Books & Articles The History and Real Meaning of Feminism: An Article Suggestion

[Devilicious]

Hey guys!

In this article, Influence half-life, this part especially caught my attention:

Some girlfriend of mine will read some feminist screed then start talking to me about how really some of my ideas are "actually pretty backwards, you know" and then I will have to have a long discussion with her about men and women, and the several-millennia history of feminism, and its role in the civilizational life cycle, and why feminists are proselytizing their ideology and what they want her to do with her own life and the sacrifices she is asked to make for the sake of the ideology and why societies engage in feminism at the times they do.


Then by the end of it I will have given her back her ability to think critically, instead of to simply attack me with inane remarks programmed into her by whatever media she was consuming, but simply the fact that I have to deal with it at all, even with very rational, smart, thoughtful women, reinforces to me how powerful media influence is.


You'll see it in men as well.

This is something that is indeed on the site, albeit scattered in quite a few different articles. But seeing as how feministic influence-power-plays are becoming an increasing factor in the Western World, I'd be very interested in seeing how do deal with this the powerful way Chase does.

So, this is an article suggestion for the GC team If it isn't worth an article, I'd already highly appreciate resources or simple key points on where it comes from, what its purpose is, and what it means for us today.

Essentially, have Chase pretend we're the swayed girl he needs to give this talk to!

Also, generally, one thing I've come to massively appreciate from GC are these insights into what it means to be a man, especially in today's society. These are concepts you would never have otherwise come across, and what an infinite shame it would be to live your entire life without getting in touch with your masculine core essence!

I'm infinitely grateful for that.

Cheers,
Alex

 

[Chase]

Ooh, "the real history of feminism." There's a lightning-rod of an article.

Let me think about how I'd position/title an article like that, to be as clear for guys searching for it what it is as possible, without attracting an apocalypse of outraged feminists trying to cancel the site for saying it.

Maybe something like "Handling Your Girlfriend's Feminist Positions" or some such.

Then it's more relationship-focused and doesn't feel like a direct assault on the foundation of the movement, like it would with a "real history of feminism"-esque title.

Good suggestion, @Devilicious.

Chase

 

[Bismarck]

By "several millennia history of feminism" I'm guessing Chase was being sarcastic in the bit quoted from his Influence half-life article above.

The history of feminism spans the end of the 19th century to today. Hardly several millennia, in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Chase]

The ancient Romans enacted a law called the Lex Oppian to restrict women from splurging on clothes, owning gold, and the like. After Rome became a safe, stable society, and women began to fight for more empowerment, in 195 BC women hit the streets in a massive protest against the Lex Oppian.

Roman politicians debated it, with various men going to bat for the women that this law was no longer needed to keep women's morality in check, while others like Marcus Porcius Cato declared to the men that, "As soon as they begin to be your equals, they will have become your superiors!"

The law was ultimately repealed, and women got to spend as much as they wanted on clothes, own property, and so on.

Originally in Rome the law was that a man could divorce his wife, but she could not divorce him. This was eventually overturned, and women could initiate divorces, and keep property, just the same as men.

In ancient Greece, which achieved empire and thus safety and wealth and, ultimately, feminism, earlier than ancient Rome, some Greek philosophers (from times centuries before the repeal of the Oppian Law in Rome) complained of women running through the streets, behaving like men, engaging in casual sex with random men, giving up becoming mothers, abandoning the traditions of the past.

Meanwhile, other Greeks, such as Plato, celebrated women's emancipation. Plato, who lived in the 5th Century BC, argued women possessed "natural capacities" to govern and defend equal to men's and could be equally good as national leaders.

