Books that have solidified your ideals

Books that have solidified your ideals.

I'll start.

Other urls found in this thread:

glq.dukejournals.org/content/20/4/439.abstract
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

You didn't read that book, user.

Based Hayek

Das Kapital

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

>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.

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

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

it's like you're not even Veeky Forums

...

...

P___ I_______

...

...

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

Should have just browsed Veeky Forums

Nice books. xp
Austrian School is masterpiece.

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

>it's another thinly veiled /pol/ thread

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

...

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

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

Reminder that democracy envolves drawing the legislators and the executive

>having solidified ideals
disgusting

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.

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

>inb4 cuck

This

...

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

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.

Its okay, user, 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.

wew lad

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

It's rather simple soup, user. Shit soup.

...

>y'all

it's just one retard samefagging

>implying hoppe isn't masterrace libertarian monarchist

...

...

Guns, Germs, and Steel

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.

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?

Autobiography of Malcolm X

Democracy in America

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.

>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.

Its about spiritual elevation. You missed the whole point user.

Just a joke

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)

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

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

Love Stirner though.

ooo you told us!

what's the thesis of that book?

>Rousseau
>Mill

Yeah, you're a true Last Man.

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.

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

>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.

Favorite social scientist and economist alive.

That Locke book isn't even political economy

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.

>social scientist

>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?

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.

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

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

The argument is strong in this one.

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.

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:

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

this
glq.dukejournals.org/content/20/4/439.abstract

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

...

...

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

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.

Fuck of commie

Please be b8

go jack off to hayek, lolbert

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.

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

>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

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.

I agree, let's go further here

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

indeed

>I read a book and now I'm smart

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

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.

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

...

>empirically drawn conclusions
this is an oxymoron

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

Why exactly is activity better than interpretation and passivity?

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

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

...

Now the real conversation starts

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

...

So basically a big bogeyman