/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11857851]

I'm interested in political philosophy, where do I go from pic related? This is what I wanted to read next, what should I add?

2-Aristotle's politics
3-Hobbes Leviathan
4- Locke's, second treatise of civil government
5- Rousseau , social contract
6- Machiavelli, the prince
7- Montesquieu , the spirit of the laws

Thank you in advance

[Anonymous No.11857887]

You should read Ayn Rand, there’s a reason why she is mandatory reading in High School anon

[Anonymous No.11857930]

>>11857887
Well memed

[Anonymous No.11857935]

Speaking of Philosophy: /lit/ I need your help! I'm currently reading a book on Management theory and there is a section about gender equality on Organizational boards. There is this company that has repeatedly invested money and time in making the board 100%, and they have repeatedly failed at it.

My professor (who wrote the book) is talking about how this is a "problem" that needs to be dealt with. They should keep trying.

My problem is this: HOW can you observe a phenomenon, not having ANY explanation to the cause of it and STILL come to the conclusion that this is a problem that needs to be dealt with? Regardless of your political and ideological stance, how can you define it as a problem without knowing the underling cause?

This type of reasoning must be flawed, am I right? What is this type of reasoning called in Philosophical terms /lit/? I was thinking about writing to my professor, but I need help.

[Anonymous No.11857956]

>>11857851
You know Yale now teaches that the Republic was satire, right?

[Anonymous No.11857963]

>>11857851
Umm, maybe stop reading exclussively right wingers

[Anonymous No.11857981]

>>11857963
>Rousseau
>Right winger

[Anonymous No.11858002]

>>11857963
Plato was a total leftist, almost a communist

[Anonymous No.11858009]

>>11857851
Read "industrial society and its future" by Ted Kaczynski if you are serious about politics. All the shit you are talking about is just for academics, its not serious political philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11858031]

>>11857935
It's the "I NO LIKE THIS, FIX IT." mentality. Don't argue with your professor about it you'll just make them mad. This is a moral problem to them not some sort of practical one.

[Anonymous No.11858043]

Political Philosophy is highly slanted towards Capitalism and Mercantilism as a basis for a society, most of those you mention have that bias and are really more of a framework of possible societies instead of political societies. You should take a glance more at the continental philosophers and understand what it more means to be a citizen of a society, before you try and construct a society.

You can only know a society insofar as you know the people living there. The Discourses of Livy by Machiavelli is good, Foucault's Crime and Punishment, and possibly Heidigger's Being and Time would be good, although the last two are hard reads. The state is an institution and the only way you can interact with it is through it's representatives, thus it is necessary to understand the representatives and their actions which constitute the institution before you can understand the institution.

>>11857935
Your professor may be right, although they might not be giving you all the information required to reach the same conclusion he does. Consider that you and your professor are not framing reasoning in the same manner and thus might be proposing two different problems because of that fact.

The problem in the way that you frame the question is that you already assume failings upon the requirement, through the use of "not having ANY explanation of the cause". You're on the right track saying that evidence is deemed so by explanatory power, however you fail to correlate obvious progressive theory and optics and this situation as evidence. The professor poses a biased problem with implicit evidence based on progressive theory (progress as defined as the raising of the base quality of life of a group), and you assume it does not have bias and thus no implicit evidence, in philosophy this is rarely the case. In short, you overlook bias as framing, instead of as evidence for a point.

[Anonymous No.11858048]

>>11858002
Right wingers sophistically manipulate him as if he had anything to do with the right so what does it matter.

[Anonymous No.11858051]

>>11857963
retard

[Anonymous No.11858055]

>>11858002
>>11858048
the absolute irony of these two comments

Plato's philosopher king and kallipolis in general don't really fit into right wing definitions that well, but it's not fucking communism or leftism, jesus.

[Anonymous No.11858063]

>>11858031
Well, the department has received some complaints before but they still insist on beating the equality drum. They said so themselves.

[Anonymous No.11858095]

>>11858055
He literally says that "people get rich by exploiting the poor" and his ideal form of government is an interventionistic authoritarian regime where the artisans have to feed forcefully the higher classes in the hierarchy. The concept of a "phylosopher King" is not the only thing that doesn't fit with right wing

[Anonymous No.11858104]

>>11857851
your list is basically fine. does anyone read Monstesquieu anymore? no Discourses for Rousseau? and no Mill?

recommendations: Jefferson, Burke, Hume, and pic related.

[Anonymous No.11858117]

>>11858095
There was no right-wing or left-wing. And caring for your citizens was common sense back then. Only modern people with their iron souls look down on others for their coins.

[Anonymous No.11858137]

>>11858043
>The Discourses of Livy by Machiavelli is good, Foucault's Crime and Punishment, and possibly Heidigger's Being and Time would be good,

These are good places to start?I'm a total beginner in philosophy

[Anonymous No.11858165]

>>11858137
Total beginner, they are not good places to start, you've got a good lineup there, just remember those are theoretical philosophical societies and not reflections of an actual society. It helps to have a framework, but you'll do good with what you have there. Also this Anon is right >>11858104

[Anonymous No.11858175]

>>11858137
a good place to start with philosophy is plato's early dialogues. stick with the early dialogues -- the ones about socrates' teachings, plato himself is retarded.

read the actual dialogues (translations are fine), not peoples summaries or analyses of the dialogues.

[Anonymous No.11858198]

>>11858165
>>11858104
>>11858175

Thank you anons

[Anonymous No.11858204]

>>11858198
Im the guy who recomended the early dialogues. I think you should read "protagoras" as well which is a middle dialogue. Thats actually one of the best imo so make sure to include it

[Anonymous No.11858271]

>>11857935
cant post links here, so look up research yourself
bo winegard
https://econjwatch.org/articles/undoing-insularity-a-small-study-of-gender-sociology-s-big-problem

[Anonymous No.11858279]

>>11858043
>Political Philosophy is highly slanted towards Capitalism
ah, thats why john rawls is the most respected philosopher

[Anonymous No.11858289]

[Anonymous No.11858291]

>>11858279
>Rawls is anti-capitalist

no

[Anonymous No.11858304]

>>11858289
> no 'industrial society and its future'

total joke of a collection

[Anonymous No.11858319]

>>11857851
Read Murray Rothbard, Marx, the anarchists, and then modern mainstream stuff.

[Anonymous No.11858328]

>>11858319
this

pic related is mandatory reading OP

[Anonymous No.11858335]

histroy of western political thought by j s mcalelland.

google it and you'll find pdf

[Anonymous No.11858388]

>>11858319
that's an interesting range of selections, are you a mutualist or something?

[Anonymous No.11858454]

>>11858388
Just a basic libertarian spreading the gospel.