/lit/ - Literature

>>20660386
I always assumed publishers use special characters to produce more uniform formatting and page spacing in PDFs, which don't translate well to the pure text epub and mobi formats. But >>20660586 sounds more plausible.

Why are so many classic /lit/ shitposts being picked up by normalfag social media sites all of a sudden? that Kant 'circus is in town' pasta was butchered by twitterniggers just a few weeks ago too.

We need to act as a big tent of humanities and social science discussion to keep fertile young minds away from STEMophiles. How else will we balance the malign influence of /sci/ and /g/ on this site?

>>19076062
Robert Owen - A New View of Society
Saint-Simon - Social Organization, The Science of Man, and Other Writings.
Charles Fourier - The Theory of the Four Movements
Étienne Cabet - Travels in Icaria
>>19076099
More was a political realist.

>>18653121
In terms of Locke he wrote in English so there shouldn't be a problem translation-wise. For Rousseau, I'm sure penguin is serviceable. I would prefer a Cambridge or Hackett edition because they tend to have better introductory material and footnotes, and these can enhance your understanding of a text (for example, the use of amour de soi and amour propre in Rousseau's second discourse is important to pick up on, which would be pointed out in the footnotes of a good university edition. I'm not sure if Penguin has it). But you can find all of these editions on libgen if you want to reference them or read the essays afterwards. I know this place can be pretty autistic about translations, but it is a minority of cases where there is such a bad translation that it ruins the text (the only one off the top of my head that i can think of is the penguin edition Heraclitus). If you're just getting into it there is no need to be so stressed about editions, as if you get more serious you'll just revisit the texts later and can read a different translation/edition then.

It was written in English so you don't need to worry about translations. After that you should just consider supplementary material. For that your best ports of call are Cambridge or Hackett editions. Looking at some the pdfs the Cambridge is the only one with footnotes, but it looks overwrought (that can sometimes be worse than no footnotes). The introductory essay from a skim looks mostly biographical, which isn't great, but there is a section dedicated to the content of his essays (this is a one the problems with cambridge editions, their introductory essays are generally great but range in usefulness based on the particular preoccupation of the writer. For example, the introduction to More's Utopia is excellent and improves the reading of the text dramatically, then you have the intro essay to Thucydides which is entirely dedicated to how the text has been translated over the years, which useless to actually understanding thucydides). The Hackett edition looks sparce on supplementary material, no footnotes, short introductory essay.
If you're looking for physical editions then I personally like Yale University editions. It is as sparce as the Hackett edition in this case. Cambridge editions use a very plasticy, almost laminated paper (i'm not sure how else to describe it), which is very durable but not very pleasant. But since you don't need to pay for translations and footnotes+introductory essay aren't all that important, you won't go wrong just buying the cheapest edition you can find, like a dover or everyman. If you plan on pirating a pdf, then note the above comments.
Sorry for the autsm

Speaking of permutations, does anyone know a good textbook on them? i did a chapter on them in a general maths textbook and i thought they were pretty fun.

Has anyone else noticed the phenomenon where, especially among younger people (30 and below) words (expressions?) that would traditionally be used as pauses for thought (umms, uhhhs, humms, etc.) have developed into verbal ticks? What i mean is, when they're speaking, these words come up so often and in such a consistent rhythm that it is clear they aren't being used for collecting one's thought. so it's like "something something uhhh, something something uhhh, something something uhhh". I know we all have our own cadences when speaking, but mine doesn't incorporate... filler words, for lack of a better way to put it. I'm not sure if you would label this speech impediment, but it is a strange development. Or maybe older people do it too but i just haven't noticed.

>>15178638
In my reading there is very little parallels to be drawn between Aristotle and Legalism, or Plato and Confucianism. If anything, Confucianism is closer ethically to Aristotle than Plato, though Plato is nothing like Legalism. Both Confucianism and Aristotle promote what is essentially a form of Virtue Ethics, with Confucians wanting to cultivate the character of a Junzi (supreme gentleman) and Aristotelian the final cause of human beings. Metaphysically there is practically no similarities. Confucians believe in the Dao/Tao, or Way, which is a force that derives (actually i can't quite remember if the Dao precedes heaven or heaven precedes the Dao) from Heaven and guides the world. If one acts in accordance to the Way, your kingdom/village/household will be prosperous and abundant; if you do not act in that way, famines and misfortune will come to you. Actually, the relation between the individual and the Dao in the world is complicated, Confucius+Mencius+Xunzi all talk about how to act when the Dao is not strong in the world (i.e. how to be virtuous in times of great immorality), which would suggest that the collective action of the people can effect the Dao? which makes the idea that it is an independent force kinda odd. But anyway, this is nothing at all like either Platonic or Aristotelian metaphysics. like, not in the slightest.
Now Legalists didn't really have a metaphysics, or an ethics for that matter. If you were to compare them with any western thinker, it would be a Machiavelli not an Aristotle. What they wrote about is how the Ruler of a kingdom can gain and maintain power, advocating for a system of mass surveillance, draconian laws (in the true, etymological sense), mutual punishment, and a system of rewards and punishments to manipulate people's behaviors. The ideal that the Legalists strived for was to create such an intricate system of laws, surveillance, rules and tallies, rewards and punishments, that the Ruler could have absolute and inescapable control of every person under his rule without having to lift a finger; this was term Wu Wei — a concept stolen from Taoist meaning non-action. This is an exemplary quote from Han Fei (the greatest Legalist thinker)
>The ruler does not try to work side by side with his people, and they accordingly respect the dignity of his position. He does not try to tell others what to do, but leaves them to do things by themselves. Tightly he bars his inner door, and from his room looks out into the courtyard; he has provided the rules and yardsticks, so that all things know their place. Those who merit reward are rewarded; those who deserve punishment are punished. Reward and punishment follow the deed; each man brings them upon himself. Therefore, whether the result is pleasant or hateful, who dares to question it?
For external policy, taking after Shang Yang, they advocate a strong expansionist policy.
This is nothing like Aristotle, ethically or metaphysically.