Haha, the appeal of political science to me is less about arguing with strangers about the news and more talking about broader philosophies and theories and then applying them to what we are seeing in the world. I feel like I can have a more nuanced conversation about the prisoner’s dilemma with regards to x topic, or applying philosophies like American Pragmatism to solving problems.
Talking about the news without using some of the tools political scientists use has so many emotional trip wires that it can feel like I’m just keeping up with the Kardashians. That said sometimes I just can’t help but keep up with the Kardashians.
Depends on what you’re wanting to focus on, but a great start would be Rules for Rulers by Arnold Meltsner, Freakonomics by Levitt & Dubner, CIA: legacy of Ashes by Tim Weiner, confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins are some that I started early.
A book about current events or a book about the study of politics? OP indicated they were political theory focused, so a lot of the theory was written by old dead guys; not exactly news about current events.
Plato has basically nothing to do with modern politics.
You’re going to laugh, but I’m absolutely serious here: if your objective is to understand modern politics, I would start with The Prince and the Communist Manifesto.
Both of these are short, written by extremely influential figures, written for non-academic audiences, and have some amount of relevancy to current political operations. They absolutely do not explain modern politics, but they are important foundational texts. Spend 20 hours on the manifesto; 2 hours to read and 18 hours of commentary and related topics. Avoid going deeper into the communist rabbit holes. stop there. Spend 30 hours on the prince; look for college level lectures. You can spend more than 30 if you like, but don’t go for the self help guru dipshits, obviously.
Just keep in mind the target audences and the potential bias the two authors bring to the table.
After those two, I want you to read On Liberty and read up on John Locke’s social contract theory. Those four works will get you a lot of milage.
I’ve read a good part of Communist manifesto and found it interesting. The fascist Manifesto is very similar to it. I found very weird that communists are against fascists, given that their manifestos are so similar.
“You can philosophize over how many fairies fit on a toadstool all day, but if it won’t help anything, what’s the point?”
If you’re talking politics, you need to take a step back and ask how useful your questions are. It may be tempting to try solving a conflict that has a long history by finding out “who started it”, but if the answer would yield no progress in the peace process, it would be a better use of time and energy to focus on other discussions.
I’ve used it as an economic philosophy as well. Instead of looking at capitalism and socialism as ideologies to guide thought, look at them as tools to an end. Identify your goals for society (more educated populace, lower infant mortality, greater freedom of the press, etc.) and then look at what different perspectives bring for solutions. Sometimes you may find letting a free market take it’s course is an answer. Sometimes you may find deep regulation or nationalization is the answer.
When this philosophy is applied to something more personal like religion, it would ask “is the religion that you are in helping you or hindering you?” If someone’s religion gives them immense guilt and depression, it would be worth it to consider something else. If an alcoholic finds peace in a Mormon Temple, then it might just be what they need. It’s a pretty chill philosophy when it comes to religion.
Thank you, that’s an excellent read! This reminds me of the “expected value of perfect information” - sometimes it is worthwhile to answer a question, and sometimes it isn’t. Every once in a while I find myself in an engineering call discussing a minor problem, and I run the numbers to see if the change we are discussing is even worth talking about. One time the combined salaries of the people on the call had already outpaced the cost savings of the change over the next 10 years. We quickly stopped that discussion lol
Haha, the appeal of political science to me is less about arguing with strangers about the news and more talking about broader philosophies and theories and then applying them to what we are seeing in the world. I feel like I can have a more nuanced conversation about the prisoner’s dilemma with regards to x topic, or applying philosophies like American Pragmatism to solving problems.
Talking about the news without using some of the tools political scientists use has so many emotional trip wires that it can feel like I’m just keeping up with the Kardashians. That said sometimes I just can’t help but keep up with the Kardashians.
Lmao.
Try talking soil science with gardeners and permaculture geeks.
Recently the only news about politics I don’t find disgusting is done by political scientists. You you recommend a book on the topic for beginners?
Depends on what you’re wanting to focus on, but a great start would be Rules for Rulers by Arnold Meltsner, Freakonomics by Levitt & Dubner, CIA: legacy of Ashes by Tim Weiner, confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins are some that I started early.
CGP Grey did a great job synthesizing Rules for Rulers on YouTube as well.
Also a big think video Why Sociopaths Rise to Power
Also Veritasium has a great video on game theory
Hope that helps!
Economic hit man I read already and it’s good. Another nice one that I’ve read was “Silk roads” from Peter Frankopan
A book about current events or a book about the study of politics? OP indicated they were political theory focused, so a lot of the theory was written by old dead guys; not exactly news about current events.
About the study of politics, like Plato, etc, but all in one for beginners
Plato has basically nothing to do with modern politics.
You’re going to laugh, but I’m absolutely serious here: if your objective is to understand modern politics, I would start with The Prince and the Communist Manifesto.
Both of these are short, written by extremely influential figures, written for non-academic audiences, and have some amount of relevancy to current political operations. They absolutely do not explain modern politics, but they are important foundational texts. Spend 20 hours on the manifesto; 2 hours to read and 18 hours of commentary and related topics. Avoid going deeper into the communist rabbit holes. stop there. Spend 30 hours on the prince; look for college level lectures. You can spend more than 30 if you like, but don’t go for the self help guru dipshits, obviously.
Just keep in mind the target audences and the potential bias the two authors bring to the table.
After those two, I want you to read On Liberty and read up on John Locke’s social contract theory. Those four works will get you a lot of milage.
I’ve read a good part of Communist manifesto and found it interesting. The fascist Manifesto is very similar to it. I found very weird that communists are against fascists, given that their manifestos are so similar.
Is American Pragmatism a thing? If you explain it to me, will I feel better about myself?
Yep, it’s a thing!
“You can philosophize over how many fairies fit on a toadstool all day, but if it won’t help anything, what’s the point?”
If you’re talking politics, you need to take a step back and ask how useful your questions are. It may be tempting to try solving a conflict that has a long history by finding out “who started it”, but if the answer would yield no progress in the peace process, it would be a better use of time and energy to focus on other discussions.
I’ve used it as an economic philosophy as well. Instead of looking at capitalism and socialism as ideologies to guide thought, look at them as tools to an end. Identify your goals for society (more educated populace, lower infant mortality, greater freedom of the press, etc.) and then look at what different perspectives bring for solutions. Sometimes you may find letting a free market take it’s course is an answer. Sometimes you may find deep regulation or nationalization is the answer.
When this philosophy is applied to something more personal like religion, it would ask “is the religion that you are in helping you or hindering you?” If someone’s religion gives them immense guilt and depression, it would be worth it to consider something else. If an alcoholic finds peace in a Mormon Temple, then it might just be what they need. It’s a pretty chill philosophy when it comes to religion.
Thank you, that’s an excellent read! This reminds me of the “expected value of perfect information” - sometimes it is worthwhile to answer a question, and sometimes it isn’t. Every once in a while I find myself in an engineering call discussing a minor problem, and I run the numbers to see if the change we are discussing is even worth talking about. One time the combined salaries of the people on the call had already outpaced the cost savings of the change over the next 10 years. We quickly stopped that discussion lol