Does my reading list get Veeky Forums approval?

>all Malthus ever does is trash human nature
confirmed for never actually reading Malthus
>doesn't know who Machiavelli is
ffs user, you're not even trying

trash that list, at least half of it is utter shit
when you compose your next list, don't choose books for the sake of "having better arguments mostly." science and religion fundamentally stand apart - one is observation or logic based, the other is faith based. choose stuff that answers your own questions, or stuff in topics that interest you. if what interests you is trying to discredit religion for some reason, grow up or go to reddit

Singer, Friedman, Thomson, Mill, Rousseau are all acceptable, but read them with high levels of skepticism. Smith, Aristotle, Kant, and Nozick are all well worth reading, although I don't know why you chose one of Friedman's more boring books (just read Serfdom) and one of Kant's more obscure works rather than his core materials. Dawkins and Harris are b8 and trash. I've never read either Hazlitt or Sowell, but a cursory look at the wiki gives me a hunch not to waste your time unless you're cultishly interested in right-libertarian/Austrian economics, which certainly seems to be you.

Be more intellectually diverse and daring in your reading. Don't just read philosophy that you're ready to agree with. I assume (correctly, of course) that you're a utilitarian, libertarian, naturalist-atheist, and a liberal. In that respect, the works you've selected that represent alternative viewpoints are severely lacking or will be woefully misinterpreted by you. The Kant text you've selected builds on over 2000 years of previous argumentation by Aristotle, Augustine, Anselm, Avicenna, Aquinas, (other philosophers whose names start with A), Liebniz, Descartes, and others. Kant is difficult to read, even in context, and without context you'll hit a brick wall. Start with Aristotle's Metaphysics if you're interested in challenging your preconceived ideas of God.

Also, for fucks sake, read some moral philosophy other than utilitarianism. It's such a moronic position. I got into an argument with a (very well-read) utilitarian last week who defended the murder of infants, genocide, gang-rape, ritualistic cannibalism, forcible child-bestiality, and slavery because they had to bite so many bullets to defend their retarded-as-fuck "ethics."

I assume you're b8ing, but make an effort anyways because if you weren't, I'd feel bad letting you ruin your brain.

Son you're prime example of someone who needs to shut the fuck and start with the Greeks

do my reading list senpai

second this

>all these books and no Frank Herbert
ya dun goofed

it's beneath where you can't see it, hegel is just warmup for Children of Dune

Op who gives a flying fuck?

is that the one you're starting with? if so, why?
also user, have you considered the time it would take to read all of those books, as well as the time it would take to read all of those books and get something out of them?

It's fine I guess. I would remove and add some, but at least reading all that would make you a better human being than the 99% of the retarded faggots engaged in political debate.

This has to be a joke.
>atheist libertarian: the reading list

I'm atheist myself, though I've never understood the need to validate that belief with poorly written books.

huh? I've already read quite a lot of the phil I used to have on the list. I just like making lists of books I want to read, it lets me read faster. also I was joking about hegel being warmup for dune.

Current Reading List:
Gardens of the Moon - Steven Erikson (Currently Reading)
The Black Company - Glen Cook
The Scar - China Miéville
The House on the Borderland - William Hope Hodgson
At the Mountains of Madness - H.P Lovecraft
Neverwhere - Neil Gaiman
City of Saints and Madmen - Jeff VanderMeer

Is there anything I should drop from the list? I'm looking for "weird fiction" (did not know this was a genre until recently) and epic fantasy. Is there anything I should add?

I'm trying to get back into reading.

you can add Finnegan's Wake

Political economy 101?

pls advise

permutation city
gridlinked
the skinner
saga of seven suns
the etched city
no present like time

I know these are mostly sci-fi, but they have a similar feel to them i guess. except for permutation city

Seriously why do people make reading lists? I'll usually have an idea of what I'm going to read next just based on what I'm interested in at the moment or what style I'm into, but this can change all the time. And when I don't have this it's fun going to bookshops and being able to freely browse and pick up something that catches my eye. Never got the appeal of reading lists.

I do like Sci-fi.

It helps me remember titles of books I displayed interest in. I do not know if I will enjoy a book until I give it a chance, I save titles that I want to give said chance to.

edit my list pls srsly
>Brothers Karamazov by Dostoyevsky
>Lolitla by Nabokov
>Ulysses by James Joyce
>God Emperor of Dune by Frank Herbert
>Moby Dick by Herman Melville
>Gravity's Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon
>Fierce Invalids Home from Hot Climates by Tom Robbins
>Hard Times by Charles Dickens
>Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams
>The Prince by Machiavelli
>The Crowd, A Study of the Popular Mind by Gustave Le Bon
>The Sun also Rises by Ernest Hemmingway
>Problem Solving through Problems by Larson
>Utopia by More

It's probably too late.

OP if you really want to unfuck yourself, take a day and read through On the Genealogy of Morals, it will simultaneously own both the Christians you hate so much as well as the Sam Harris' and 101-level economics you're teaching yourself.

If you want into Econ, you need textbooks for both micro and macro Econ (Econ is intuition-based, so you can often skip actual calculations so long as you can still imagine what the graph of whatever you're observing would look like) and jump into journals. Friedman was little more than a political shill.

kil yourself and once you're dead read books instead of seeking online validation