[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

2022-11: Warosu is now out of maintenance. Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
View page     

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 121 KB, 710x711, icgfy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16423399 No.16423399 [Reply] [Original]

I want to learn about politics
What should I read?
t. politicslet

>> No.16423405

Start with Plato

>> No.16423412


>> No.16423614

marx and his prerquisites (hegel, feuerbach, etc.) and nothing else desu

>> No.16423655
File: 1.17 MB, 1304x2004, Hobbes Leviathan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16423660


>> No.16423669

Why would you ever want to learn about politics? Don’t go down this road op, it’s filled with lost bitter souls wasting away the hours trying to forge a “political identity,” and they don’t even know why they want to. At least try to figure out what you want to get out of politics before you go down this path. You’d be the first on 4chan to do so

>> No.16423671

It's a big waste of time.

>> No.16423713
File: 1.19 MB, 1975x2229, politics.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16423720

The Greeks, all their poets and thinkers; but chiefly Plato and Aristotle who created political philosophy, really. After Aristotle you can branch off and start reading the other major classics like Machiavelli or Clausewitz or de Maistre or Frederick the Great.

>> No.16423721

Obviously this, you understand politics so you understand history and life and may be able to have an effect in it, even on the smallest scale also. But I should also say the disconnected study of various economic or political ideas is very modern and is not a natural means of learning about them. You have some goal and values from philosophy, life and religion.

>> No.16423733

After finishing the Greeks(and Romans), do I really have to read all the enlightenment fags?

>> No.16423740

Confrontational Politics by HL Richardson.

>> No.16423747

>do I really have to read all the enlightenment fags?
You will take a long time to read through the Greeks with sufficient depth of understanding. Finish them first. Then you can ask this question.

>> No.16423792

I've practically finished the Greeks already anon, I didn't rush it and I have a perfect grasp of what they said, I just want to read some of the smaller works by Aristotle or a lesser known poet here or there. I've read Cicero, some of the Histories, and a few Stoics for the Romans, but obviously I need to read a bit more of them, most evidently their three major poets. So could you answer my question? I'll read Locke and Montesiuea and whatever pertains to the American revolution, but do I really have to read someone like Rousseau?

>> No.16423831

Yes, you must read Rousseau.

>> No.16423851

>major classics like [...] Frederick the Great
Literally no one but the autistic spammer (you) considers Frederick the Great "a major political philosopher".

>> No.16424001

Then do Aristotle's Ethics and Politics, Cicero's Duties and Republic and then my personal recommendations are;
>St. Thomas Aquinas - De Regno
>Dante Aligheri - De Monarchia
>Joseph De Maistre - Generative Principle of Constitutions
>C.A. Bond - Nemesis

>> No.16424003

No you don't by any necessity need to do the enlightenment fags, specifically on politics
This, get through the greeks first but the enlightenment thinkers and their contributions to political through are dubious at best.

>> No.16424005

Marx - Critique of the Gotha Program

>> No.16424016

No Rousseau is fucking retarded concerning political thinking. The state of nature is an ahistoric fiction and thus any system that takes it as a necessary premise is fatally flawed from the start.

Hegel, despite his flaws, was 100% right about Rosseau, Hobbes, Locke etc.,


>> No.16424023

Based hegelposter

>> No.16424044
File: 98 KB, 685x925, 43534525342.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Thanks anon
I hate linking marxist dot org shit but Hegel is hegel and hegel is right. marx has his own problems that I think baudrillard and nitztan and bichler address really well without slipping back into liberalism

marx's labour theory of value is lifted from locke and thus doesn't work with his hegelian rejection of the state of nature/pre-society

value per the labour theory has to be anterior to social formation, but if there is no pre-society as Hegel correctly argued, the space for value to be generated through the labour theory doesnt exist. marxs theory of value transformation from use to exchange value also doesn't go far enough baudrillard posits sign value afterwards which much better describes the state of economic relations at present
also baudrillard has quite devastating critique of Marx

>> No.16424050

*rather not
>anterior to social formation
but, anterior to the social order which is equally retarded

>> No.16424070

I'm not him, but he's a very important figure for political history even apart from his own treatise, if you were at all familiar with 19th century political thought that says more than praising democracy or isn't marx you'd know this.

