Mandatory Reading?

[varelse]

What would you say is mandatory reading? History, Politics, Philosophy, Science- non-fiction must-reads that you feel everyone should know?

I'll start out with
Die Judenstaat (The Jewish State) - Hezl
Provides an insight into the thinking of the early Zionists

The Federalist and The Anti-Federalist
Gives a proper understanding of both sides of the debates surrounding the formation of the US

 

[g5000]

Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville

 

[TheOldSchool]

The Count of Monte Cristo, The Three Musketeers, all 7 Harry Potters, and Star Wars the Admiral Thrawn Trilogy. Greatest works of fiction of all time.

If that doesn't get you into reading I don't know what will. I keeps it real

 

[Lipush]

'The Art of Strategy' by Avinash K. Dixit and Barry J. Nalebuff

'Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West', by
Gregory Maguire. A must read!, puts to question everything concerning prejudice and Good Vs. Evil

 

[editec]

Oh there's so much to know and so little time to learn it.

That is why people specialize into different fields of study.

And that is why even within specific areas of study, people continue to specialize even within those fields.

Pick a specific subject and then perhaps, assuming it is one that I have been focusing on, I can point to one or two books that are seminal works that anyone interested in this topic might find of interest.

I can, however, point you to the the most sigificant book that I have read of late that crosses over into many diciplines that I think was rather brilliant, though.

And if you want a TASTE of it, without having to devote hours to reading?

Here's the video.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c63qKwHhPQQ]Guns,Germs and Steel (Full Documentary) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Truthmatters]

everything you can get your hands on.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Non Fiction:

Plato: "The Republic"
Aristotle: "Politics"
Niccolò Machiavelli: "The Prince"
Thomas Hobbes: "Leviathan"
John Locke: The Second Treatise on Civil Government"
Rousseau: "The Social Contract"
Jefferson: "The Declaration of Independence"
H. D. Thoreau: "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience" (1849)
John S. Mill: "On Liberty"
Marx & Engels: "Manifesto of the Communist Party" & "Socialism Utopian & Scientific"
Lenin: "State and Revolution"
Mussolini: "The Doctrine of Fascism"
Hitler: Mein Kamf
John Dewey: "Reconstruction in Philosophy" & "Ethics"

Fiction:

Utopia
Quixote
Uncle Tom's Cabin
A Tale of Two Cities
The Possessed or The Devils
The Red Badge of Courage
The Gilded Age
Democracy: An American Novel
Brave New World
Animal Farm
Darkness at Noon
Johnny Got His Gun
Walden Two
Nineteen Eighty-Four
Atlas Shrugged
The Jungle

Essays by Hannah Arendt and in particular Eichmann in Jerusalem and her concept of "The Banality of Evil"

 

[varelse]

You're aware f the fact that The Prince was a satire, right?

 

[Wry Catcher]

You're aware f the fact that The Prince was a satire, right?

No I'm not. Please explain, that is far from my understanding.

 

[varelse]

You're aware f the fact that The Prince was a satire, right?

No I'm not. Please explain, that is far from my understanding.

See any of his other works, such as The Discourses on Livy for what he believed in. The Prince was written as a satirical tongue-in-cheek commentary on tyranny and the nature of tyrants and tyrannical systems.

It's been a while since I read Machiavelli, but Google turns up a few results that look worth reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pr...f_The_Prince_as_political_satire_or_as_deceit

Machiavelli’s The Prince as a Satire: An Exploratory Look at Machiavelli’s Works to Determine His True Political Inclinations, The Eagle Feather

Jean-Jacques Rousseau long ago held that the real lesson of The Prince is to teach the people the truth about how princes behave and thus to expose, rather than celebrate, the immorality at the core of one-man rule. Various versions of this thesis have been disseminated more recently. Some scholars, such as Garrett Mattingly (1958), have pronounced Machiavelli the supreme satirist, pointing out the foibles of princes and their advisors. The fact that Machiavelli later wrote biting popular stage comedies is cited as evidence in support of his strong satirical bent. Thus, we should take nothing Machiavelli says about moral conduct at face value, but instead should understood his remarks as sharply humorous commentary on public affairs. Alternatively, Mary Deitz (1986) asserts that Machiavelli's agenda was driven by a desire to “trap” the prince by offering carefully crafted advice (such as arming the people) designed to undo the ruler if taken seriously and followed.

