Leaderboard

I have the impression that the Republicans are intellectually vague, and don't know exactly what course to set; while the Democrats are intellectually firm, and know exactly what course to set. So with the R's, as with Bush, we get a sloppy, inconsistent administration that has a general tendency towards capitalism (but without really knowing why its best), and with the D's we get as clear a path as they can make to Marxism. I also have the impression that the OP admires the fidelity to a central ideal that the D's display, and has disdain for the half-hearted bumbling done by the R's when they have the ball. Firm convictions, founded upon an intellectual base, inspire confidence in the man or men holding them. Wishy-washy notions of tradition have the opposite effect upon the men holding them. If this were enough to judge a man or party fit for leadership, then the D's win. But the analysis doesn't end there. We must consider what convictions these men hold. A liberal professor, say, can articulate very well why private property doesn't exist. But that doesn't make the professor right, even though some schlub can't express his argument for private property any better than "It's mine 'cause I earned it". The professor makes his claim based upon (faulty) reason and logic, and the schlub makes his based upon a seemingly self-evident principle but without any real argument to support it. So do I stand by the professor or the schlub, when the time comes to implement their ideas? Do I stand by a party dedicated to an end, or a party which can't justify its own ends? One clearly expouses Marxism. The other gives lip service to Freedom and Capitalism, while not knowing how justify them in altruistic terms, or perhaps in any terms outside of being endowed by our Creator.... But God-damn, at least the R's know the Constitution is GOOD, even if they don't fully understand it. They respect Individual Rights*, even if they don't have a thorough comprehension of them. They don't want to violate the Constitution's every principle in favor of fairness and equality. Neither party espouses laissez-faire, which is, politically, the only way to implement Individual Rights. But one is closer to doing it than the other. (*This is untrue of the R's in every aspect, of course. The War on Drugs, the Patriot Act, Defense of Marriage, Abortion immediately pop into mind)

Can't believe I didn't mention O'Brian myself, considering I'm reading the Mauritius Command now! Maturin is one of my favourite literary characters - a scholar of anything and everything - there could be no better role model in life. Maturin does seem to have some concern for individual freedom - he has a few bust-ups with Aubrey over the order, control and punishment he witnesses in the Navy, etc.

1. Dumas Malone's six-volume biography of Thomas Jefferson. 2. Patrick O'Brian's astonishing Aubrey/Maturin series of novels (first one is Master and Commander). I have found no other writer who takes such joy in language. And the protagonists, while not Objectivist heroes, are admirably rational Men of the Enlightenment. 3. Great fun: Bill Bryson's earlier books, including The Mother Tongue, The Lost Continent, Neither Here Nor There, Notes from a Small Island.

Not any kind of philosophical work, but inspiration fiction: Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy. An ode to pioneering spirits, ingenuity and innnovation, and the fight against oppression. And it's sci-fi, so win-win for me!

Not to discount the value of the things you mention... parents, education (whatever its source), friends, teachers, rolemodels, etc., are all potentially sources of great value. And its hard (if not impossible) to imagine my particular successes in life without many/most/all of them. However, another person given those same advantages/opportunities may have done more or less than I. Even a great teacher will not teach a student indisposed to learn, and of people raised among libraries, some will opt to read Shakespeare, some will read Harlequin romances, and some will use the pages to start a bonfire. To put this another way, imagine driving from New York to Los Angeles. Such a journey would not be possible without the existence of the car and the roads and the gas stations. Yet would we doubt that the success or failure of their journey depends on their decision to undertake it, and their skill in executing their plans? The world is awash in opportunity, and without such opportunity a man can accomplish nothing. Yet when a man accomplishes something as opposed to nothing (as others may do), the success is rightly his.

Harry Potter and The Methods of Rationality http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5782108/1/Harry_Potter_and_the_Methods_of_Rationality I can't overstate how awesome and useful it is.

Well, I can't think of any way in which it helped me, but I enjoyed it, and it certainly fits the requirement for not being well known: It's Auto da Fé (original title Die Blendung), by Elias Canetti. The main (and only significant) character is an obsessive, socially isolated book collector living in Vienna, and the novel follows the dark, more horrifying than funny, comedy of his existence, especially his irrational decision to marry his simpleton housekeeper. It's one of the few (serious, I'm not counting adventure novels I read as a kid) novels I just couldn't put down as I was reading it. It's not well known, because it was written in '35 an promptly banned by the Nazis, and I think it's the only piece of fiction Canetti ever wrote. But he did win the Nobel, much later, for a non-fiction work.

A longtime favorite is Comrade John by Merwin & Webster, 1907. They also wrote Calumet 'K', which Rand named as her favorite novel. Comrade John is at once a suspense story and a satire of Elbert Hubbard and the Roycrofters, an anti-industrial, live-the-simple-life movement of the era. I first read it when hippies were hot, and the insincere sappiness of the "Beechcrofters," as the novel calls them, struck a contemporary chord. Herman Stein, the group's prophet, a mix of charlatan and Nietzschean Superman, hires John Chance, an architect who specializes in amusement parks, to design a temple for the group and let Stein pass it off as his own design. In addition, he and his crew are to pose as members so that the Beechcrofters will think that their own pursuit of "beauty through toil" put the building up. Then things start going wrong. I suspect that this is where Rand got the idea of architectural ghosting in The Fountainhead. The Online Books Page has the full text of this and several other works by the same authors.

I enjoyed "the book of lost things". It's not especially profound or philosophically stimulating, but I immediately found the premise to be really cool and wanted to read more. It's a compilation of most of the classic Brothers Grim fairy tails, but mutated drastically. A fun story and an exciting climax. Hope someone makes a movie of it, because there are some scenes I would love to see. http://www.amazon.com/Book-Lost-Things-John-Connolly/dp/1442429348/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336890632&sr=8-1