>> No.16424077

>No you don't by any necessity need to do the enlightenment fags, specifically on politics
Thanks anon, I'm going to read some of them, mentioned Locke as an example of this, for philosophy and to eventually read Kant but for politics some of them seem to be wasted wind.

>> No.16424078

Name one unique idea freddy the >great wrote on

>> No.16424115

Start. With. The. Greeks.

>> No.16424197

Still, read Rousseau and rest. If nothing else, for completeness sake and to chronologically track the progress of western thought

>> No.16424247


>> No.16424733
File: 1017 KB, 500x281, 1600125902556.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>but the enlightenment thinkers and their contributions to political through are dubious at best.
>social contractualism
>rule of law
>separation of powers
>rights of man
>obligation of state to citizens
>political economy
>modern criminal justice
>civil society
>separation of church and state
>social choice theory
plus more i'm undoubtedly missing. Enlightenment thinkers made a huge contribution to political and social thought.

>> No.16424777

anecdotes are better anon. Just study philosophy and theology.

>> No.16424785

I read platos the state and it's interesting and all but there are only bits and pieces that seem applicable to me today
>inb4 brainlet
well that's the point: what do you think you get out of reading the classics that can't be surmised from just doing a critical reading of like 2 news sources every day? what does aristotle truly bring to the table here?
the one thing I keep with me from plato is the idea of cohesion under a law that all recognize, including the king, whether it be penal or just under heaven. this is one of the reasons why I believe in theocracy

>> No.16424797

>separation of church and state
you get this situation in america now where whenever someone wants to enact a christian policy the public cry "church and state!" surely this is a misunderstanding? surely the point is to not have an institution like, for instance, the church of england be tied into government? because the two seem pretty different to me

>> No.16425023

For me, it's interesting to see how theory on a variety of subjects evolved over time. It allows you to see what pitfalls we used to be stuck in, how these were (attempted to) overcome, and how the new models try and avoid said pitfalls, while inevitably landing in their own.
Makes you critical of the pitfalls you're currently facing, but don't even know about

>> No.16425031

fair enough

>> No.16425040
File: 155 KB, 640x360, 1600125902553.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

It depends on what you mean by a christian policy. Since you're american, i assume you mean something like abortion. that isn't really a religious issue, even if one side of the debate has predominantly christian views and justifications. For example, if a senator proposed an increase in welfare spending and his personal reasoning is that he has a christian duty to help the poor, that would not be christian policy. Voters voting on non-religious topics with a religious worldview and ethics is not a case of the separation of church and state, that's just democracy at work.
But laws like "the state religion is x denomination of Christianity and everyone must convert" or "Christians can no longer attend mass on a Sunday" would fall under the separation of church and state. The formal separation is not having the church as part of the state, the substantive separation is secularism and a neutrality on religious matters.
This all springs from the English Civil War which was (in part) caused by division between Presbyterianism in Scotland and Anglicanism in England, and the religious policies of Charles I. The war had a major effect on both Hobbes and Locke, with the later writing his famous 'letter concerning toleration' which is the cornerstone of modern conceptions of secular government. So the initial intention was the preserve peace in a religiously divided polity by removing the state as an instrument to impose one view or the other.
In any case, people misinterpreting it has little to do with its importance in political thought.

>> No.16425323

Idiot, everyone knows of the enlightened monarch of Prussia. His writings are not notable, regardless of whether his actions were.

>> No.16425396

>federalist papers before wealth of nations
>universal dictionary of commerce nowhere to be found

>> No.16425419

Manufacturing Consent.

>> No.16426202

This is a good one

Delete posts
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.