/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.8852544]

Books that have solidified your ideals.

I'll start.

[Anonymous No.8852558]

>>8852544
You didn't read that book, anon.

[Anonymous No.8852572]

Based Hayek

[Anonymous No.8852578]

>>8852544
Das Kapital

[Anonymous No.8852594]

>>8852544
>non-fiction
i read books to escape, not to be trapped

[Anonymous No.8852608]

>>8852578
>Das Kapital
>What if everyone owned all the things that produce and no one was in charge of protecting it?
>WOAH what a great idea lmao.Fuck hierarchy I don't want smarter people than me taking decissions.

[Anonymous No.8852609]

>>8852572
I'll 2nd this one. So many great points in that book.
>>8852558
I'm about half way through this, finished the men of old times and new part.

[Anonymous No.8852618]

>""""""""""ideals""""""""""""

it's like you're not even /fit/

[Anonymous No.8852641]

[Anonymous No.8852661]

[Anonymous No.8852663]

>>8852641
P___ I_______

[Anonymous No.8852666]

[Anonymous No.8852676]

[Anonymous No.8852682]

>>8852618

>Read this for fitness tips/tricks/etc
>Get a load of shit amounting to homosexual philosophical aesthetics
>Mfw

[Anonymous No.8852692]

>>8852682
Should have just browsed /fit/

[Anonymous No.8852699]

>>8852544
>>8852572
Nice books. xp
Austrian School is masterpiece.

[Anonymous No.8852794]

>reading books that solidify existing ideas
>not reading books that destroy them and so leave an empty field so you can build your own

[Anonymous No.8852797]

>it's another thinly veiled /pol/ thread

[Anonymous No.8852909]

>>8852544
D:TGTF is the poor man's Liberty or Equality: the Challenge of our Time.

[Anonymous No.8852935]

[Anonymous No.8853286]

>>8852797
>how dare people not be universal collectivists
Oh my, how dare they? Probably the Russian using Putin's techno-hypnosis.

[Anonymous No.8853292]

>>8852909
That's true but people may start somewhere. Erik is too brutal for most.

[Anonymous No.8853337]

Reminder that democracy envolves drawing the legislators and the executive

[Anonymous No.8853343]

>>8852544
>having solidified ideals
disgusting

[Anonymous No.8853348]

>>8852618
its best read immediately after confessions of a mask and immediately before reading the Decay of the Angel.

Its basically the story of a whiny faggot who finds himeself in strength and beauty, and then gets buried when he realizes everything he believes in are spooks.

[Anonymous No.8853665]

>>8852794
Lol, I spend my time on 4chan shitposting. I'm not gonna define a field in my life that isn't based firmly in post-post-ironic memes.

[Anonymous No.8853675]

>inb4 cuck

[Anonymous No.8853681]

>>8852794
This

[Anonymous No.8853686]

[Anonymous No.8853710]

It helped convince me that people who believe in eugenics as a viable option for reforming our societies are frothing lunatics

[Anonymous No.8853711]

>>8853675
>>8852935
>>8852699
>>8852641
>>8852572
>>8852544
I hope y'all are shitposting cause right 'libertarianism' is bar none the most embarrassing pleb ideology. Seriously I have more respect for dead eyed trot cultists or incel nazis than I do for you worms.

[Anonymous No.8853742]

>>8853711
Its okay, anon, I dont excpect you to understand any of it. That would be like expecting a heroin addict to understand how great life could be like without a needle in their arm.

[Anonymous No.8853763]

>>8853711
wew lad

[Anonymous No.8853783]

>>8852608
>Hi, I don't know what Das Kapital is

>>8853742
It's rather simple soup, anon. Shit soup.