Here's John Glubb on feminism in the 10th Century Abbasid Empire, centered on Baghdad:

An increase in the influence of women in public life has often been associated with national decline. The later Romans complained that, although Rome ruled the world, women ruled Rome. In the tenth century, a similar tendency was observable in the Arab Empire, the women demanding admission to the professions hitherto monopolised by men. ‘What,’ wrote the contemporary historian, Ibn Bessam, ‘have the professions of clerk, tax-collector or preacher to do with women? These occupations have always been limited to men alone.’ Many women practised law, while others obtained posts as university professors. There was an agitation for the appointment of female judges, which, however, does not appear to have succeeded.

Soon after this period, government and public order collapsed, and foreign invaders overran the country. The resulting increase in confusion and violence made it unsafe for women to move unescorted in the streets, with the result that this feminist movement collapsed.

So no, I wasn't waxing metaphorical when I mentioned feminism being a normal part of the civilization lifecycle.

Unfortunately, the masses of today are as ignorant of history as they were in the time of Solomon, and, just as they did back then, think (doomed as they are to repeat the history they do not know) they are "making progress" and "doing things for the first time ever" as they mime the same struggles against one another their ancestors engaged in since time immemorial.

Oh well...!

Chase

 

[Bismarck]

I stand corrected! Had no idea about any of this

This is a good moment to introduce an important quote: (Plato, Socrates) "I know that I know nothing"

 

[Chase]

Nuts, isn't it?

I have a few times had conversations with people who've told me things like "Our current times are totally different than anything that's come before. The lessons of history no longer apply."

I always ask them, "How much history have you studied?"

Typically they've only really studied the recent history of their societies, which goes back only a few hundred years or so.

The more you read ancient history, the more you will stumble on events where you find yourself going, "Geez, it feels like I am reading about today."

Anyone who reads about the behavior of the early Christian zealots in Rome as they overcame the tired old Pagans will feel like he's reading about the SJW zealots of today as they overcome the tired old Christians, just with the names switched. The parallels are so striking it's incredible.

Likewise reading Confucius as he complains about the dissociation between words and meanings, and how this leads to the people not being able to "tell head from foot." The more of his diatribes you read about this, the more you realize it's exactly what you're seeing all around you as people use more and more words to mean confusing and ill-defined sentiments that differ and get redefined by every person who uses them. Confucius repeatedly states that the first step to restoring order in public is to reattach names to their correct meanings, and that until you do that you can't even have a conversation between different people/groups (because they're talking past each other the entire time).

Reading about ancient populist reform politicians, and how they either flipped to supporters of the establishment once in power, or, if they refused to flip, ended up destroyed by the establishment, mirrors a lot of what we see today among populist reformers too.

And then you read the Book of Ecclesiastes, which is basically a meta-lament of this endless cyclical nature of things, and how unaware everyone is of it, and you're like "Clearly here is one of the few men who actually studied history in some depth."

History is an odd subject in that it lacks any immediately applicable real-world uses, but gives a man immense perspective he'd otherwise wholly lack (and not even realize he was lacking).

More on-topic for this board, it also gives immense perspective into male-female relations, too.

Chase

 

[Will_V]

History is an odd subject in that it lacks any immediately applicable real-world uses, but gives a man immense perspective he'd otherwise wholly lack (and not even realize he was lacking).

I believe that philosophy and history (which I think are basically theory and practice of the same thing) occupies the same position in a learned man's psyche that religion does for many others. I read Plutarch's Lives not long ago and it's had more impact on me than any book I've read for years (and I read quite a lot). Just to see the examples of exceptional men fighting to make their mark and put some order into a chaotic and bloody world, in the brief time they have to do it and against powerful enemies that eventually overwhelm them, makes me realize what we've lost today without even knowing it.

For those who want to read a fantastic historical novel (fiction and history combined) which is something I quite like when done right, I recommend The Source by James Michener. I read it when I was quite young, and the way it stretches your mind across time from the stone age to the present is an experience in itself.

Can't think of any good seduction-related history books, but I've been meaning to get around to reading about Cassanova at some point. Happen to know any Roman or Greek pickup chronicles?

