Jump to content

The Most Influential Works Ever Written

Guest

By Guest
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
59 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I have absolutely no memory of that discussion.  I mean, my conclusions were right (unlike Ryan's conclusions about Halsey, who did act foolishly).  But it's still funny to have someone recount an opinion I wrote and having absolutely no recollection of having written that opinion.

It's odd what the mind latches on to.  Sometimes I will read an old thread and when I come across my posts it can feel like I'm reading someones else's writing.  But if someone else makes a point I find interesting, the concept tends to burn into my brain and when I think of the conversation I will remember the post (the concept communicated, at least) and the poster who made it.  I looked up the old thread and here is a copy and paste of the exchange.

Clear Lake Horn wrote:

Shouldn't Mein Kampf be on the list?

I responded with:

I don't know the history behind the document well enough. Did Mein Kampf influence the Germans to the point that greatly aided or enabled Hitler’s rise to power, or would he have risen to power regardless through purely political means, and Mein Kampf just happened to be his manifesto that become highly significant after his rise?

And you responded:

The latter. The book only sold 250,000 copies before Hitler became reichskanzler (it ultimately sold 10,000,000 copies before Hitler's death).

Beyond it's limited distribution prior to Hitler's accession to power, I think it's fair to say that many of those who bought it didn't actually read it. During Hitler's imprisonment and his subsequent leadership in the Nazi Party, it was incumbent on all Nazis to buy the book as a means of financially supporting Hitler. But it was always something of a joke that nobody ever actually read the damned thing.

Since the end of the war, it has no influence at all. It's a mere curiosity, at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
On 6/6/2018 at 11:06 PM, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Good stuff, though I'm curious as to how/what Don Quixote influenced. Fabulist literature? Unreliable narrator's? I'm genuinely curious because I didn't get much out of it, though it probably whooshed above my head.

When we say influential, I think of influencing massive changes in action/behavior or changing the way people think. In that sense, you could add the abolitionist literature like Uncle Tom's Cabin and I think satire is woefully underrepresented in it's power to socially move (Antiquity/Plays-causing-exile-making-fun-of-royalty/Voltaire/A Modest Proposal). Things like Common Sense that became, whether fair or not, associated with the catalyst for revolution.

 

I included this one due to the inputs from others.  Personally, I don't know much about the history of literature, but from what I've read Don Quixote was the prototype for the European novel.  It employed several innovations which influenced and shaped, either directly or indirectly, virtually all novels that came after.  I'd like to hear the input from others who know more about this subject.  

http://www.signature-reads.com/2016/02/cervantess-unparalleled-influence-the-man-who-invented-fiction/

 

On 6/7/2018 at 12:29 AM, Buffsoldier said:

Magna Carta? 

Good nomination.  I only have a basic understanding of it.  Someone build a case for why it should (or should not, if you disagree) be included.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gaspar

gaspar 102

Posted
Posted

Montesquieu - wrote The Spirit of the Laws which outlined separation of powers between the 3 branches of government and heavily influenced our Constitution.

Jefferson - Declaration of Independence which set out basic human rights.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
bernorange

bernorange 8362

Posted
Posted
On 6/7/2018 at 10:59 AM, bernorange said:

Didn't see Machiavelli's The Prince mentioned. ...

* bump *

Was browsing around the internet today and ran across a reference to this speech from Ron Paul published in 2013:

Quote

...

There is now a recognized philosophic connection between modern-day neoconservatives and Irving Kristol, Leo Strauss and Machiavelli. This is important in understanding that today's policies and the subsequent problems will be with us for years to come if these policies are not reversed.

Not only did Leo Strauss write favorably of Machiavelli, Michael Ledeen, a current leader of the neoconservative movement, did the same. In 1999, Ledeen titled his book, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, and subtitled: “Why Machiavelli's iron rules are as timely and important today as five centuries ago.” Ledeen is indeed an influential neocon theorist whose views get lots of attention today in Washington. His book on Machiavelli, interestingly enough, was passed out to Members of Congress attending a political strategy meeting shortly after its publication and at just about the time A Clean Break was issued.

In Ledeen's most recent publication, The War Against the Terror Masters, he reiterates his beliefs outlined in this 1999 Machiavelli book. He specifically praises: “Creative destruction…both within our own society and abroad…(foreigners) seeing America undo traditional societies may fear us, for they do not wish to be undone.” Amazingly, Ledeen concludes: “They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.”

If those words don't scare you, nothing will. If they are not a clear warning, I don't know what could be. It sounds like both sides of each disagreement in the world will be following the principle of preemptive war. The world is certainly a less safe place for it.

In Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, Ledeen praises a business leader for correctly understanding Machiavelli: “There are no absolute solutions. It all depends. What is right and what is wrong depends on what needs to be done and how.” This is a clear endorsement of situation ethics and is not coming from the traditional left. It reminds me of: “It depends on what the definition of the word ‘is' is.”