[Anonymous No.8853793]

[Anonymous No.8853795]

>>8853711
>y'all

it's just one retard samefagging

[Anonymous No.8853805]

>>8853711
>implying hoppe isn't masterrace libertarian monarchist

[Anonymous No.8853838]

[Anonymous No.8853934]

[Anonymous No.8853983]

Guns, Germs, and Steel

[Anonymous No.8854054]

>>8852544

I've been meaning to get around to reading Hoppe's actual work in lieu of skimming wiki pages, but I've been so enthralled with Carnegie and CS Lewis lately. It seems that, theoretically, his whole "privatize the government" solution looks sound, but I'll reserve judgment until I actually read the thing.

Anyways, this book has really shocked me. I now see the virtue in some sexual repression, especially that of monogamy. In fact, I would call it essential. Unwin's methodology has been retraced and studied scientifically now, only to be corroborated.

Monogamy is a large function inasmuch as we're concerned with the health of a civilization.

[Anonymous No.8854077]

>>8854054
Wilhelm Reich was right, tho. You gotta get that orgone flowing. You, too, saw that video from exalted YouTube Scholar black Pigeon speaks, didn't you?

[Anonymous No.8854137]

Autobiography of Malcolm X

Democracy in America

[Anonymous No.8854156]

>>8854054
Monogamy is only useful as a bourgeois construct. To encourage/enforce it just shows that the dominant culture is not conducive to a healthy society.

[Anonymous No.8854168]

>>8854156

>To encourage/enforce it just shows that the dominant culture is not conducive to a healthy society.
>Encouraging/enforcing are bad

Sometimes people don't know what is good for them. Take medicine, for example. Less people would voluntarily take it than who need it, yet it is undeniably to our benefit.

[Anonymous No.8854190]

>>8853348
Its about spiritual elevation. You missed the whole point anon.

[Anonymous No.8855133]

>>8852544
Just a joke

[Anonymous No.8855151]

>>8852544
I'm not more familiar with more modern works (e.x. I am very interested in the Frankfurt School and similar Leftists), but these are the books that have most shaped my thought (although the Republic couldn't be said to have solidified it)

[Anonymous No.8855259]

>>8852544
This basically an airport book, you might as well read Patterson.

>>8852572
Same for this, read his much later work for anything relevant, this is shit now.

>>8852558
Love Stirner though.

[Anonymous No.8855276]

>>8853711
ooo you told us!

[Anonymous No.8855303]

>>8852641
what's the thesis of that book?

[Anonymous No.8855321]

>>8855151

>Rousseau
>Mill

Yeah, you're a true Last Man.

[Anonymous No.8855327]

Rothbard, HHH and Block are all meme tier Austrians belovwed only by liberteens.

First one wasn't of course the best Austrian of the second half of the century (that's Hayek). The last ones are even the best Austrians alive (Thats Kirzner) and or among ancaps (De Soto is the best).

Mises is probably the best economist of all time, but he would be ashamed about how people usurped and misinterpreted his ideas.

[Anonymous No.8855376]

>>8855321

Enjoy being a sociopath with a retarded "philosophy" that will never be taken seriously, Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.8855380]

>>8855327

>Mises is probably the best economist of all time, but he would be ashamed about how people usurped and misinterpreted his ideas.

What do you think of Sowell? I want to buy his Basic Economics book sometime.

[Anonymous No.8855391]

>>8855380
Favorite social scientist and economist alive.

[Anonymous No.8855415]

>>8853711
That Locke book isn't even political economy

[Anonymous No.8855493]

>>8855327
being a economist is a insult to everyone else, and perceived positive only if you are within the dismal inner circle of the spiritual autists; Hayek hated Mises - check his letters and personal correspondences - and moreover, the mediocre Mises started to doubt his own ideas by the end of his life, but of course only commented this in shadowy academic publications. And please, don't say ancaps, It's an inexistant ideology and a performative antinomy.

>>8855391
>social scientist

[Anonymous No.8855503]

>>8855493
>Hayek hated Mises
Yeah, as a person, but he also admitted that he was a better economist than he could ever be.