 

[Chase]

@Will_V,

Can't think of any good seduction-related history books, but I've been meaning to get around to reading about Cassanova at some point. Happen to know any Roman or Greek pickup chronicles?

Casanova's a fantastic read. The prison experience reads almost exactly like that of The Count of Monte Cristo, except that Monte Cristo was written half a century later. I'm assuming Alexandre Dumas must have been acquainted with Casanova's tales.

Casanova also breaks all kinds of rules we talk about here, like not chasing, and not throwing money at women to seduce them, and gets away with it (i.e., lays the girl).

I've only read the abridged version, which leaves out many of his seductions. The full version is massive.

As for Roman/Greek pickup chronicles... well, you might start with Ovid (which I keep meaning to read, but am marginally ashamed to admit I've not read yet). He's the original seduction coach. His book Ars Amatoria teaches seduction in its first chapter and retention in its second. The third is addressed to women. That's about 2,000 years old.

He also wrote a book titled Remedia Amoris, which is an instruction manual for men on how to not get oneitis, basically. Based on the description, much of the advice would likely be familiar to anyone familiar with seduction community thought on this (a lot of the seduction OGs were versed in Ovid, so probably not a coincidence here).

Augustine of Hippo was a day game PUA on the streets of Carthage about 1650 years ago. I wouldn't think he'd go into great detail about tactics, though he was certainly verbose. Maybe it's tucked away in one of his tomes or letters somewhere (possibly Confessions?).

Chase

 

[Will_V]

@Will_V,



Casanova's a fantastic read. The prison experience reads almost exactly like that of The Count of Monte Cristo, except that Monte Cristo was written half a century later. I'm assuming Alexandre Dumas must have been acquainted with Casanova's tales.

Casanova also breaks all kinds of rules we talk about here, like not chasing, and not throwing money at women to seduce them, and gets away with it (i.e., lays the girl).

I've only read the abridged version, which leaves out many of his seductions. The full version is massive.

As for Roman/Greek pickup chronicles... well, you might start with Ovid (which I keep meaning to read, but am marginally ashamed to admit I've not read yet). He's the original seduction coach. His book Ars Amatoria teaches seduction in its first chapter and retention in its second. The third is addressed to women. That's about 2,000 years old.

He also wrote a book titled Remedia Amoris, which is an instruction manual for men on how to not get oneitis, basically. Based on the description, much of the advice would likely be familiar to anyone familiar with seduction community thought on this (a lot of the seduction OGs were versed in Ovid, so probably not a coincidence here).

Augustine of Hippo was a day game PUA on the streets of Carthage about 1650 years ago. I wouldn't think he'd go into great detail about tactics, though he was certainly verbose. Maybe it's tucked away in one of his tomes or letters somewhere (possibly Confessions?).

Chase

Will keep an eye out for those! Yeah from what I know Cassanova comes across like Leo in Titanic, the kind of guy who just threw himself at women with overwhelming enthusiasm and boyish charm. Maybe not a great tactical read but good for getting the spirit of things.

Love your Recommended Reading articles by the way, tons of good stuff there for guys who want to step back and see the big picture, I go back regularly for ideas.

 

[William Wallace]

@Will_V,



Casanova's a fantastic read. The prison experience reads almost exactly like that of The Count of Monte Cristo, except that Monte Cristo was written half a century later. I'm assuming Alexandre Dumas must have been acquainted with Casanova's tales.

Casanova also breaks all kinds of rules we talk about here, like not chasing, and not throwing money at women to seduce them, and gets away with it (i.e., lays the girl).

I've only read the abridged version, which leaves out many of his seductions. The full version is massive.

As for Roman/Greek pickup chronicles... well, you might start with Ovid (which I keep meaning to read, but am marginally ashamed to admit I've not read yet). He's the original seduction coach. His book Ars Amatoria teaches seduction in its first chapter and retention in its second. The third is addressed to women. That's about 2,000 years old.

