Found this chart here a while back, does it still hold up...

Found this chart here a while back, does it still hold up? Looking to dive into political theory and want to make sure I'm not missing anything

This as a furtherance of Aristotle and Locke and an opposition to Kant and Marx.

why wouldn’t they hold up

Couldn't The Road to Serfdom also be included?

Trump has thrown literal millennia of political philosophy out the window. He's upended an entire branch of Western thought.

She doesn't understand any of them, don't bother with it OP

this but unironically

Yeah that was poor wording on my part
More just trying to see if any of them were non-essential in anyone's opinion, like the last few especially seems kind of tailored to the opinion of whoever made this rather than agreed-upon influential texts

t. never read Rand outside her fiction

She explicitly states that Kant's deontology contradicts freedom of action because it contains a moral necessity to adhere to a duty

how so? and if you say:
>if you dont already know why youll never understand
you will be confirmed as a laughing stock and forever shamed on this board

I'm done reading Stirner, and now I can't take anybody seriously. Everybody, and everything is filled with spooks. The influence of society upon the individual is present at all times. No man has ever said something unique, for he was merely further developing the ideas which had been exposed unto him by others. The truth? There is no truth to be told. That which man calls true is only his interpretation of exterior phenomena presented before him. Objectivity is merely disguised subjectivity, following a certain given set of rules agreed upon by convention. No man's word is to be taken for granted.

Wrong, she blasts his use of duty as a moral criterion in the first place.

Just shut the fuck up. Trump has made a horrible foreign policy decision and decided to fuck up the country even more by claiming unbiased news sources are somehow fake news.

He can go fuck himself, he was just the lesser of two evils

I’d say it’s correct up to Capital, though I think the Anti-Federalist papers are underrated. After that I’d say it lacks a huge number of important works. If you got rid of City of God, backed Capital up a line, and removed the bottom row I’d say this is chart is a perfectly adequate “Poltical Theory up fo 1867”. I think you’d need just need a second chart for after that.

I’d include Rawls Theory of Justice. Also the the work of Nozick, Sandel, Walzer, and Charles Taylor, Appiah, Hart, Dworkin, Sen

Some anarchists like Kropotkin, Goldman, and Bookchin.

Lenin, Mao, Gramsci, Althusser, Fanon, Negri, Marcuse

Wollstonecraft, Mill, de Beauvoir, Lise Vogel, Federici, Butler, Haraway

Martin Luther King, Cornel West,

Foucault, Agamben, Richard Rorty

Mise, Rothbard, Hoppe,

Leo Strauss, Isaiah Berlin

Yeah why does it have Political Liberalism rather than A Theory of Justice? That seems wrong. Also leaving off the Critique of Pure Reason is a sin. You need more Rousseau than just the Social Contract. Also nothing here on environmental politics, ecopolitics, technopolitics, or anything that reflects the current trajectories

You should start with one or a few textbooks about political theory and philosophy in general to have some background knowledge of the different theories. Otherwise a decent list (I don't get why the Peloponnesian war is relevant for newb tho). Zizek is good if you want a modern and accesible perspective on things.

THIS IS THE ONLY POLITICAL BOOK YOU WILL EVER NEED

"Jewish books are for the Jews,
And Jew Messiahs, too.
But if you're not of Jewish blood,
How can they be for you?

To make an Idol of a book,
Is poison for the brain;
A dying God upon a cross
Is reason gone insane.

Beware of all the Holy books
And all the creeds and schools,
And every law that man has made
And all the golden rules.

"Laws" and "Rules" imposed on you
From days of old renown.
Are not intended for your "good"
But for your crushing down.

Then dare to rend the chains that bind
And to yourself be true.
Dare to liberate your mind,
From all things, old and new.

Always think your own thought.
All other thoughts reject;
Learn to use your own brain
And boldly stand erect."

You live in your childhood bedroom stop shilling this shit

you mad bro?

"Physical distortion and mental malformation are the direct
result of two thousand years of bad-breeding: that is to say, of
Mongrelism, of Democracy, of Equality, of Moody-and-
Sankeyism. Christian-ism, originating in the despairful and
fallacious philosophy of a Crucified Wanderer (suffering from
acute morbus sacer) is now developed into an organized and
world-wide conspiracy of Clericals, Politicals and Decandents
directed en-masse; with Jesuitic cunning against all the primitive
and Heroic Virtues.

Our clean-skinned 'heathenish' ancestors with all their vital
forces unimpaired, were really the nobler type of animal. We on the
other hand, with our corrupt irresolute, civilized hearts, our
trembling nerves, our fragile anemic constitutions are actually the
lower, the viler type -notwithstanding the baseless optimism that
courtly rhymers drivel into their "Heirs of all the ages," etc., etc.

No people can long retain hardihood and independence,
whose minds become submissive to a False Ideal."

I don’t really understand why CPR should be on there, though yeah basically everything contemporary is missing.

>no Peterson

Add the Doctrine of Fascism to the list.

What is the name of his political theory book?

>CNN, WaPo, NYT
>Not biased

How to Clean One's Room

I'd recommend different editions of Plato and Aristotle.

>unbiased news sources
That's fundamentally wrong though as most news networks were collectively biased against Trump.

News is definitely biased but Trump can also go fuck himself.

That said, I'm glad to be living in a time when he is president. The implications this has on American history have yet to be realized and I look forward to the day when I have a child who brings me home a textbook with Trump tweets in them.

I actually think he play a 4d chess, really check everything that he make with the book crash of civilizations and say me he isn't play a 4d chess.

Either/or thinking is the bane of intellectual conversations.

How? All he did was prove the old adage "any publicity is good publicity".

Most of this is largely unnecessary to understand politics after the republican revolution. Start with classical economics, read Marx, Lenin and other influential Marxists for a critique of classical economics, follow up with neoclassical texts like Alfred Marshall, then some Keynesians... Since economics is the main division for political ideologies, eventually you'll decide which ones you want to read more into.

Stop responding to that troll

I would add some Bertrand de Jouvenel and the Italian School of Elitists (Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca and Robert Michels).

They are specially important since unlike, say, Locke, Paine, Mill or Rawls, they analyse politics as it is instead of how they want it to be.

Well he wasn’t a politician in his life yet became president

He had a lot of money and became president.

See? I can make things seem different than they are by how I word things too

Typically you have to be an actual political figure by going through the system, holding a political position, and then you can attempt to run. He skipped all that and won because he was a celebrity

The works on the chart are fine, the problem is that there is no way a normal person can go from one door stopper book to another without either missing key points or just getting burned out. I would recommend to instead try starting with one branch of political theory that interest you (Ancient greek, marxist, Islamic golden age, medieval Christianity, Chicago school + libertarianism or whatever) and instead focus on that one branch, reading it's key texts with supplementary literature to get a proper understanding of it.
This will be a billion times more effective then trying to read fucking City of God.

read these