>>social scientist
You know that economics is a social science, right?

[Anonymous No.8855557]

>>8855503
Yes, I know, but I can see that I did a mild shitpost that can be rightly interpreted like you did, sorry. However, what I meant is about discourses uttered by economist and social scientists themselves when they identify themselves with these labels; e.g. when a spiritual autist comments how his discipline uses "mathematics" and the other social scientists (but normally It is said just social scientists, as a distinction) are not capable of using and so on, not accounting to the fact the mathematics that they use is ultra unsofisticated and laughable. In other words, they have completly different pool of knowledge and discourses; in such a measure that impedes their conversations.

And about what I mentioned that economists remain with their symbolic position despite of their disgraceful praxis; man, just read any critique of foundational postulates of economic science - and here I'm giving full scientific credentials - and see that is utterly ridiculous by many degrees. It is probably gonna be easier for you, considering this board a literature one, meaning more attentive and humanistically critically, to understand Its roots problems. I have some recs If you want though, If you are not aware or are trolling, godspeed.

[Anonymous No.8855596]

>>8855391
He's part of the long and dishonorable tradition of anti-intellectual academics in America.

[Anonymous No.8855618]

>>8853711
No need to put quotes on the ideology of liberty. You may dislike it but it is what it is.

[Anonymous No.8855634]

>>8855596
The argument is strong in this one.

[Anonymous No.8855708]

I found Hoppe to be inferior to Rothbard & Mises. OP's book in particular starts with an extremely shaky justification for Monarchy over Democracy founded on mostly historicism.

[Anonymous No.8855755]

>>8855321
Perhaps Mill and Social Contract Rousseau could be described as a Last Man, but not First Discourse Rousseau. As for Last Man as an epithet, I'll remind you:

[Anonymous No.8855769]

>>8855618
I think the quotes refer to the fact that Right-Libertarianism is completely antithetical to Libertarianism as originally envisaged (ie. Socialist/Communist).

[Anonymous No.8856393]

>>8852544
this
http://glq.dukejournals.org/content/20/4/439.abstract

[Anonymous No.8856423]

>>8852699
Is Hayek really considered Austrian? I know he is literally Austrian and worked in the Austrian school, but he's not in the same vein as Mises or Rothbard. I'd like to think he's more reasonable than those two. Always thought of him more as a neoclassical, like Friedman (although I am aware that the two of them disagreed on many things) or Sowell, and a critic of central planning and Keynesianism.

[Anonymous No.8856429]

>>8853742
>>8853795
>>8853805
>>8855276
>>8855415
>>8855618
Don't ever respond to "Muh pleb ideology incel nazis" guy again. Giving him (you)'s makes him stronger. I have seen this post many times.

[Anonymous No.8856571]

>>8855557
Very few modern economists (less than .1% ) give credence to austrian economics. Ever since the sixties it's become more mathematically involved. Most economic papers published in the last 10 years contain a very sizable number of advanced regressions, computationally intensive solutions, and machine learning generated algorithms.

It's on the forefront of data science and almost exclusively driven by empirically drawn conclusions - don't be so quick to dismiss it's mathematical merit.

[Anonymous No.8856920]

>>8855755

>I'll remind you with a shitty meme that demonstrates my fundamental understanding of what Nietzsche meant

[Anonymous No.8857361]

>>8856423
Mises is closer to Hayek than tô rothbard.

God, I really hate Mises institute for deceive people into thinking Mises wouldn't despise Rothbard's anarchism schizo.

[Anonymous No.8857365]

>>8852544

[Anonymous No.8857367]

[Anonymous No.8857417]

>>8856571
this is why econ sucks
its like analytic philosophy: it believes itself to be quantitative when in reality its a social science

[Anonymous No.8857422]

>>8857417
it's fucking bizarre that the phony discipline of economics has managed to isolate itself from the critiques that destroyed cliometrics, destroyed quantitative sociology, etc.