He also wrote a book titled Remedia Amoris, which is an instruction manual for men on how to not get oneitis, basically. Based on the description, much of the advice would likely be familiar to anyone familiar with seduction community thought on this (a lot of the seduction OGs were versed in Ovid, so probably not a coincidence here).

Augustine of Hippo was a day game PUA on the streets of Carthage about 1650 years ago. I wouldn't think he'd go into great detail about tactics, though he was certainly verbose. Maybe it's tucked away in one of his tomes or letters somewhere (possibly Confessions?).

Chase

I for sure liked your article chase. https://www.girlschase.com/content/how-disarm-feminism-your-girlfriend-or-wife#ltrs . only part i disliked was about Sparta and the cuckoldry but it's somewhat true but not for the reasons you state it. though a chink it your ideas historically societies like the Vikings and Sparta where the men where hyper masculine the women enjoyed more rights.

 

[Regal Tiger]

@Chase

Loved the article as well! But now I'm curious, what kind of historical sources do you recommend/use? Would like to avoid the 'school's history' if you know what I mean.

 

[Chase]

@William Wallace,

Well, stated reason in Sparta was the production of stronger Spartans, as a sort of eugenics program. It was looked at as being a "good citizen" to allow a younger, studlier man to impregnate your wife. That's the social background. Now transpose what you know of male and female nature and try to imagine how that would actually go down. I would be extremely surprised if it wasn't 99.72195% women badgering men to let a young stud shag them, invoking patriotism to try to goad the man into it.

though a chink it your ideas historically societies like the Vikings and Sparta where the men where hyper masculine the women enjoyed more rights.

I don't know enough about the Vikings (and am not honestly sure if there's a credible social history of them? I've certainly seen a lot of speculation/claims, but not a lot of good historical sources). There's various speculation about 'shield-maidens' based on Norse immigrant graves in England or a few claims of the odd woman warrior here or there in ancient sources.

Tacitus claims the ancient savage Germans were ruled by women; other ancient writers refute this. In reading any of the Germanic invasions into the Roman Empire several centuries later, there's a whole lot about what the men are doing and not a lot at all about the women.

Spartan society is somewhat unique in that males and females were kept largely separate until after age 30. You get a situation where both sexes develop independently of each other, and in effect have two societies within a society, able to work together to keep the society going, without competing with or destroying each other, so long as the society was well-maintained. Eventually Sparta fell into social decay, as every society does sooner or later. If I had to guess, a part of the cause most likely would've been a removal of the barriers between the men and women, and, with the barriers removed, the women increasingly coming to dominate the men.


@Regal Tiger,

I feel you

Will and Ariel Durant's The Lessons of History is a wonderful, deep, fast-moving, and quick introduction to world history, from ancient to modern times, and a view at the cyclical nature of history. Good to wet your whistle with.

Joseph Tainter's The Collapse of Complex Societies is another paradigm-shifting read on the nature of civilization.

Among serious historians, the recommendation is to read as many primary sources as possible. Primary source = the original account of the history, as written by the individual who actually witnessed it. The reason for this is because everyone it passes through en route from the primary source to you is passing it through his own filter, interpretations, and so on. Read the primary source for the most accurate and raw accounting of the events.

I unfortunately don't have the time to master a dozen ancient languages and compare a bunch of primary sources from a variety of different authors, so usually I go for histories prepared by historians who reviewed either primary or secondary sources themselves. Plutarch's Parallel Lives is an example, as is Edward Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I've also read Tacitus, and would like to read Xenophon and Herodotus, as these are primary sources and very well known.

