Hobbes

>political

Anyone who recommends Plato in a political philosophy discussion hasn't read Plato.
Yes he's top 5 of philosophers, but his politics is negligible, practically nonexistent. And most of the "actual politics" that he proposed is retarded.
And he good stuff is said better by the rest on my list.

plato invented political philosophy

Mill and Lock for liberty and justice. Hobbes and Burke for order and peace.

For more modern social contract theory, see Rawls.

If he’s interested in economics or political economy, then Mill’s book is pretty good for an overall explanation of how LTV functions.

Even though the LTV is wrong, he presents some theories of productivity mirrored by Pareto’s Manual of Political Economy half a century later.

None. All of them are libshits. We live in the world they built.

And no, free speech isn't good. Communists, social justice warriors and other anti-white ideologues shouldn't be allowed to spout their hogwash. They need to be deported, or killed. Every last one.

Attached: The death of the West.png (1262x2094, 952K)

I agree about the free speech. For example if one is a polfag, they simply don't deserve such a right.

Attached: c62.jpg (546x700, 65K)

Are you more interested in epistemology or political philosophy?

Since you're talking about free speech, I assume you want to read about politics. Hobbes' and Rosseau's ideas are pretty simple fundamentally -- they elaborate on them more but to be honest they're so outdated I wouldn't bother, just look up a third party account of their "debate".

Locke is interesting from a historical perspective, because of his widespread influence both politically (liberalism) and philosophically (empiricism). Again though, be wary of outdated ideas like the Tabula Rasa.

NONE OF THEM.

If you have not read Aquinas why even bother with the rest?

I don't give an atom of a fuck what you're agree on. Your values are anti-white. Hiding behind free speech is isn't gonna save you. You need to disappear.

You*

he literally started political philosophy and is a must read before aristotle

nigga read a book outside whatever your community college gives you to read

>Your values are anti-white
anti-white is a code word for anti-gay
don't let the homophobes take away your feti- err... i mean i d e n t i t y

Attached: spencer.png (600x235, 76K)

>You need to disappear.
Make me

I will someday. Trust me, i will.

Fuck that shit, read Carlyle, Hobbes, de Maistre, and Schmidt instead.

stop larping

Keep telling yourself that.

Hobbes is quite literally one of the definers of political philosophy and is a must read for you to not be drowned in what are (in my opinion) outdated ideas of Enlightenment. Rosseau is the next most important thing and you can kinda choose what to read from there, the basis will already be pretty solid.

None of them are weak in their arguments, hardly ever claiming the values of Enlightenment (or their negation when it applies) out of mere primordial necessity. What might be boring though is that their writing style is so much more throughout than what we are used to nowadays that they might seem dry and endlessly going across definitions. But these are not cornerstones of thought for no reason, definitely give them a try.

As personal suggestions I would read Kant (introductory stuff like his logic and probably not the critiques though), Spinoza (this guy is really good), Hume and by then you likely won't be asking what to read without already having an idea anyway.

Yikes.

De Maistre; french reactionaries got it right

>Rawls

Attached: a8286c734f264cc07028ac5769a5ec367180c9b17ac62426a8d4448623040d8d.gif (360x357, 63K)

Voltaire is a favorite, so is Spinoza. You could do worse. At least it's not Harry Potter, Infinite Jest, or that Jordan Peterson drek.

All of those philosophers come from the same intellectual tradition of rationalism and empiricism, and all of them are Protestants. There is no spice.

Rousseau's conception of the state of nature is pretty wrong, tho.

>Plato hasn't influenced anyone
what shit list regardless

Attached: 1506474332612.jpg (500x375, 24K)

That's it's a competition of brute strength? I'm guessing you think that Rousseau's interpretation has anything to do with the 'noble savage'.

Yet again, much like Machiavelli, society has mass misinterpreted the overall message of Rousseau by trying to condense it into a few short pithy sentences.