[Anonymous No.8857440]

>>8857417
Fuck of commie

[Anonymous No.8857442]

>>8857367

Please be b8

[Anonymous No.8857471]

>>8857440
go jack off to hayek, lolbert

[Anonymous No.8857509]

>>8856571
The more mathematized economics has become has only helped hide the real vested interests it's servicing under a higher esoteric formal language that the elites hope most average people can't actually decipher. Advanced maths have only been deployed in social science to operate as a jargon of authenticity to legitimize the elites goals. All that modern economists do is craft abstract models to provide an ideological justification for governments to implement what will always be horrible policies that will harm most of the population.
The problem with Austrianism isn't it lacks a sophisticated mathematical presentation of itself, if anything that's its strength over other elite ideologies, but that it's an elite ideology crafted by intellectuals, such as Ludwig VON Mises, with the intent of legitimizing and imposing control of the globe by a group of elites.
Any "empirically drawn conclusions" manufactured by intellectuals is just as useless as any axiomatic deduction they could just as easily deploy. All interpretations of actual human praxis produced by intellectuals can only serve as a reactionary tool to delegitimize spontaneity and put on display the real pathology of intellectuals. All these manufactured epistemologies are non-revolutionary because the real tasks raised by history are ontological rather than epistemological. A shift in ontology from cognition to activity is what the elite really fear in the masses because it may result in them violently killing all the elites and their intellectual functionaries as well.

[Anonymous No.8857576]

>>8855755
Did god really say that? Thats a pretty shitty thing to say after soneone died

[Anonymous No.8857590]

>>8857509
>yo wut is dis math shit? why can't i understand it?
>must be the fuggin elites tryin'a keep me in the dark, sheeit

[Anonymous No.8857617]

>>8857590
Your response is typical, you're scared of being exposed. Mathematics has been highly successful when applied to the study of dead matter in physics and natural science but when you apply those same methods of analysis to the study of real cognitive men and attempt to utilize mathematics to legitimize and build up a system of rules to control them you are now servicing someones interests.

[Anonymous No.8857627]

>>8857509
I agree, let's go further here

[Anonymous No.8857629]

>>8857590
babbys first math i know but I got all A's in calc and every econ course (including upper div) that i ever took.

i still think econ is dumb and also fake. the only part of it thats relevant is essentially behavioral psychology, but economists arent even honest about that. they dress up their observations with numbers to feign rigor

[Anonymous No.8857906]

>>8853343
indeed

>I read a book and now I'm smart

[Anonymous No.8858134]

>>8857617
The fuck is this nonsense? Fucking marxists, unless you ask directly if God exists, you can't tell if they are christians or not.

[Anonymous No.8858199]

>>8858134
Modernism was grounded in the recognition of motion as the fundamental state of the physical universe. This was an ontological shift from the pre-modern notions of stillness... the substance of reality was redefined in terms of it. Aristotelian teleology gave way to Newtonian causality over only a 100-year period starting with Galileo but philosophy died by identifying itself exclusively with epistemology and then equating epistemology with modern science and its method. A general ontological practical-critical transformation is necessary to challenge the methodological hegemony of modern epistemology by means of an ontic shift from interpretive cognition to activity as the dominant unit of human intercourse.

[Anonymous No.8858209]

I would be lying if I said that I already read that sort of book, but I might aswell post this

[Anonymous No.8858685]

[Anonymous No.8860310]

>>8856571
>empirically drawn conclusions
this is an oxymoron

[Anonymous No.8860339]

>>8855557
Not the person you replied to, but can you give some recs for crtiques of the foundations of economics

[Anonymous No.8860380]

>>8858199
Why exactly is activity better than interpretation and passivity?

[Anonymous No.8860429]

>>8852572
These both should be required reading in schools if it isn't already.