However, I've read a great deal about ancient Greece and Rome at this point, and want to branch out more to other societies. So on my plate I also have The Records of the Grand Historian (ancient Chinese history, as recorded in 500 B.C. and taught to Chinese students for the last 2500 years -- Chinese students today still must read it) and Biographies of Exemplary Women, a series of biographies of notable ancient Chinese women, which sounds like "Parallel Lives for women", and was used as a training manual for women in China for thousands of years (I had a Chinese girl tell me it is too outdated because of recommendations in the book that a woman never remarry if her husband dies, even if he dies the day after their wedding, or tales of women committing suicide because their husbands died. That seems a bit extreme, but there's probably a lot of good stuff in there if it was used as a women's training manual for millennia, and the girl I talked to admitted she hadn't read it and that I might be right about that).

After that I'd like to read Persian and Mesopotamian histories, if I can find them.

I'd also love to see if I could get a good translation of some of the ancient Egyptian texts. Reading Gregory Shushan's description of the after life journey in the ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts was riveting; they had a fully-fleshed out, horrific, supremely creative vision of hell that is more terrifying than any other horror scene description I've read.

Anyway, you get into ancient history, and you discover all these legendary works that survived the test of millennia and once you start reading them you realize why.

Then you realize all the modern works you've filled your head with are real bargain barrel, discount clearance rank nonsense, and it makes you never want to read another popular best seller or open up Wikipedia again (but you still will, from time to time, then go back to the classics for a breath of fresh air).

Chase

 

[Regal Tiger]

@Chase

Nice! Thanks for so many recommendations, I've got them in my Amazon list and on next payday I'll probably pick up the roman empire book first to get started!

As for...

Then you realize all the modern works you've filled your head with are real bargain barrel, discount clearance rank nonsense, and it makes you never want to read another popular best seller or open up Wikipedia again (but you still will, from time to time, then go back to the classics for a breath of fresh air).

I don't need to read any of your recommendations to already realize the crap about modern works. I've tried to read a few history books that either ended up being garbage or basically fiction. Kind of annoying even though they had good reviews :/

So yeah! Definitely appreciate it!

But now a follow-up question: other than being a primary source, or as close to it as possible, what other kinds of criteria do you have for a book before getting it or recommending it? Because I'm sure you have plenty of books/sources that you'd recommend staying away from lol.

 

[Chase]

Nice, yeah, Gibbon is great. It's multiple volumes, and extremely long, so it can make sense to read one book in the volume, put it down to read something else, then come back to Gibbon again a bit later. I've done this multiple times. Just set it down again a week ago to go through a few other (much shorter) books.

But now a follow-up question: other than being a primary source, or as close to it as possible, what other kinds of criteria do you have for a book before getting it or recommending it? Because I'm sure you have plenty of books/sources that you'd recommend staying away from lol.

Lubbock's List is a great metric:

Sir John Lubbock. Choice of Books (1896)

If it's on there, it's worth reading.

I discussed why and some of my other book recommendations in my 2018 book review:

Recommended Reading 2018: Lubbock's List and More

A collection of books across many genres Chase recommends. History, business, biography, psychology, spirituality, self-defense… there’s much to read. I wrote a post in 2012 about books I’d read and would recommend to readers. It’s been six years since then, and I’ve had numerous folks over the...

www.girlschase.com

For me the criteria at this point is basically:

• Any kind of 'analysis' of history, economics, politics, sociology, etc. written in the last 25-50 years is almost totally out
  
  
• Recently written books on niche topics that don't have authoritative older books written on them (e.g., Tainter's book on system collapse, or the book on survival I finished recently called Deep Survival, or Paul Wade's calisthenics book Convict Conditioning, etc.) I will read
  
  
• If it's not on Lubbock's List, I skim reviews for the book, and look at a.) who is recommending it, b.) why that person is recommending it, and c.) any agenda that might be present in the individual recommending it. Gradually you realize not all critics are equal; critics with political agendas will recommend books that are poorly supported rants if they seem to lend support to their positions
  
