100 Essential Books for the Discerning Mind

So, I was watching a movie several evenings ago and the main character was reading the last of a list of 100 books that everyone should read and it inspired me to find a similar list of books to read. I was somewhat surprised to find out how many such lists exist and so I enlisted the help of Chat GPT to help me weed through them and find a list that was best suited to me. The result was very surprising.

At first I simply asked GPT to think through what sort of person I am, based on our several past conversations, so as to set the stage for finding this list and then I just asked it to recommend some lists that others have put together. The lists it recommended would have probably been just fine, at least mostly, but I pointed out that most of what passes for Christian thought is corny at best and downright irrational stupidity at worst and I wanted to avoid the intellectual vapidity that tends to run through a lot of overtly Christian books. In the end, I decided that it would be a good idea to have GPT itself curate a list of books that I would likely find engaging. I also wanted for GPT to put the list into a logical order based on the subject matter rather than giving it to me in alphabetical order or something like that.

When I asked for the list, I expected that it would just more or less instantly spit out of list of books but that isn't what happened. My conversation with GPT started on March 2nd, 2025. It took GPT until this morning, March 7th, 2025, to complete the list and it insists that it did spend that time figuring out, not only the books to include but in what order the books should be presented. It estimates that it spent...

Incidentally, those criteria where as follows....

• No Immoral Content – Avoids books that promote or normalize sexual perversion.
• Edifying & Worldview-Aligned – Strengthens, substantiates, and reinforces my worldview.
• Intellectually Serious – No shallow, corny, or vapid works, especially in overtly Christian literature.
• Engaging & Well-Written – Books should be interesting and compelling, not just "important".
• Historically Significant Theology Only – Theology should be included only if it has historical importance.
• Logical Organization – The list should be arranged in a reasoned, structured order.
• Essential Canon – Should include groundbreaking or foundational works.

Alright so, here's the list. Enjoy!

Foundations of Reason & Philosophy

1. The Abolition of Man – C.S. Lewis
2. Miracles – C.S. Lewis
3. Atlas Shrugged – Ayn Rand
4. The Virtue of Selfishness – Ayn Rand
5. Orthodoxy – G.K. Chesterton
6. The Everlasting Man – G.K. Chesterton
7. The Lessons of History – Will & Ariel Durant
8. The Closing of the American Mind – Allan Bloom
9. Ideas Have Consequences – Richard Weaver
10. The Road to Serfdom – F.A. Hayek

History, Politics, & Human Nature


Classic Literature with Philosophical Depth


Science, Rationality, and Human Progress


Western Civilization & Christian Influence


Liberty, Economics, and Modern Challenges


Military History & Strategic Thinking


Psychology, Culture, and Society


Additional Essential Literature

@Clete passed -> past

Many of these I do not know. Many I do without having read them. CS Lewis clips are all over Youtube, which I think is good. His logic in what I have seen is sound. And I haven't seen it all or read it.

There's a whole lot of right-wing malarkey on that list.

You did OK with the classic literature, though.

PureX said:

There's a whole lot of right-wing malarkey on that list.

You did OK with the classic literature, though.

Click to expand...

What would you recommend for left-wing counterbalance?

Idolater said:

What would you recommend for left-wing counterbalance?

Click to expand...

Suicide.

If one is wanting to kill the mind, what good does the body do them?

PureX said:

There's a whole lot of right-wing malarkey on that list.

Click to expand...

As if you've read any of it to know.

PureX said:

You did OK with the classic literature, though.

Click to expand...

Your first sentence negates the validity of the second.

Nick M said:

Many of these I do not know. Many I do without having read them. CS Lewis clips are all over Youtube, which I think is good. His logic in what I have seen is sound. And I haven't seen it all or read it.

Click to expand...

The only books of Lewis' I've read are the Chronicles of Narnia and Mere Christianity. Brilliant stuff, to say the least!

I'm two thirds of the way through "The Abolition of Man" and would definitely say that it does not have the same feel as either the Narnia books or Mere Christianity, both of which are aimed at the lay person. This book is very much more academic and intellectually rigorous and it is written on a much higher reading level (i.e. surely college level). His sentence structure is also very British in style (i.e. sort of wordy and clever). All of which, when combined, is often causing me to have to slow way down and read things very carefully in order to keep my mind from jumping the tracks and loosing the point that's being made.