Ledeen quotes Machiavelli approvingly on what makes a great leader. “A prince must have no other objectives or other thoughts or take anything for his craft, except war.” To Ledeen, this meant: “…the virtue of the warrior are those of great leaders of any successful organization.” Yet it's obvious that war is not coincidental to neocon philosophy, but an integral part. The intellectuals justify it, and the politicians carry it out. There's a precise reason to argue for war over peace according to Ledeen, for “…peace increases our peril by making discipline less urgent, encouraging some of our worst instincts, in depriving us of some of our best leaders.” Peace, he claims, is a dream and not even a pleasant one, for it would cause indolence and would undermine the power of the state. Although I concede the history of the world is a history of frequent war, to capitulate and give up even striving for peace – believing peace is not a benefit to mankind – is a frightening thought that condemns the world to perpetual war and justifies it as a benefit and necessity. These are dangerous ideas, from which no good can come.

The conflict of the ages has been between the state and the individual: central power versus liberty. The more restrained the state and the more emphasis on individual liberty, the greater has been the advancement of civilization and general prosperity. Just as man's condition was not locked in place by the times and wars of old and improved with liberty and free markets, there's no reason to believe a new stage for man might not be achieved by believing and working for conditions of peace. The inevitability and so-called need for preemptive war should never be intellectually justified as being a benefit. Such an attitude guarantees the backsliding of civilization. Neocons, unfortunately, claim that war is in man's nature and that we can't do much about it, so let's use it to our advantage by promoting our goodness around the world through force of arms. That view is anathema to the cause of liberty and the preservation of the Constitution. If it is not loudly refuted, our future will be dire indeed.

Ledeen believes man is basically evil and cannot be left to his own desires. Therefore, he must have proper and strong leadership, just as Machiavelli argued. Only then can man achieve good, as Ledeen explains: “In order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the leader may have to ‘enter into evil.' This is the chilling insight that has made Machiavelli so feared, admired and challenging…we are rotten,” argues Ledeen. “It's true that we can achieve greatness if, and only if, we are properly led.” In other words, man is so depraved that individuals are incapable of moral, ethical and spiritual greatness, and achieving excellence and virtue can only come from a powerful authoritarian leader. What depraved ideas are these to now be influencing our leaders in Washington? The question Ledeen doesn't answer is: “Why do the political leaders not suffer from the same shortcomings and where do they obtain their monopoly on wisdom?”

Once this trust is placed in the hands of a powerful leader, this neocon argues that certain tools are permissible to use. For instance: “lying is central to the survival of nations and to the success of great enterprises, because if our enemies can count on the reliability of everything you say, your vulnerability is enormously increased.” What about the effects of lying on one's own people? Who cares if a leader can fool the enemy? Does calling it “strategic deception” make lying morally justifiable? Ledeen and Machiavelli argue that it does, as long as the survivability of the state is at stake. Preserving the state is their goal, even if the personal liberty of all individuals has to be suspended or canceled.

Ledeen makes it clear that war is necessary to establish national boundaries – because that's the way it's always been done. Who needs progress of the human race! He explains: “Look at the map of the world: national boundaries have not been drawn by peaceful men leading lives of spiritual contemplation. National boundaries have been established by war, and national character has been shaped by struggle, most often bloody struggle.”

Yes, but who is to lead the charge and decide which borders we are to fight for? What about borders 6,000 miles away unrelated to our own contiguous borders and our own national security? Stating a relative truism regarding the frequency of war throughout history should hardly be the moral justification for expanding the concept of war to settle man's disputes. How can one call this progress?
...

More:  https://www.lewrockwell.com/2003/07/ron-paul/weve-been-neoconned/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Uncle Nate

Uncle Nate 2097

Posted
Posted

Saw the movie "Goodbye Christopher Robin" last night.

After seeing that, I have to put Winnie-the-Pooh up there on the list now (seriously).  I had no idea what kind of worldwide impact it had at the time, and the positive effect it had on WWII soldiers who would sing its song to provide them comfort of home and their childhood while enduring the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
On 6/8/2018 at 9:45 AM, bernorange said:

Well, for one, America would not exist as it does without it.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Magna-Carta

I did some reading on the magna carta.  It seems that the later constructed myth of the magna carta and its iconic status was far more influential than the document itself and what it directly accomplished.  That opens the question of should the influence of a document include myths about it and ideas that later generations believe it represents even if those ideas are not contained in the document itself.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, bernorange said:

* bump *

Was browsing around the internet today and ran across a reference to this speech from Ron Paul published in 2013:

More:  https://www.lewrockwell.com/2003/07/ron-paul/weve-been-neoconned/

Psychopaths and sociopaths believe that Machiavelli was right. It’s because of who they are, to their very core. They are wrong of course and it eventually leads to the destruction of society, but they cannot and will not see it. 

Unfortunately we seem to have too many of them running the US government nowadays. 

