
The Republic is a Socratic dialogue, written by Plato around 380 BC, concerning the definition of justice and the order and character of the just city-state and the just man. The dramatic date of the dialogue has been much debated and though it must take place some time during the Peloponnesian War, "there would be jarring anachronisms if any of the candidate specific dates between 432 and 404 were assigned". It is Plato's best-known work and has proven to be one of the most intellectually and historically influential works of philosophy and political theory. In it, Socrates along with various Athenians and foreigners discuss the meaning of justice and examine whether or not the just man is happier than the unjust man by considering a series of different cities coming into existence "in speech", culminating in a city (Kallipolis) ruled by philosopher-kings; and by examining the nature of existing regimes. The participants also discuss the theory of forms, the immortality of the soul, and the roles of the philosopher and of poetry in society.
Then there's the UK - I'm not even sure of who their latest leader is. They go through PM's faster than some people change their underwear, and they all rather smell like shite. In democracy the whole ideal is that you can pick another direction with new leadership, but when it's always the same crap with a difference face - you're eventually going to see things go boom. In the US we tend to have popular leadership, relative to Europe, but the sides are becoming so antagonistic and divided that we're basically a powder keg waiting for some sufficiently tumultuous event to set it off.
In general I think Plato's views are highly insightful, and strongly recommend "The Republic." In his view, systems are inherently cyclical, and all will repeatedly end - often in a rather unpleasant way, and transition to another system, eventually cycling back where they began only to begin the process again. This class warfare nonsense is meaningless to me. I couldn't care less about being a lord or a peasant. I want to raise my family, have a roof over my head, and frankly I don't need all that much more to be relatively content. People who want will never stop wanting, no matter how much they have. I find it a very sad way to live, and hopefully can instill the same values in my children.
* The Inner Citadel/Philosophy as a Way of Life by Pierre Hadot
* Plato's dialogues (someone already mentioned a few of them, but the Republic was missing from their list).
* Epictetus (Discourses and Enchiridion)
* The various essays/letters of Seneca
* Matter and Consciousness by Churchland (older, but fascinating)
* The Mediations of Marcus Aurelius
* (mostly) any Buddhist texts
* What a Plant Knows
* Moonwalking with Einstein
There are tons of fascinating books, way too many to list.
Or perhaps Aristotle’s Poetics - pop culture has value because it is mimetic, and AI generated pop culture is no less a mirror, just one which produces reflections of every moment, all the time - but rather than the grand catharsis we might experience in a work of literature with well wrought characters with whom we empathise, we find the void staring into us as we do into it. Hollow art for hollow men.
Like it or not, the void is culture, and has value because it reflects us, albeit through a glass, darkly.
The Heart of the Buddhas Teaching - Thich Nhat Hanh, useful prayers, concepts for understanding and dealing with life and a moral compass for going through it.
The Way of Zen - Alan Watts, opened my eyes to different forms of religious experience
Also a lot of psychology and philosophy books in undergrad were foundational to my thinking. The Moral Animal, the Moral Landscape, The Blank Slate, The Republic and Plato’s writings on Socrates, Tao te Ching, Meditations by Marcus Aurelius, the Tanakh and parts of the Talmud, but many of these were more academic, still holistically they have shaped my thinking and moral compass.
Reading Plato and other great philosophers is interesting (The Republic in particular is an amazing read) because they can often sound like prophets - predicting the future with such extreme accuracy at a time that ostensibly had basically nothing in common with ours. But I think their 'secret' is simply that they were great objective observers of the behavior of humanity. Because history is not especially creative, it keeps repeating itself endlessly, because humanity doesn't change except as a product of technology changing.
Stranger in a Strange Land (Heinlein)
Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption (one story in the book "Different Seasons" by Stephen King)
Of Mice and Men (Steinbeck)
The Martian Chronicles (Bradbury)
Roadside Picnic (Strugatsky)
Frankenstein (Shelley)
Brave New World (Huxley)
Farenheit 451 (Heinlein)
Never Cry Wolf (Mowatt)
A Whale for the Killing (Mowatt)
The Machine Stops (Forster)
Heart of Darkness (Conrad)
Starship Troopers (Heinlein)
The Jungle Book (Kipling)
Lost in the Barrens (Mowatt)
The Republic (Plato)
Rendezvous with Rama (Clarke)
Ringworld (Niven)
The Stainless Steel Rat (Harrison)
The Hobbit (Tolkien)
Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (Stevenson)
The Odyssey (Homer)
The Man who Would be King (Kipling)
The Pearl (Steinbeck)
Thus Spake Zarathustra (Nietzsche)
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (Dick)
A Scanner Darkly (Dick)
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (Adams)
Dracula (Stoker)
To Kill a Mockingbird (Lee)
The Count of Monte Cristo (Dumas)
Romeo and Juliet (Shakespeare)
The Wind in the Willows (Grahame)
A Christmas Carol (Dickens)
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking-Glass (Carroll)
Watership Down (Adams)
Gulliver's Travels (Swift)
Animal Farm (Orwell)