So far, as I said, I'm only two thirds of the way through it and I can already say that anyone who reads "The Abolition of Man" and still believes that there is no such thing as objective standards for truth and for right and wrong is just a person that is being intellectually recalcitrant and intentionally obtuse. An honest liberal (oxymoron?) cannot survive it.

Clete

I've posted a summary of the first book here.....

The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis​

Interesting list. Wonder how mine would be different? I have read 18 on that list. I think I will look for Penrose—The Road to Reality

Avajs said:

Interesting list. Wonder how mine would be different? I have read 18 on that list. I think I will look for Penrose—The Road to Reality

Click to expand...

You've got me beat! I haven't read but a half dozen or so of them.

Clete said:

Suicide.

If one is wanting to kill the mind, what good does the body do them?

Click to expand...

Thomas Sowell has five books on that list—how accurate is that? That seems slanted. You mean to tell me that if I want a solid education from just reading 100 books, that I need to devote 5 percent of that to Thomas Sowell? How? In what way can I not glean from just one or two of his works whatever he has to say? And isn't there some other thinkers who preceded him and who expounded his theory clearer than he does? Why is he supposed to be such a pioneer?

And similarly for Jordan Peterson, what are there like three Jordan Peterson books? You're telling me between Jordan Peterson and Thomas Sowell alone, that fully eight percent of my education should be sitting at the feet of those guys? Why?

Now I would say why are there two from St. Augustine? Isn't that rather Romanist? Because there's also St. Thomas Aquinas on the list? Why so much Papist influence here?

So I'm asking because this list appears heavily slanted and biased. I'm asking, what would help to balance out the list. I think it's a useful question.

Now, regarding what the answer might be, I know that I'm thinking, "There are no good Leftist primary sources because they're all incoherent," which is only corroborated by (but not proven by) all the failed putative attempts to enact socialism /communism. And the only times it does not fail is because, "Yeah that's not really communism or socialism (in the literature these are synonyms, as opposed to in common parlance where there is a difference between communism and socialism)." There's actual private property, the means of production are owned by civilians not the state, the only thing we try to show is that the state has more power over the private property owners in these countries than in America—but that's not even 100 percent sure in every last case. These are the "communist" countries that are not a failed state and failed economy. Every true communist situation collapsed society both morally and economically.

Clete said:

You've got me beat! I haven't read but a half dozen or so of them.

Click to expand...

I only have read 15, loosely familiar through e.g. introductory textbooks with maybe half of them though.

Idolater said:

Thomas Sowell has five books on that list—how accurate is that? That seems slanted. You mean to tell me that if I want a solid education from just reading 100 books, that I need to devote 5 percent of that to Thomas Sowell? How? In what way can I not glean from just one or two of his works whatever he has to say? And isn't there some other thinkers who preceded him and who expounded his theory clearer than he does? Why is he supposed to be such a pioneer?

Click to expand...

I'd say that it’s a valid point to ask whether one or two of his books could suffice. I have not yet read any of Sowell's books and so can't respond directly. I did, however, ask Chat GPT to respond to your criticism...

To directly address the critique:

1. Why five books? Sowell has written extensively on topics that are central to understanding economics, society, and political philosophy. Each of the books included serves a distinct purpose:

• Basic Economics (broad economic literacy)
• Intellectuals and Society (how intellectuals influence public policy)
• A Conflict of Visions (exploring fundamental ideological divides)
• Black Rednecks and White Liberals (historical and cultural analysis)
• The Vision of the Anointed (how elites shape policy narratives)

1. Are there thinkers who preceded him and said it better? Sowell draws from a tradition of economic and social thought that includes Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and others. If the critique is that Sowell isn't an original thinker but rather a synthesizer, that’s true in some respects—but he presents these ideas in a particularly accessible and insightful way. Someone like Hayek (The Road to Serfdom) or Bastiat (The Law) could replace some of his works if the goal is to read more foundational sources.
2. Does a "solid education" require five of his books? Not necessarily. A well-rounded education could include just one or two of his books while making room for other perspectives. The list wasn't meant to be the only way to get an education, just a carefully curated selection of books that reinforce a coherent worldview.

I agree with every single syllable of that response.

Idolater said:

And similarly for Jordan Peterson, what are there like three Jordan Peterson books? You're telling me between Jordan Peterson and Thomas Sowell alone, that fully eight percent of my education should be sitting at the feet of those guys? Why?