  
• I pay attention to whether a book is recommended as 'upending' or 'undoing' or 'subverting' the prior views on something, and if so it is almost totally off my reading list. Basically, "Is this book written as a work critical of other well-known, time-tested works?" If no, maybe I'll read. If yes, I won't read. I read a lot of these books when younger, because of how they're marketed ("The new authoritative tome that tells you everything you need to know and saves you from having to read a bunch of dry old dusty irrelevant books people used to think were right but are actually totally wrong!") and often found them at first convincing, but then the more distance I had from the book the more doubts about its pedagogy I'd have and the less convinced I'd feel. Then as I learned more about a subject and understood the cherry-picked examples and specious logic these authors almost always rely on, I figured out why (i.e., these books are almost exclusively cleverly-written garbage by someone sufficiently skilled in rhetoric who is seeking to advance his status by undermining past respected figures/works)
  
  
• On that last note, one other point: I generally find that ancient people were no less intelligent, experienced in life, or wise than modern people, and the average surviving classical work is written by someone of higher awareness/wisdom than almost any average person (modern and ancient alike) and certainly almost any modern writer. If you're going to write something, it should be able to build upon and work with what's come before. The trend of 'tearing down' things is useful for book marketing, and it's useful for pushing political agendas, but it is not useful from the perspective of expanding knowledge and figuring out how what you know and have figured out builds upon and fits in with what those who came before you knew and figured out
  
  
• For non-fiction, I look for books that will fill gaps in my knowledge or understanding of things. I engage in debates about all sorts of things with friends who are also well read, so it's fairly necessary for me to have as accurate a grasp of things as possible. Otherwise there's a risk I assume things and someone who's better read on a particular subject than I am calls me out on it. If I'm well read, I don't need to assume anything, I can just reference specific examples and paint the picture I want to paint. But you have to find the most accurate stuff to read if you want to be able to do that. Reading some slanted perspective on something or one with an agenda will just end you up getting torn up by a good debater with a better grasp of facts. So I will go looking for the most authoritative source on something I can find, and will talk to people or read reviews to figure out which book that is
  
  
• I'll also get book recommendations from friends. It's good to have a few smart friends who like to read. These can be hit-or-miss; I'll love some of the books my friends recommend, and others I'll not find up my alley. The good news is if you realize a book isn't for you, there's nothing there that says you have to keep reading it
  
  
• Finally, I will also talk to people who are experts at something, or who clearly know more about the thing than anyone else I know, and ask them, "What book would you recommend to me as THE best book in your field to read?" Then I will pass that book through my same usual filters (not every expert you talk to is without an agenda... so it's still good to check). This has been a good source of books for me I likely wouldn't have encountered otherwise

Anyway, that's me, and how I choose what goes on my reading list!

Chase

 

[Regal Tiger]

Nice, yeah, Gibbon is great. It's multiple volumes, and extremely long, so it can make sense to read one book in the volume, put it down to read something else, then come back to Gibbon again a bit later. I've done this multiple times. Just set it down again a week ago to go through a few other (much shorter) books.



Lubbock's List is a great metric:

Sir John Lubbock. Choice of Books (1896)

If it's on there, it's worth reading.

I discussed why and some of my other book recommendations in my 2018 book review:

Recommended Reading 2018: Lubbock's List and More

A collection of books across many genres Chase recommends. History, business, biography, psychology, spirituality, self-defense… there’s much to read. I wrote a post in 2012 about books I’d read and would recommend to readers. It’s been six years since then, and I’ve had numerous folks over the...

www.girlschase.com

For me the criteria at this point is basically:

• Any kind of 'analysis' of history, economics, politics, sociology, etc. written in the last 25-50 years is almost totally out
  
  
• Recently written books on niche topics that don't have authoritative older books written on them (e.g., Tainter's book on system collapse, or the book on survival I finished recently called Deep Survival, or Paul Wade's calisthenics book Convict Conditioning, etc.) I will read
  
  
• If it's not on Lubbock's List, I skim reviews for the book, and look at a.) who is recommending it, b.) why that person is recommending it, and c.) any agenda that might be present in the individual recommending it. Gradually you realize not all critics are equal; critics with political agendas will recommend books that are poorly supported rants if they seem to lend support to their positions
  
