[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Teledin wrote:
Looking on putting in an order to Amazon very soon as I’ve nearly churned through my last order of reading material which will be completed within the next couple weeks.
Looking for any excellent reads on topics such as; economics, politics, self actualisation, etc. The below short lists should provide you with an idea of the kinds of things I’m interested in.
In short really anything that is non-fiction, a great read, and applicable to everyday life.
Last batch ordered included:
- The Art of War by Samuel B. Griffith
- What Would Machiavelli Do? by Stanley Bing
- Supertraining by Mel Siff
- Practical Programming for Strength by Mark Rippetoe
- 5/3/1 by Jim Wendler
- Thick Face, Black Heart by Chin-Ning Chu
- Never Let Go by Dan John
- Think and Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill
- The Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo
- Live Life Aggressively by Mike Mahler
In my next batch I have currently included the following to be order:
- Mein Kampf
- The Asian Mind Game by Chin-Ning Chu[/quote]
Well, what you seem to want is “36 stratagems”.
I would warn you though, unlike other books you mentioned, na, not quite true but still, anyway, to get to the point, with this one you need to put in the work.
Meaning, active participation is nice reading any book, but if you do not bother, dont bother with this one.
Also, if you do not reread the “Art of War” every three years or so, whats the point anyway.
Also, Hagakure … and Machiavellis contribution to the history of ideas is misunderstood IMO and I would not trust anyone who thinks name dropping Machiavelli is a selling point.
Not because Machiavelli was not right, somewhat, but because he was a bloody amateur compared to Asian authors because the idea that he sought to overcome was never in their heads. They immediately cut to the bone, whereas he is all giddy that he dares to question a catholic morality.
[/quote]
Have you ever even read the Fucking Prince, or did you just peruse Book 24 back in high school? It’s not really about challenging Catholic morality specifically. It’s about sovereignty and what it is that makes a “prince” a prince. It’s about the nature of authority, namely that its defined by who has it and who can maintain it. As far as Catholic morality goes, it really only challenges it in that Machiavelli demonstrates that it is huan action, decision-making and so forth that had given the Church its power, NOT a higher authority in God. Like other princes before him, from Alexander to Cesare Borgia, the Pope maintains power through action (or “Machiavellianism”, for lack of a better term) and not through some divine aspect of authority.
Also, for Machiavelli to say anything at all that condemns the Catholic Church or religion in general was a pretty ballsy thing for anyone in Renaissance Italy to do. Where Asian authors opt for directness, Machiavelli uses history to show that there is a certain pattern to things and that humans can think and make decisions that can change the outcome of history. Humans can come to conclusions on their own, independent of religious doctrine, about the sciences. Don’t forget the context in which the Prince was written. Scientific thought, whether it be political science or natural science, was increasingly being seen as capable of providing answers that “God” or religion did not answer. Nietzsche’s “god is dead” philosophy is a natural extension of this. All Machiavelli is doing is using history as a science to demonstrate how to achieve sovereignty.
On top of all of this, most people never consider the possibility that The Prince was a satirical work written so as to be taken seriously by the Medicis while not also giving the impression to his republican friends that Nicolo had sold out his democratic ideals. When that possibility is taken into account, the entire book can take on a new meaning. There is a growing attitude amongst academics that this is the vein in which The Prince was written.