>want to read Constitutional Theory by Carl Schmitt >Someone tells me that i should read The Federalist Papers by Hamilton, Madison and Jay first. >then someone tells me that i should read Locke, and Montesquieu and Rousseau before that >then i find out that i have to read Hobbes, and Hooker to understand that. >then someone tells me that i would not understand Leviathan unless i read Aristotle's Politics, Plato's republic, the rest of the greeks and the bible.
Guess you guys where right, i should have started with the greeks.
Do you guys know a good book that sumarizes the philosophy of the most important Greek authors?
Plato, Aristotles and Pitágoras are fun, but i dont have time to read the rest
Luke Gomez
Well certainly you could read The Federalist Papers. It's very easy to understand. And having an idea about the other ones would be a good idea... Schmitt isn't easy.
Luis Foster
will try to get the federalist papers first then, thank you user.
Logan Sullivan
its worth it, you'll come out a patriot after reading them
Hunter Watson
It's funny you are interested in Schmitt instead of the others you listed. Because if you wanted to read the Founding Fathers, you could start with them (in their writings they basically reestablish most of the Locke, Rousseau, et al. influence anyway). Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseu are pretty foundational and accessible, so you could start there too. Hobbes? Again, foundational and represents a shift, therefore you could start there (although the Greeks would really help out).
But you wanna read Schmitt? Yeah, you gotta read the rest of that stuff. Same goes for most 20th century philosophy. Also you forgot Burke!
The Oxford one.
Adrian White
Im really interested in political theory, i didn't know where to start and i picked that Schmitt book that a friend recommend me. But yeah, i will totally follow your advice.
i read Locke's Two Treatises of Goverment few months ago, is Hobbes harder than Locke?
Elijah Watson
If you're interested in political theory in general and not Schmitt specifically, then yes I'd absolutely recommend starting with the basics.
Thank you user for the link, really appreciate it ;)
>Harder and drier!
I will start with the basic first then , thank you
Jaxson Garcia
Copleston's History of Philosophy Vol.1
Carson Hughes
>i should have started with the greeks.
You should read the Epic of Gilgamesh before starting with the greeks
Oliver Wood
dont forget aquinas, augustine, and burke
David Diaz
This.
Colton Murphy
It's also hilarious to run around spouting stuff about why we have separation of powers and what the president theoretically can't do in this day and age.
Thomas Wood
>separation of powers >not reading about this in montesquieu
Luis Harris
we dont have separation of powers in pretty much any european countries, and people simply don't give a fuck.
People just complain about corruption without bothering to know the causes. Yes im mad.
Oliver Brown
>mfw nobody has mentioned the valuable contributions made by John Stuart Mill.
Brandon Butler
True story I started with the Greeks, went back to Gilgamesh, then comparative mythology starting with primitive man. Six years later, I'm up to the postmodern faggots like Baudrillard.
Aaron Morgan
Care to elaborate?
Leo Collins
Well, in Europe the only country were the powers are separated is France, but that doesn't really matters when the estate funds the parties, killing the representation. And in the UK there is no division of powers because the parlament elects the prime minister.
In the rest of Europe we suffer from particracy. For example here in Spain, you can't really elect your deputies or senators, you have to choose between lists of names that the parties make. Then the parlament is distributed between the parties proportionally to the numbers of votes that those lists had in the "election".
So what we have at the end is a parlament of 350 deputies divided between the parties proportionally where every deputie votes what the party tells them to vote. Two people from each party at most talk and the rest are just there voting every now and then what the party wants, wasting space and a lot of money.
Then if a party has more than the half of the parlament (this always happened until the our last "election" ), that party has the right to elect the president directly, if not, two or more parties pact to elect one.
Then if this wasn't enough to guarantee total corruption, constitutionally the party in power chooses the 80% of the judges of the supreme court directly and the other 20% indirectly.
So the result is that the party that wins the election has all the 3 powers of the state to do whatever he wants, and thats what they do. We have literally hundreds of known corrupt politicians that stole a lot of public money that don't go to jail or even get judged. And people here is so stupid that the only thing they do to try to stop it is vote to a different party.
Democracy doesn't exist here, like in the rest of Europe.
I hope you can understand me, my english is not very good :)
Robert Nelson
>Then if a party has more than the half of the parlament (this always happened until the our last "election" ), that party has the right to elect the president directly, if not, two or more parties pact to elect one
Forgot to add that we had 2 elections and almost a third one last year because the parties didn't want to "pact a goverment"
Benjamin Rodriguez
>John Stuart Mill. most important book by him?
Dylan Jackson
Nice job, hope you didn't skip the medievals
Landon Perry
Depends on your interest. His Utilitarianism is probably the most famous/influential. His empiricism is now laughably simplistic, so his political-moral work would be more worthwhile.
David Allen
>9020875 thank you user
Henry Wright
Isabelle adjani was a total qt
Lucas Phillips
On Liberty is considered his best
Brayden Miller
Dude if Schmitt interests you, just read Schmitt. There is a lot to be learned about Schmitt's writing from those other authors, but that is absolutely no reason to wait to read him if he's your main interest.
Jaxon Morales
I third the motion.
Liam Wilson
The federalist papers is the best because it's all about the formation of the republic. So in essence they're basically writing a book that all the great philosophers and political people and creating a perfect union out of their work
Matthew Scott
yes and if you were properly educated you wouldve read all this by the time you were 14.
welcome to postironic hell
Henry Lewis
Totally agree. If you haven't read all the greeks by the time you are 16, you are never going to be a literate
Evan Collins
Yes, but no. Read the History of Greek Philosophy by W. K. C. Guthrie, Paideia: the Ideals of Greek Culture by Werner Jaeger, and Greek Thinkers: a History of Ancient Philosophy by Theodor Gomperz. Any history of political theory would also be a good idea (recomiendo a Fernando Vallespín).