  
• I pay attention to whether a book is recommended as 'upending' or 'undoing' or 'subverting' the prior views on something, and if so it is almost totally off my reading list. Basically, "Is this book written as a work critical of other well-known, time-tested works?" If no, maybe I'll read. If yes, I won't read. I read a lot of these books when younger, because of how they're marketed ("The new authoritative tome that tells you everything you need to know and saves you from having to read a bunch of dry old dusty irrelevant books people used to think were right but are actually totally wrong!") and often found them at first convincing, but then the more distance I had from the book the more doubts about its pedagogy I'd have and the less convinced I'd feel. Then as I learned more about a subject and understood the cherry-picked examples and specious logic these authors almost always rely on, I figured out why (i.e., these books are almost exclusively cleverly-written garbage by someone sufficiently skilled in rhetoric who is seeking to advance his status by undermining past respected figures/works)
  
  
• On that last note, one other point: I generally find that ancient people were no less intelligent, experienced in life, or wise than modern people, and the average surviving classical work is written by someone of higher awareness/wisdom than almost any average person (modern and ancient alike) and certainly almost any modern writer. If you're going to write something, it should be able to build upon and work with what's come before. The trend of 'tearing down' things is useful for book marketing, and it's useful for pushing political agendas, but it is not useful from the perspective of expanding knowledge and figuring out how what you know and have figured out builds upon and fits in with what those who came before you knew and figured out
  
  
• For non-fiction, I look for books that will fill gaps in my knowledge or understanding of things. I engage in debates about all sorts of things with friends who are also well read, so it's fairly necessary for me to have as accurate a grasp of things as possible. Otherwise there's a risk I assume things and someone who's better read on a particular subject than I am calls me out on it. If I'm well read, I don't need to assume anything, I can just reference specific examples and paint the picture I want to paint. But you have to find the most accurate stuff to read if you want to be able to do that. Reading some slanted perspective on something or one with an agenda will just end you up getting torn up by a good debater with a better grasp of facts. So I will go looking for the most authoritative source on something I can find, and will talk to people or read reviews to figure out which book that is
  
  
• I'll also get book recommendations from friends. It's good to have a few smart friends who like to read. These can be hit-or-miss; I'll love some of the books my friends recommend, and others I'll not find up my alley. The good news is if you realize a book isn't for you, there's nothing there that says you have to keep reading it
  
  
• Finally, I will also talk to people who are experts at something, or who clearly know more about the thing than anyone else I know, and ask them, "What book would you recommend to me as THE best book in your field to read?" Then I will pass that book through my same usual filters (not every expert you talk to is without an agenda... so it's still good to check). This has been a good source of books for me I likely wouldn't have encountered otherwise

Anyway, that's me, and how I choose what goes on my reading list!

Chase

Thanks so much for going into so much detail! I appreciate it

 

[Teevster]

Meanwhile, other Greeks, such as Plato, celebrated women's emancipation. Plato, who lived in the 5th Century BC, argued women possessed "natural capacities" to govern and defend equal to men's and could be equally good as national leaders.

He wrote about this in Politea (The Republic). But again, the political ideals in this book are just cringe, if not sometimes outright scary. I tend to be careful taking anything Plato says about politics seriously. In fact in the study field of political philosophy, Plato is generally excluded other than that introductory course on "Plato and The Republic".

 

[Chase]

But again, the political ideals in this book are just cringe, if not sometimes outright scary. I tend to be careful taking anything Plato says about politics seriously.

