pi-r8

I've read ITOE. It's far from definitive. The title, I think, says it all- An Introduction to Objectivst Epistemology. There's a lot more to Objectivism than what's in that book. Now as for TOC, I don't see how you can argue that they don't follow Objectivist Epistemology. I challenge you to find a single instance where they do not follow it. Just because they reach different conclusions on some subjects as ARI, doesn't mean they're not using Objectivist Epistemology- it just means that there is a disagreement, that's all. They certaintly don't allow contradictions. I've seen Diana's Hseih's site before. I came across it when I was first trying to figure out the difference between ARI and TOC, actually. She gives a lot of reasons for her condemnation of TOC, but I'm not convinced by them. Frankly, I think a lot of her criticisms are just nitpicking of specific articles on the TOC website. The only rather important philosophical difference I saw was the old open vs. closed system, toleration vs. condemnation debate, and on that I simply disagree with her position.

Don't get me wrong, OPAR is a great book. Peikoff certainly knows his stuff. Sure he cites Rand, but it's still just his interpretation of Objectivism- it's not like she dictated the book to him. I see it as Peikoff's attempt to integrate all of the most important things Rand said about her philosophy, as interpreted by him, into one logically consistant book. I think it does a great job of laying out the basics of Objectivism, but I don't think you can really say that it includes EVERYTHING that is Objectivism.

Slave, that's exactly what it seems to me that TOC is doing. The reason I asked those questions about what is Objectivism was to point out that there's no single body of work that is Objectivism-unless you count OPAR, and I agree with Rational_One that we shouldn't. The way I (and apparently y_feldblum as well) interpret Objectivism is as a philosophy that was described, mentioned, and discussed at great length by Rand, but one which she never made a definitive account of. I think Kelley and TOC are trying to bring new knowledge the table which qualifies, and adds to, what we know of Objectivism, without actually refuting any of it.

right, but when did Ayn Rand say what Objectivism was? By which I mean, when and where did she lay it all out and say "this- and nothing more- is Objectivism?"

What exactly is the difference? Do you mean that Objectivism is what is described in OPAR, nothing more, and nothing less?

One question. Does being an Objectivist mean that you agree with the philosophy of Objectivism, or does it mean that you agree with everything Ayn Rand ever said, thought, and wrote? If it's the former, I am definitely one, and as best as I can tell, TOC is too. If it's the latter, then, well, is anyone really an Objectivist?

Wow. There were a LOT more companies hiring physicists than I expected (i got over 1000 hits for "physics" on monster). Apparently all you need to be a nuclear power plant operator for the navy is a high school degree . Anyway, I feel a lot more optimistic now.

Hmm. I do enjoy mathematics a lot, although math CLASSES are something else again. I like reading books about advanced mathematics too, even if I can't understand everything that they talk about. If I really could be a theorist, I think that would be AWESOME, although from what I understand that's the hardest field of physics to make a career in. Tinkering with machines, I dunno, it definitely sounds interesting, but I really don't have a lot of experience with that. I've never been the kind of person who would, say, dismantle a lawn mower just to see how it worked, which seems to be how most of my engineering major friends were as kids. Most of the lab equipment I work with now seems to have been made in the 19th century, and is extremely simple. That's interesting that private companies are hiring physicists these days. The government, sure (someone's gotta design those nuclear bombs ), but what would a company want with a physicist? It's not like any of the material I'm learning is in anyway practical. They must have just figured out that most business majors are not the brightest bulbs in the box.

No, I have not read October Sky, but it sounds like an interesting book. You guys have definitely made me feel more optimistic about a career in physics. It's good to know that there's more possible careers than I'd thought of- I've been thinking about it as though I'd inevitably end up being like one of my physics professors. Clearly that's not the case, if Ed got a degree in physics and went on to be an engineer. I think writing for a science magazine would suit me pretty well. It's definitely the the concepts and ideas of physics that I love, and I do enjoy explaining them to others (when I can). I never liked highschool much. but I did love my highschool physics class and teacher, so maybe I should consider that as well. Thanks guys!

Thanks for the advice guys. You're definitely right to ask what what would I love to do, and all I can say is, I'm not sure. I love the SUBJECT of physics; it explains so much, so well. But being a physicist is something else. And of course it's more than likely that I'd end up like that guy you mentioned who made a career out of helping out the really top notch physicists. I sometimes fantasize about being the next Einstein who will completely revolutionize our view of reality, but unfortunately that's not too likely to happen. I could probably do engineering, but to be honest, it really doesn't interest me that much. Do you think that someone could be happy doing work in the subject that they love, even if they never accomplish anything particularly important? Oh, and thanks for the heads up about O vs o, I'll keep that in mind.

Hi, I'm new to this forum, and relatively new to objectivism. I need some advice. I'm currently a physics major- I love physics, and I like math (sometimes), but it seems like as my classes get more advanced, they keep getting less interesting, not to mention much harder. I used to be able to breeze through with no effort whatsoever, now I have to study like crazy to understand the material. On top of that, it seems like after I graduate my only career choice will be academia, and I'm not sure that's what I want to do. It seems like physics really hasn't made a whole lot of new discoveries over the past 50 years or so- biology definietly seems to be the "hot" science right now. Given all this, what do you guys think- should I persue a career in physics?