[Anonymous No.8860461]

>>8852572
>>8860429
Good luck getting demoralized professors to teach capitalism in their lectures.

[Anonymous No.8860489]

[Anonymous No.8860506]

Now the real conversation starts

[Anonymous No.8861016]

Wind Sand and Stars
The Essays of George Orwell
Homage to Catalonia
The Essays of Christopher Hitchens
Better Angels of Our Nature
Tao Te Ching
The Story of Philosophy
The Art of Loving
The Periodic Table

[Anonymous No.8861045]

[Anonymous No.8861050]

>>8858685
So basically a big bogeyman

[Anonymous No.8861053]

>>8860506

[Anonymous No.8861061]

>>8860506
pic related its you

[Anonymous No.8861067]

>>8853711
another enlightened teenager fresh out of /r/socialism and ready to tell the world why it's wrong. boy I sure can't wait for your insights!

[Anonymous No.8861079]

>>8861067
>inb4 butthurt libtard

[Anonymous No.8861088]

>>8860506
I feel Chompsky relies too much on human benevolence and social stigma.

I don't remember much of this book but from what I remember his ideal soceity is a bunch of white knights.

[Anonymous No.8861093]

>>8860506
I prefer pic related desu

[Anonymous No.8861094]

>>8861061
>>8861053
>LOL FUNNY PICTURES OF PEOPLE XD

[Anonymous No.8861095]

>>8853711

>I hope y'all are shitposting cause right 'libertarianism' is bar none the most embarrassing pleb ideology.

There are millions of misinformed people that genuinely support Neoliberalism.

What are you even talking about?

[Anonymous No.8861101]

>>8860429
>The Pure Theory of Capital

lol Hayeks business cycle theory was a clear failure.

He never succeeded in creating a monetary theory of the trade cycle that evaded the serious criticisms his opponents levelled against it, which included the non-existence of the Wicksellian natural rate of interest, the role of subjective expectations, and the questionable role of general equilibrium theory in his theory.

Hayek eventually totally abandoned his trade cycle theory work and never returned to it. The promised second volume of the Pure Theory of Capital where he was supposed to deal with capital and money was never even written.

[Anonymous No.8861105]

>>8861094
On average Socialists twnd to be scum or arrogant. They tend to be unkempt and insufferable to be around.

I used to be a socialist in my teen years and all the other socialists were cringy.

One of them would draw chinese symbols on his arms and his wallpaper was the Anarcho Syndicalism flag but he didn't even know what anarcho syndicalism was. He wore dirty work boots with skulls on them. Had these old thin glasses he liked because they"made him look like a intellectual" he drank 3 monsters a day and would get food peices stuck in his facial hair. He connstantly tried to date girls in relationships and get upset when they wouldn't cheat on their boyfriends with him. He would show his friends hentsi during class and get upset if you criticized anything East Asian. He said he felt more Asian than American because he claimed they had the ideal society.

[Anonymous No.8861107]

[Anonymous No.8861121]

>>8861105
Well i'm sorry you had a bad time with a person who considered themselves an anarcho syndicalist. Yet if they had instead been a right wing libertarian for example would that be enough to put you off a whole range of political works just becuase you had a bad time with one person who as you said didn't even understand the theory very well?

[Anonymous No.8861148]

>>8852558
Reading is a spook

[Rebel !JvPx0f.zhI No.8861165]

>>8861093
>>8857365
>>8855151
>>8853793
>>8852935
>>8852572
>>8852558

Good taste.

>>8852641
>>8852618
>>8852661
>>8852666
>>8860506
>>8861107

Poor taste.

Yes, I chose anarchists for both groups and libertarians for both groups. Shoot me for caring about actual decent philosophy and econ right?

[Anonymous No.8861180]

>>8861165
wow what a nigger

[Anonymous No.8861269]

>>8854054

>unwin

>sexual repression

kek

[Anonymous No.8862816]

>>8861165
No taste.

Read a book nigger.