Hey. Should i read Hobbes or Stirner ?

The problem is that I have many books to read this year, so I'm doing a specific list of 60 books, and if next summer I'd finished all that I would read Hobbes in this time, and to understand the idea GeneralIn I think that internet and summaries will be enough

I dropped out of high school because of anarchism, or I'm an anarchist because of why I dropped out of high school. How can you have those beliefs and tolerate that sort of routine?

My philosophy teacher is an anarcho-communist. She makes us read Marx and Badiou, she talks about Thoreau and quotes Camus while all other teachers of philosophy in France say he is a cunt. Yesterday we made a manifesation-because she was appearing in court because-she has supposedly "too subversises ideas." It explain things.

Seems pretty based user, I hope you have a good life.

Read Thomas Hobbes, then John Locke, then Adam Smith, then John Stuart Mill.

Then when you're done, disregard all of them and read Kant.

Everything goes well for me, more or less. I hope the same for you.

Stuart Mill interests me but for this year I rather want to read philosophers that will not be read in college. I prefer to read Camus, Nietzsche, Cioran, Onfray, Spinoza, etc. Philosophers who are more "existential" in short, I let the highly theoretical philosophy as Kant or Hegel for later.

Spinoza is rather theoretical, and his philosophy is usually organized by logical structures; he tried to make his work Ethics similar to Euclid's Elements in how he layer out axioms and propositions.

Cioran is one of my favourites.

Anyway, hope you enjoy whatever you read next or at least the reading itself.

Hobbes before Stirner, its handy to understand the appeal and purpose of the state to disregard it.

Read some modern philosophy for God's sake.

Spinoza wasn't really "existential" in any way I can think of. And he's pretty theoretical to boot.

Modern philosophy kills puppies.

Sorry, I had a medical appointment.

From what little I've heard Spinoza still offers some existential philosophy, at least in the Ethics. Anyway, that's how we are talking about in France. The concept of conatus is a bit like the Nietzschean will to power (I do not know the English word), and for me it is a rather existential concept. And what it says about determinism I also put in there, like his pantheistic thinking. (Of course I am atheist)

I read some. I have on my list a lot of Michel Onfray, but I do not know if he is readed outside France, there is also Chomsky on my list. Otherwise modern philosophy such as post-structuralists parrait me very idealistic and full of crap. I generalize by saying that, but apart Bourdieu, who is not a philosopher, and some of them as Deuleuze, the rest seems very theoretical, and people who think madness and imprisonment from archive, no thank you. And I would read them toures ways later in college, so who cares. Nietzsche and Camus died but that does not mean they aren't interesting and it is a little necessary to read them. Also philosophy is something a little bit timeless

I tend to agree but you do not think that reading Machiavelli and Chomsky could be enough? On my list i have The Prince and Understanding Power.

The understanding of its foundation makes you understand the idea of state better in the context wich it was written. Back then we didnt have liberalism wich made the state seem as common sense and with the lack of an dominant idealogy wich made a state normal you can see the idea beyond its interpitation of today. Also in Prince its only described how to effectivly use politics IN THE STATE and Chomsky to use information IN THE STATE. Now ask yourself this, what is the state? Hobbes has an possible awnser for that.

isnt Stirner an idealist?

Hobbes isn't even the last say on the legitimacy of the state though by a long shot … you'd have to read Rawls and responses to him.

He is inbetween Idealism and Materialism.

“Clearly Stirner is the most talented, independent and hard-working of the 'Free', but for all that he tumbles out of idealistic into materialistic abstraction and ends up in limbo.” (Engels, 1982: 13)

What is this limbo that Stirner falls into? It is precisely the limbo between idealism and materialism, between heaven and earth/hell; Stirner’s theory has finally escaped idealist presuppositions, but has not moved beyond idealist targets. In other words, Stirner starts with real individuals, but seeks to move forward through confronting idealist fantasies, through acts of theoretical combat, of demystifiying abstractions such as God, Man, State, Society, Morality, Justice, Labor, Equality, Freedom, Love, and Revolution. In one of his more spectacular moments, Stirner names the imperative of his egoism as “storming heaven” [Himmelsstürmen] which can only be finished with the “real, complete downfall of heaven.” Even Satan was too narrow, for he focused solely on Earth. This technique he eventually calls, desecration.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/jacob-blumenfeld-all-things-are-nothing-to-me.html

Your teacher seems pretty cool, but that's not true.
My philosophy teacher recommended a bunch of books when I was in high school, and among them, they were L'Homme révolté and Le mythe de Sisyphe.
However she didn't try to introduce me to Marx and Badiou, more like Nietzsche and basic existentialism.

I feel a bit stupid, I did not know that the book of Chomsky was previously quoted on media management by the state. I just did a little research and I think that it would be better for me to remove (for now), Understanding Power which in addition is rather big to replace it by De l'espoir en l'avenir (sorry for the french title) and so I keep Hobbes and Machiavelli, and so I add Stirner since De l'espoir en l'avenir is rather short. I look a bit of a kid who does not want to read long books, but this is not the case, I just want to have read a number of things before my academic year.

Thank you for the reference, I will note that somewhere.

What's wrong with L'Homme révolté and Le mythe de Sisyphe? I heard that Camus was a little confused in these philosophy books, but he had not had access to great schools, so he hasen't all the baggage rhetoric socalled necessary to philosophize. But I think his work still keeping a very interesting substantific marrow.

Why did Hillary Clinton acid wash so many eMails?

Amusingly Marx actually uses this expression (or a variation of it) when describing the actions of the communards of the 1871 Paris commune.