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, Trey3216 said:

Candide is a great add to this list 

I'm conflicted on Candide.  On the one hand, it is very funny:

Example 1:  Instantly they fettered him, and carried him away to the regiment. There he was made to wheel about to the right, and to the left, to draw his rammer, to return his rammer, to present, to fire, to march, and they gave him thirty blows with a cudgel. The next day he did his exercise a little less badly, and he received but twenty blows. The day following they gave him only ten, and he was regarded by his comrades as a prodigy. Candide, all stupefied, could not yet very well realise how he was a hero. He resolved one fine day in spring to go for a walk, marching straight before him, believing that it was a privilege of the human as well as of the animal species to make use of their legs as they pleased. He had advanced two leagues when he was overtaken by four others, heroes of six feet, who bound him and carried him to a dungeon. He was asked which he would like the best, to be whipped six-and-thirty times through all the regiment, or to receive at once twelve balls of lead in his brain. He vainly said that human will is free, and that he chose neither the one nor the other. He was forced to make a choice; he determined, in virtue of that gift of God called liberty, to run the gauntlet six-and-thirty times.

Example 2:  There was never anything so gallant, so spruce, so brilliant, and so well disposed as the two armies. Trumpets, fifes, hautboys, drums, and cannon made music such as Hell itself had never heard. The cannons first of all laid flat about six thousand men on each side; the muskets swept away from this best of worlds nine or ten thousand ruffians who infested its surface. The bayonet was also a sufficient reason for the death of several thousands. The whole might amount to thirty thousand souls. Candide, who trembled like a philosopher, hid himself as well as he could during this heroic butchery.  At length, while the two kings were causing Te Deum to be sung each in his own camp, Candide resolved to go and reason elsewhere on effects and causes.

Example 3:  on learning that Pangloss had contracted syphilis from the new world, Candide asks "Is not the Devil the original stock of it?"  "Not at all," replied this great man, "it was a thing unavoidable, a necessary ingredient in the best of worlds; for if Columbus had not in an island of America caught this disease, which contaminates the source of life, frequently even hinders generation, and which is evidently opposed to the great end of nature, we should have neither chocolate nor cochineal."

 

But on the other hand, the whole thing is blatant mockery of Leibniz, who is my favorite philosopher.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105183

Posted
Posted
I did some reading on the magna carta.  It seems that the later constructed myth of the magna carta and its iconic status was far more influential than the document itself and what it directly accomplished.  That opens the question of should the influence of a document include myths about it and ideas that later generations believe it represents even if those ideas are not contained in the document itself.  

Yes, its influence is overrated in that it is often misstated and characterized as being a linear predecessor of the constitution. It’s not that simple, the analogy and precedent is much more subtle (at its core, it was s declaration and acknowledgment that subjects (albeit noblemen) had rights independent of the sovereign (and it enshrined the right to a jury trial)). Keep reading on it, and get to Cooke’s Declaration of right, and see what else flowed from it.

 

I went and saw the exhibition at the British Library for the 800th anniversary...it was fucking cool. Not just a copy of the MC, but Jefferson’s handwritten draft of the Declaration of Independence, Cooke’s Declaration of Right, and a treasure trove of other documents that had me geeked out.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
phdhorn

phdhorn 6224

Posted
Posted
On 6/6/2018 at 11:06 PM, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Things like Common Sense that became, whether fair or not, associated with the catalyst for revolution.

 

I'm not sure why you say the bolded.  Paine wanted a serious, organized intellectual discussion of the reasons to go to war with England.  He wrote it, not of course knowing where it would lead eventually, but certainly to fire up the elites especially.  Paine wanted to persuade the American intelligentsia to  have the reasons and impetus to rebel and form their own country, if need be.  If anything, Common Sense exceeded even his immense expectations.

What Paine nor anyone at the time didn't know was how much it would affect the non-elites; that is, the everyday colonist.  However, even in that, Paine wasn't necessarily surprised because he brilliantly wrote it in the couching of everyday thought and culture, especially in bringing the religious analogies into it.  In fact, this was probably the single most influential part of the work; New England elites, the leading proponents of rebellion, usually groused that the general population, highly religious and seeing the ages old hierarchy of society as a reflection of God's intended order, were naturally loathe to upset that order, no matter how oppressive England was; the King was still God's appointee and thereby His representative.  Only when Paine explained in religious terms that "God" might actually be more doing the work of "Satan", did the populace turn.  And man, how they turned.  Even after he had almost singlehandedly sparked an unexpected fervor in direct response to his pamphlet, he essentially went on a six-month "let's do Independence" tour, reading on and commenting about his work, and orating about the moral righteousness of independence.  He was no accident.  He was probably the leading and most effective advocate of American independence of the entire 30-year episode.

To say that Common Sense was a phenomenon grossly underestimates its impact.  Nothing like it in the history of humanity was like it as far as its permeation of the population.  It was read in taverns to the illiterate, our out loud in public squares, in private meetings, everywhere.  It remains to this day, the book with the highest circulation percentage per population size in American history.  And besides the Bible, it's the longest continuously-printed work in American history; it's never been out of print.  It's also the most published American title in history, a record which will either never fall, or which will take a long, long time to do so.

I put Common Sense as probably the #3 most influential document of all time, to the Bible and to the Koran.  Yes that's arguable, but the history of the entire world changed dramatically after this document, including the influence upon other documents. It also was widely read in France, and in some ways set that population up for their own revolution; plus it provided the context for his other big revolutionary work, The Rights Of Man, this time aimed specifically at France and in answer to Burke's defense of the French Royalty.  And that work was of course instrumental in moving the French population towards their own independence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...