Click to expand...

I really think you've sort of missed the point of this list. It is not about being THE means of giving someone a "well-rounded" education. It is a list specifically aimed at reinforcing a logically coherent worldview. It isn't intended to turn you into some sort of polymath with an extraordinarily broad and comprehensive knowledge. Although, it is clear that most people who read all of these books would indeed be a polymath by comparison to the average Joe Smuck they run into at work or church.

Idolater said:

Now I would say why are there two from St. Augustine? Isn't that rather Romanist? Because there's also St. Thomas Aquinas on the list? Why so much Papist influence here?

Click to expand...

Again, this seems like fair critique o the surface but I can say intuitively that it comes from a misunderstanding of the intent.

Here's GPT's explaination for why these works were included....

The inclusion of Augustine and Aquinas isn’t about endorsing Roman Catholicism but recognizing their undeniable influence on Western thought.

1. Why Augustine?
   • Confessions is foundational—not just as a religious text, but as an early work of introspective philosophy and autobiography.
   • The City of God shaped political theology and Western views on history, government, and society. Even those who disagree with Augustine’s conclusions have to grapple with his influence.
2. Why Aquinas?
   • He’s included because Summa Theologica had an enormous impact on philosophy, law, and ethics. His synthesis of Aristotelian thought with Christian doctrine shaped centuries of debate. Even Protestant thinkers like C.S. Lewis and Alvin Plantinga have engaged deeply with his work.
3. Is this “too Romanist”?
   • If the concern is an overrepresentation of Catholic thought, that’s worth considering. But these selections weren’t about promoting Catholicism; they were about historical influence.
   • If the goal is to balance things out, one could argue that figures like Luther or Calvin deserve a place too. However, their works tend to be more doctrinal, while Augustine and Aquinas deal more broadly with philosophy, history, and ethics.

Idolater said:

So I'm asking because this list appears heavily slanted and biased.

Click to expand...

Biased towards what?

I listed specifically the parameters by which the list was created in the opening post. I've interacted with GPT quite a lot and I keep my history intact and so GPT is able to interact with a fairly deep understanding of what I believe and why I believe it and it tailored the list knowing that I am a man who strives to be rationally consistent in a pursuit of objective truth, that I am not persuaded by emotionalism, that I have no patience for foolishness or intellectual vapidity. It understood that what I wanted was a list of 100 books to read because I wanted to challenge myself to read them, not because I have any doubts about my worldview or because I'm specifically interested in being exposed to other points of view. I want to be well read but I don't want to waste my time reading intellectual horse manure.

Idolater said:

I'm asking, what would help to balance out the list. I think it's a useful question.

Click to expand...

Balance it in what way?

There is probably 100 different lists of 100 books the everyone should read that 100 different people have compiled for 100 different reasons. This list was not presented to be THE list but just as a list and I tried to be as transparent as possible as to how and why the list was compiled.

Idolater said:

Now, regarding what the answer might be, I know that I'm thinking, "There are no good Leftist primary sources because they're all incoherent," which is only corroborated by (but not proven by) all the failed putative attempts to enact socialism /communism. And the only times it does not fail is because, "Yeah that's not really communism or socialism (in the literature these are synonyms, as opposed to in common parlance where there is a difference between communism and socialism)." There's actual private property, the means of production are owned by civilians not the state, the only thing we try to show is that the state has more power over the private property owners in these countries than in America—but that's not even 100 percent sure in every last case. These are the "communist" countries that are not a failed state and failed economy. Every true communist situation collapsed society both morally and economically.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what brought you to a place where you felt the need to make any comments at all about communism but I can tell you that you'd benefit from reading Atlas Shrugged. I'd warn you, however, that she completely proves your particular flavor of Christianity to be utterly false. Don't read that book if you can't take it.

Idolater said:

I only have read 15, loosely familiar through e.g. introductory textbooks with maybe half of them though.

Click to expand...

I was never much of a reader when I was young and even to this day, I have a difficult time finishing a whole book. I typically get about 80% of the way through, I get the gist and then lose interest. Much of that has to do with the way books are written today but it is also a product of my own bad habits, which has a very great deal to do with why I wanted to have this list created in the first place. I do well with predefined structure and with concrete goals. This list provides both with the added benefit of equipping me to better articulate and defend both my theology and my overall worldview.