Niccolò Machiavelli (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Niccolo Machiavelli ? the Cunning Critic of Political Reason | History Today


​

 

[zzzz]

For Americans, The US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. How many US Citizens do not know the basis of their freedom? Many rely on the talking heads without any real idea of what the real words are.

Its a shame that so much blood has been shed over the last two and half centuries and the people who enjoy that freedom have no real sense of where it comes from.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Erybody gave a buncha smart answers... but only I kept it reals. Reading should be fun.

"The Prince" and the "Constitution" are no fun.

Wicked's pretty fun though

 

[Wry Catcher]

You're aware f the fact that The Prince was a satire, right?

No I'm not. Please explain, that is far from my understanding.

See any of his other works, such as The Discourses on Livy for what he believed in. The Prince was written as a satirical tongue-in-cheek commentary on tyranny and the nature of tyrants and tyrannical systems.

It's been a while since I read Machiavelli, but Google turns up a few results that look worth reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pr...f_The_Prince_as_political_satire_or_as_deceit

Machiavelli’s The Prince as a Satire: An Exploratory Look at Machiavelli’s Works to Determine His True Political Inclinations, The Eagle Feather

Jean-Jacques Rousseau long ago held that the real lesson of The Prince is to teach the people the truth about how princes behave and thus to expose, rather than celebrate, the immorality at the core of one-man rule. Various versions of this thesis have been disseminated more recently. Some scholars, such as Garrett Mattingly (1958), have pronounced Machiavelli the supreme satirist, pointing out the foibles of princes and their advisors. The fact that Machiavelli later wrote biting popular stage comedies is cited as evidence in support of his strong satirical bent. Thus, we should take nothing Machiavelli says about moral conduct at face value, but instead should understood his remarks as sharply humorous commentary on public affairs. Alternatively, Mary Deitz (1986) asserts that Machiavelli's agenda was driven by a desire to “trap” the prince by offering carefully crafted advice (such as arming the people) designed to undo the ruler if taken seriously and followed.

Niccolò Machiavelli (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Niccolo Machiavelli ? the Cunning Critic of Political Reason | History Today


​

I have no doubt some 'experts' have characterized "The Prince" in the manner you have posted. My reading based on my undergraduate major (Poli Sci) and my observation of local and national politics in my undergraduate years - 65 - 72 (with time in between in the Navy) lead me to believe "The Prince" was a pragmatic look at power and politics. Notwithstanding 'our' opinions the book itself is a major work for anyone who wants to understand our world today. as are the works I posted and many many more.

 

[varelse]

Did you read his other works, or have you read The Prince in a vacuum (regarding the mind from which it came)?

 

[ABikerSailor]

My favorites that I think everyone should read?

The Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu as translated by Red Pine.

The Art of War by Sun Tzu.

Anything ever written by Harlan Ellison.

Jonathan Livingston Seagull and Illusions by Richard Bach.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Did you read his other works, or have you read The Prince in a vacuum (regarding the mind from which it came)?

I have not. You're rather OCD on this issue, why? What are you trying to prove?

 

[editec]

You're aware f the fact that The Prince was a satire, right?

What makes you think that? Its dedication?

Of course we can never know an author's motive, but I suspect even if Machiavelli was describing the way that the Medici controlled Florence, The Prince is a HOW TO manual for those in power.

The Prince - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As shown by his letter of dedication, Machiavelli's work eventually came to be dedicated to Lorenzo di Piero de' Medici, grandson of "Lorenzo the Magnificent", and a member of the ruling Florentine Medici family, whose uncle Giovanni became pope Leo X in 1513. It is known from his personal correspondence that it was written during 1513, the year after the Medici took control of Florence, and a few months after Machiavelli's arrest, torture, and banishment by the in-coming Medici regime.