Is this a good chart to learn about politics?

[Anonymous No.16729844]

I have never read philosophy or something critical like that
Just sayin

[Anonymous No.16729850]

Just read Schmitt and you should be fine

[Anonymous No.16729851]

>>16729844
Use a textbook. You will never read most of this books. Not even in your lifetime.

[Anonymous No.16729859]

>Plato's The Republic
Ahhh, sweaty..

[Anonymous No.16729860]

>>16729844
Read On Power by Bertrand de Jouvenel

[Anonymous No.16729870]

>>16729844
No. Unironically all you need to understand modern day politics is Marx, Engels, and Lenin's writings and apply concepts about imperialism, capital, and material conditions to your view on politics.


Now, before I get called an idiot philistine, if you want to understand politics of another age, sure, read this other stuff. The problem is that they were written in very different times and apply to situations we don't experience anymore. I think it's worth reading Adam Smith on here, Hegel, Marx, and the people on the last row, perhaps, though I haven't heard of all of them.


But in reality, I know you're not going to start at the Republic and end at Power/Knowledge by Foucault. If you want to understand the world around you, save some time and read Marx, Smith, and more modern books that apply to OUR conditions. Otherwise, you're going to waste your time reading about "Muh liberty" and "Muh kingdom" which don't exactly apply to our modern day.

[Anonymous No.16729880]

it's missing open society and its enemies by karl pooper

[Anonymous No.16729900]

>>16729870
nigger are u fucking retarded? i agree fully that marx, engels is necessary to understand our modern world but you have an incredibly simple perspective.

[Anonymous No.16729901]

>>16729870
The problem is that at least Marx & Engels were deeply influenced by what came before them -- yes, including the Greeks and Romans -- and one misses a layer of nuance by ignoring classical and early modern political philosophy.

Reading the whole list of books above as the be-all end-all definitely has problems, but starting in the 18th/19th century has its own and telescopes a lot of broader themes and issues.

>>16729851
Textbooks are good but most of the ones I've encountered focus more heavily on quantitative/"political science" approaches; it looks like OP wants more of a political philosophy or intellectual history bent

[Anonymous No.16729923]

>>16729900
My point is that all of these book are good, but they aren't NECESSARY to read. Also some of them are just not good or accurate anymore and should be culled from your reading list and some of them are literally just propaganda (Democracy in America by Tocqueville and Common Sense by Paine)

[Anonymous No.16729926]

>>16729901
Op here
I don't know the difference between pol science and philosophy
I just wanna learn about politics

[Anonymous No.16729929]

>>16729901
That's why political theory is only a part of both philosophy and political science.
Intellectual history books tend to be more argumentative and less descriptive. Most of them assume you are already familiar with the authors being discussed.

[Anonymous No.16729939]

>>16729926
Start here then.