Is this a decent non-fiction reading list, /lit/? Tried to include

>>9852039
I'd add Lenin and Heyek, though it's decent

>>9852039
If you have Rawls, you should include Nozick, but this does seem ok

leibniz
HUME
stirner
husserl
WITTGENSTEIN
deleuze
quine

>>9852085
>>9852097
>>9852166
Thanks, all of you.

I've also remembered and added Weber, Schumpeter, and Adorno, alongside the ones you mentioned.

>>9852395
desu u should think of not doing philosophy, politics and political philosophy all at once, but doing history of philosophy first, then politics/history. if youre just doing it to get better at beating people in arguments you wont learn nearly as much

Comte, Durkheim, Gramsci, Bordiga, Gentile, Evola, Horkheimer, Carlyle.

>>9852416
Carlyle puts me in mind of the historians (you) miss, but the MAJOR omission on this list is Montaigne.
The most necessary Greek historian is Thucydides, Latin is Tacitus (but also Caesar), Medieval is Bede, Renaissance is Guicciardini, Modern is Gibbon (also a major omission). Then Carlyle's French Rev. Burckhardt's History of the Renaissance, Huizinga's Autumn of the Middle Ages, Adams' The Education of Henry Adams.

>>9852563
I wasn't planning on including historians because history is concrete as opposed to abstract and the specifics of what happened in the Pelopennesian or Gallican wars, the French revolution, et cetera aren't really important, just their general nature and their implications on contemporary minds and subsequently on the discourse. Philosophy/politics/economics, however, while ultimately arising from their historical context, are largely discussed on the basis of the arguments they contain which are typically universal in scope.

>>9853579
>just their general nature and their implications on contemporary minds..
This is actually quite alot, anon, but I do respect the reasoning (you) supply. Montaigne is nonetheless an oversight, because not only is his book the first adequate representation of a modern mind, but remains the strongest. Within the list (you) do supply he could serve as a kind of control, or representation of the profundity of the strength of the PERHAPS nihilistic, middle way.