742326]

>>11742315
I have read like 75% of those books and know about the others, I merely want it for sharing purposes. Could be a good list.

[Anonymous No.11742349]

>>11742323
>quoting is an argument
You can't even proplerly shitpost.

[Anonymous No.11742355]

>>11742349
I restated his argument to show how retarded it was. I'm sorry you lack the attention span to read the full post.

[Anonymous No.11742359]

>>11742281
yeah sure

[Anonymous No.11742378]

>>11741356
>>11741361

Hi! I can't say much for the second chart, because I haven't read many of those books, but I can talk a little about the first one. I'm not too sure what "the path of the red pill" is, but a lot of those books are pretty great to get a solid foundation of the western canon. However, there are A LOT of books listed there- to even get to the "3rd tier" (under the assumption that you're reading properly and understanding the knowledge) would take many months, even years, of study.

To be perfectly honest, just getting through tier 1 is good enough. If political knowledge is what you want, I would recommend skipping the bible and the fiction in that tier (unless you like reading fiction!). Whoever made this chart is clearly a fan of politics, as the second tier (I think) is by far the best put-together and most cohesive list. Reading chronologically from tier 2 (or just the stuff you're interested in) would be very beneficial in furthering your political knowledge. Some of those books are a slog, so be mindful of that.

I don't think you should stop before tier 3 "for your mental health", a lot of the most important and interesting philosophical texts are in that section! It's a pretty okay list, I think, but it's clear that the chart maker is not a student of philosophy. It's honestly kind of a mess, category wise. Kant, Hegel and Heidegger are metaphysicists, but if the chart is about modern metaphysics, then it's missing some real big hitters (no Hurssel?!). Spinoza and Hume are very important pre-Kant stuff, the Aristotle and Aurelius texts cover some very broad-stroke early ethical ideas, Schoppy, Kierkegaard and Niezsche are existentialist philosophers (which is super random considering all the other stuff in this tier), and I haven't read Horkheimer. To summarise, the ideas being presented here are all over the place! I would recommended only reading the stuff that you think is cool from this list, although I would NOT recommend you start with guys like Nietzsche, Hegel and Heidegger, who require pre-existing knowledge of the western canon to actually "get" where they're coming from.

[Anonymous No.11742390]

>>11741361
As an an-cap, that is probably the worst collection of recommended Libertarian books I've ever seen. Looks like someone just searched for books on the subject and picked a couple either at random or loosely based on names they were familiar with.

[Anonymous No.11742405]

>>11741356
This is a bait to show /pol/shitters how little they know and understand about everything.

[Anonymous No.11742409]

>>11741642
The first level is not hard if you read The Republic, The Prince, and Leviathan. And honestly, I would recommend those to anybody as their first political philosophy books. After that, the list gets a little strange. Why is Marcus Aurelius on there? I love him, but he doesn't really talk about politics. Also, Ethics by Aristotle, should be read after the first three I mentioned

But that's just my opinion

[Anonymous No.11742415]

>>11742378
You type like a boomer, but you sound like a friendly, helpful boomer. Thanks friend, this Far Side comic is for you, I thought you might like it

[Anonymous No.11742420]

>>11742390

You ancap meme lords aren't anarchists and by my well educated libertarian friends, are hardly libertarian too.

t. An actual anarchist.

[Anonymous No.11742425]

>>11742420
Do you guys play Anarchy in the UK at your bi-weekly meetings? My group does, but really we just do it because the guy who sets up and runs the meetings hates it

[Anonymous No.11742433]

>>11742420
Whatever helps you sleep at night mate.

[Anonymous No.11742621]

>>11742390
Then recommend some good books

[Anonymous No.11742647]

>It's /pol/-bait
THEN START MAKING A SERIOUS CHART YOU USELESS FAGGOTS

[Anonymous No.11742673]

>>11742621
Remove Atlas Shrugged, Liberty Defined and A Mencken Chrestomaty. Get a basic understanding of Locke and about natural rights before you read For a New Liberty. Read more Hayek. Read The Machinery of Freedom and The Problem of Political Authority.

Also, you should probably read more socialist and statist works than libertarian works. The whole chart in the OP will take years to work through and you'll have a limited idea about what others think and almost no ability to debate them once you're done.

[Anonymous No.11742805]

>>11742235
>>11742281
Hot off the press

[Anonymous No.11742809]

>>11742805
Good job, my friend. Looks great.

[Anonymous No.11742873]

>>11742805
Nice, saved. Do you recommend all three volumes of Capital or is Volume I sufficient?

[Anonymous No.11742879]

>>11741356
>Orwell and Huxley on the same level as any of the tier 1 books
>Aurelius and Aristotle in tier 3

[Anonymous No.11742881]

>>11741602
Not him but if you're not well read in western philosophy up to Kant then you're probably gonna get lost early in the books and end up skimming the rest just to say you've read it. There's a reason why everyone here says start with rhe Greeks.

[Anonymous No.11742883]

>>11742420
t. a confused Tankie.

[Anonymous No.11742892]

>>11742805
Mostly good, but some odd inclusions and overrepresentations.

It's also too many works for an overview, especially when some of them aren't even political philosophy except tangentially and when many of them are multiple thousands of pages long.
Even reading a hundred pages a day this would take longer to go through than half a polisci/Phil double major. I guess it's good for name dropping things you haven't read or if you just skim books.

The image itself looks nice though.

[Anonymous No.11742934]

>>11741356
>>11741361
I've literally never seen better evidence that the people making these charts haven't read any of the books on them

[Anonymous No.11743036]

>>11741356
>actually reading leviathan

[Anonymous No.11743152]

>>11743036
>not reading the book that details the origin of the concept of human rights

[Anonymous No.11743216]

>>11741356
Just go on leftypol. There's a huge leftist literature sticky on the top of their board.

[Anonymous No.11743378]

>>11742805
This looks good. Better than 90% of stuff posted here, anyway.

[Anonymous No.11743490]

>>11741356
>>11741361
It's OK I guess. Missing a lot though - more Aristotle, Arendt, Berlin, Calhoun, Cicero, Mill, Nozick, Von Mises, Rousseau, Strauss. Rawls, etc.

[Anonymous No.11743501]

>>11742805
This is solid.