This is a pattern I have noticed in studying generations of philosophers:

1. The first guy in a string of known/remembered philosophers/teachers, e.g., Socrates, Jesus, Buddha, Confucius, basically the founder of a school of thought, has the clearest/purest vision, and generally speaking is remembered for a reason (i.e., the clarity and accuracy of his thought)
   
   
2. The next guy in line, e.g., Plato, Paul, Mencius, etc., improves in a few ways, but also does a lot of heavy misinterpretation and swings to the extremes in a lot of ways the founder would likely take issue with. Typically this guy is popular because he appeals to a different demographic than the founder does... one who the founder doesn't directly appeal to, but the founder's message filtered through this guy does
   
   
3. Subsequent generations of philosophers can sometimes be still good, but are often introducing a bunch of their own different ideas (e.g., Aristotle)

You know philosophy better than I do, @Teevster, so maybe you'd take issue with this progression; unsure.

At least among those I've studied, though, this seems to be the trend.

Chase

 

[Teevster]

The first guy in a string of known/remembered philosophers/teachers, e.g., Socrates, Jesus, Buddha, Confucius, basically the founder of a school of thought, has the clearest/purest vision, and generally speaking is remembered for a reason (i.e., the clarity and accuracy of his thought)

I have not studied eastern philosophy. However Socrates was not a visionary in the strong sense. Aristotle was however. The reason Socrates became very famous was because he was sentenced to death for stupid reasons, and because Plato did a GREAT JOB in taking good notes of Socrates' lectures. However, Plato's most famous text and influential test The Republic is not based on Socrates words but his own (Socrates is still the main character in the text, but instead of expressing Socrates' ideas, he is expressing Plato's, and for this reason you can tell the writing is different to earlier Plato texts).

The next guy in line, e.g., Plato, Paul, Mencius, etc., improves in a few ways, but also does a lot of heavy misinterpretation and swings to the extremes in a lot of ways the founder would likely take issue with. Typically this guy is popular because he appeals to a different demographic than the founder does... one who the founder doesn't directly appeal to, but the founder's message filtered through this guy does

Again, regarding Plato, this is incorrect. Plato was more influential than Socrates (over the long term) and Aristotle is more influential today than say Plato. We see similar pattern with the Stoic thinkers. The creators are mostly forgotten. The most famous Stoics were Epictetus (a total badass, guy didn't even react when his leg was broken) and Marcus Aurelius (which I know you your reservations against). Epictetus is not the founder, but came before Marcus Aurelius, but Marcus Aurelius is more famous (probably because he was an emperor).

But this pattern does not apply to other schools. For instance, the Hedonists, where Epicurus is the known founder is still the most famous today. Same with the Pythagoreans.

In Modern thinking, Thomas Hobbes is known as the father of Modern Philosophy. But he wasn't the first. Machiavelli was. So maybe Hobbes was the founder of contractualism? Well Hugo Grotius... happened. Did Jeremy Bentham invent utilitarianism? Maybe as a school of though (Although David Hume had some utiliarian aspects to his moral thinking), but it is for sure John Stuart Mill who was the most influential. His theory is way more elaborated and honestly much better.

Subsequent generations of philosophers can sometimes be still good, but are often introducing a bunch of their own different ideas (e.g., Aristotle)

They are oftentimes better. John Stuart Mill better than Jeremy Bentham (moral theory of Utilitarianism), Karl Marx way better than Thomas More (LOL), Thomas Hobbes was better than Hugo Grotius. And so on.

But they are also oftentimes worse. Like John Rawls' philosophy is a crappy version of Kantianism (many disagree though), Karl Marx a pollution of Hegel's thoughts.

Sorry buddy but your theory is off.

Best,
Teevster

Edit: Aristotles' ideas are NOT a continuation of Platos'. They are two totally different schools of though.

 

[Chase]

Duly noted. In that case, I appreciate the correction, @Teevster!

These are all great data points.

Looks like there's no correlation between where in the 'chain of thinkers' someone lies then.

Sometimes the founder is better known / more influential / the better thinker, sometimes it's a disciple. Sometimes the disciple of a disciple.

If you want to know philosophy, ask a guy who's made it his life's work!

-C