Montesquieu is interesting but also has some bizarre views. I'd recommend finding an abridged version of 'Spirit of the Laws' honestly, as you don't need the 100's of pages on french legal history or ancient German inheritance laws. He is also in line with many classical political philosophers who view monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy as all legitimate forms of government. His ideas on underling principles which make certain systems of government function are especially interesting.

Attached: Spirit of the Laws2.jpg (1008x583, 122K)

Ignore hobbes, rosseau, montesqieu. Read Locke and Voltaire.

>We live in the world they built
The best world so far in human history?

>don't come to school tomorrow

I don't know it might just be me but I find Rousseau to be a pretty cozy read.

I'm the guy you quoted. I kind of agree with that assessment. Rousseau was kind of a "blank slate" guy (certainly not a noble savage idealist like correctly pointed out) and criticized Hobbes for apparently describing men as taken away from society after already being corrupted by said society.

I am in Hobbes' side here, Rosseau seems far too idealistic, but this is no trivial remark he made, that humans have a state of nature that is not morally oriented, but social structures are responsible for introducing "conflict" (ironically or not, in the form of knowledge about the social structures themselves, or "knowing each other well enough to cause conflict"). I might concur that I think this is wrong, but I also wouldn't provide a fully consistent denial of it inside the confines of a chan post, which is where the "not weak in his arguments" part comes from.

This

>I'm the guy you quoted.
But he quoted me, and I am not you?

Damn. I am confused, what have I done

Attached: 26229799_553186308367278_4797217962223210503_n.jpg (832x660, 29K)

>outdated ideas of Enlightenment

spotted the brainlet

hell yeah

add kuehnelt-leddihn too

>Hobbes
>Locke
>Rosseau
And then add
>Burke
You can safely skip Voltaire and Montesquieau

Anglo liberalism is a literal copy paste from the Spanish school of Salamanca, which comes from a deeply catholic background. Only Hume and Burke are really original

Anglo Liberalism, stems from the rise of humanism, and the Protestant Reformation. Francis Bacon's father was Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, his uncle William Cecil waschief adviser, twice Secretary of State and Lord High Treasurer during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, and set the main goal of English policy as a unified Protestant British Isles; Locke's parents were both Puritan Parliamentarian, he had a significant friendship with Shaftesbury, the leader of the Whigs.

>Francis Bacon's father was Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, his uncle William Cecil waschief adviser, twice Secretary of State and Lord High Treasurer during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, and set the main goal of English policy as a unified Protestant British Isles
FASCINATING THANK YOU user

bump

> I would read Kant (introductory stuff like his logic and probably not the critiques though
>Spinoza (this guy is really good)
Jesus fuck. The Critique of Pure Reason obliterates Spinoza through-and-through, it's one of the things you absolutely should read.

Now there's a man who stared into the night of worlds and was able to put into words what he saw. No wonder Isaiah Berlin was so asspained at him.

Attached: 1501895731272 de maistre.png (800x500, 430K)

>Anglo Liberalism, stems from the rise of humanism, and the Protestant Reformation.
This sounds very nice but it is bullcrap. The ideas from classical liberalism that you can read from Locke can be found in books that are 200 years older and written by catholic priests. Those books were also in Locke's libraries. Anglo liberalism is just plagiarism. If you know latin read Francisco Suarez, Molina, Vitoria and Azpilicueta. Even Adam Smith was greatly influenced by a bunch of thomistic scholastics

This is total bullshit historical revisionism, remember to not take anything you read from the Mises institute seriously bucko

distributistreview.com/corporation-christendom-the-true-school-of-salamanca/

Attached: zizek ideology.jpg (503x502, 61K)

If you're interested in the social contract tradition I'd say you can just go Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Rawls.Those three are its biggest contributors and Rawls synthesizes them nicely in a more modern, liberal context.
I think the social contract theory tradition is at least an interesting attempt at trying to justify state authority and individual subjection. Its neat to how and why we accept and justify our own slavery.
Leviathan, Second treatise, On the social contract, A theory of justice.