Does anyone want to argue over this chart I just made? Questions/discussion is okay too. I'm bored and want to avoid my responsibilities.
Obviously I think it's pretty good, and I'd be happy to defend or explain it.
Does anyone want to argue over this chart I just made? Questions/discussion is okay too...
Thomas Sanchez
John Taylor
why isn't there anything new there? Has no progression been made in political theory?
Michael Rivera
why do I have to read the Merchant of Venice before Gramsci?
Cameron Robinson
rawls, marcuse, huntington, hooks, weber, and gramsci are all fairly recent.
also
>progression
i personally don't believe in this.
Brody Powell
Shylock's plight in Venice is a great introduction to the concept of cultural hegemony. In the end of the play he is subsumed by the dominant culture, forced to convert to Christianity.
Gramsci isn't exactly clear about what hegemony is, so having a clear reference point (that is far enough in the past to be reflected on more objectively) should help the reader grasp the concept more easily.
It also ties in quite well with Marx's 'On The Jewish Question' and Augustine's argument as to why the Romans were given possession over the Jews.
I have it lead to the Theban plays as well, because Shylock, Oedipus, and Creon are all brought to ruin by their obstinance in the face of otherworldly instruction. Shylock fails to demonstrate Christian mercy in court, and so he is ruined. Oedipus fails to heed the warnings of the gods and is hard-headed in his zealous pursuit to expel the curse-bringer, so he is ruined. Creon fails to take the will of the gods into account in his decrees and judgment, and so he is ruined.
Christopher Adams
Veeky Forums charts always reek of dilettante
Gavin Lewis
gay
Levi Edwards
likely because they're meant to serve as introductions to a topic, or even a broad field of knowledge.
care to levy any more specific criticisms?
Jaxson Walker
Someone please post the 11 philosophy charts, those are actually decent.
Dylan Collins
>No Nozick
>No H.L.A Hart
>No Parfit
>No Mill
>No Nagel
Also, why Paradise Lost, the Merchant of Venice, Sophocles, and Augustine? They're hardly consider foundations of Western political thought.
Joshua Harris
I didn't mean dilettante in the sense of entry level of general overview. I meant a disjointed rambling of recommendations presented in a random order, so as to create the impression of a unbalanced repertoire of a poorly funded library.
there's no rhyme or reason to your chart, the arrows or the books themselves. the only thing that connects them is that most ostensibly have political themes. but here's a play and here's the entire new testament and here's a debunked nonfiction popular social study from the 60's and here's something else. the quirkiness suggests the lack of rigor with which you've studied "political theory" leading me to assume you're self taught. this is not a criticism of any of the particular books rather the chart and you. but if you have read half of the books on this chart good for you and keep reading. I hope you get something out of it. What do I know?
Hudson Hughes
here is the reading list for a yale course of political theory. see how it compares...
politicalscience.yale.edu
Oliver Price
honestly not that dissimilar. more phil, and more of it is 1500-1900 and less of it contemporary, but similar core.
>Mill
ugh. that aside, I obviously can't include everyone. Do you think any of those authors fit in particularly well?
There actually is rhyme and reason, which I'd be happy to explain as I did in It's merely 'quirky' because it seeks to expose readers to a broad range of topics and schools of thought; that doesn't mean it lacks coherence. What connections do you think are particularly dubious? I'd be happy to justify my decisions.
Samuel Clark
This chart is pretty shit. You should start over and include The Law by Bastiat
James Smith
It's a just a shit reading list. The Peloponnesian War, although an important historical document, is a shit resource to actually learn about political science.
Caleb Gutierrez
>no Machiavelli
You what son?
John Turner
>babby's first book
it's not bad, but I really don't think it's a very good introductory text.
the spartan declaration of war
the Sicilian expedition
etc. etc.
Great introduction to Hubris and and for beginning to think critically about democracy.
Too economic. Not the point of the list. Hence no utilitarians or modern 'social science' (read: useless regressions) type stuff.
Jackson Martinez
>honestly not that dissimilar. more phil, and more of it is 1500-1900 and less of it contemporary, but similar core.
except that it is not shit and your chart is.
Jonathan Bennett
this. underrated post.
Hudson Mitchell
look at all these non-arguments
feel free to challenge me on substantive grounds, I'm more than happy to engage.
Gavin Ward
the basic gestalt is that most of the stuff you included isn't important enough or relevant enough to be chosen over your omissions. you can rationalize anything being on there all you want but you clearly don't have a good grasp on the subject. also Huntington is a meme
Nicholas Barnes
>Claims Huntington is just a meme
>The New Yorker