BIGBANGSingh

I enjoy Bhangra & Talvin Singh.

Thanks for the advice. And most Sikhs hardly know anything about Sikhi anyways. I'm one of the few who correctly understand it as a philosophy of science and logic, and not a religion. If you're interested in Sikhi, I'd browse here: http://chahal.info/

I'm in the same boat. I have a very close-knit Sikh community, and even was an "orthodox" Sikh in my high school years. All my family is Sikh, and the majority of my friends are Sikh. While Sikhi is a philosophy based on reason, though incorrectly applied, I have to admit now that I don't believe in it and am an Objectivist. I tried explaining my new-found beliefs, or even philosophy in general, starting w/ my parents, but it seems that they don't have the capacity to understand what I'm trying to say. Any more feedback on how to live w/o tension w/ people you love after a significant personal philosophic change would be appreciated

(deleted post)

Any other worthy books I should know about?

Can someone fill me in on the full story on what happened between George Reisman & ARI? So far I've only read this: http://www.jeffcomp.com/faq/ari/ It seems silly that his great work on Capitalism has to be boycotted by ARI because of his "excommunication."

My mistake. It just seems silly that I have the entire text to read in front of me and I can't print it. I'll eventually buy the hard copy though.

(deleted post)

Well, here's what I've compiled so far: Ontology "Philosophy" by Ayn Rand (The Nature of Consciousness) by Harry Binswanger Epistemology "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" by Ayn Rand "An Introduction to Logic" by H.W.B. Joseph Axiology "The Virtue of Selfishness" by Ayn Rand "Capitalism" by Ayn Rand Physics "Induction in Physics and Philosophy" by Leonard Peikoff "The Anti-Copernican Revolution" by David Harriman Psychology "The Psychology of Self-Esteem" by Nathaniel Branden "The DIM Hypothesis" by Leonard Peikoff Biology "The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts" by Harry Binswanger "Biology" by Neil A. Campbell

Would you mind analyzing and criticizing HIS arguments for anarchism in context? I would greatly appreciate it

While there are some wrong portions of his book, as a whole the book is an excellent presentation of some right Objectivist fundamentals. I would definitely recommend Objectivists read this book, gain some new insight on some right ideas, and feel free to reject the wrong ones. I'm sure anyone who reads his book in its entirety would agree w/ me.

Give me some time, and I'll post some specific arguments of his that I found stimulating. Then you guys can rip it apart all you want

You make good points. I was hoping for arguments not like "he advocates anarchism and as we all know that is obviously wrong therefore he is clearly wrong." I was hoping for arguments like "in chapter X section Y he is making a case for anarchism and here are the flaws in his argument."

I was arguing based on this map I found: http://www.arts.ed.ac.uk/philosophy/study_...n1/branches.htm Politics I can understand, but Esthetics I never really considered "crucial." Ayn Rand herself didn't mention Esthetics when asked to summarize her philosophy.

The thing about this guy's philosophy, Objectivism or not, is that each chapter builds on the next, like Objectivism, and you can't understand one chapter w/o reading the previous chapters. Like it's easy to denouce him as an anarchist libertarian, but I'd like to see criticisms of his arguments in context. Just curious, has anyone actually read the entire book besides myself?

Fill in the blanks for the best Objectivist books in the following categories: Ontology: __________ Epistemology: __________ Axiology: __________ Physics: __________ Psychology: __________ Biology: __________

Why is logic not included in the philosophy branches of Objectivism? Also, why are Politics & Esthetics considered fundamental branches in Objectivism?

How much non-Objectivist philosophy did Ayn Rand study? Was she well versed in other philosophies?

I don't mean to bash Mentzer, but his theories have zero scientific evidence behind them, & are based strictly on his imagination. Sure HIT might work for some people, but that doesn't mean another program won't work better. I agree that HST can be confusing since it's based on independent, peer-reviewed research, & not somebody's imagination. There is a layman's book being released soon, so wait for that. "HIT or HD To understand any comparison to HIT or HD use the following definitions: Intensity = percentage of voluntary strength. In HIT terms it is equal to “perceived effort”. Maximum capability - maximum voluntary strength HST does not equal HIT. Except perhaps that they both have an H and a T in their acronyms. - HIT's measuring stick is based on strength (performance). - HST's measuring stick is based on growth (size). - HIT is based on how hard it feels to lift a weight. - HST is based on progressively loading the tissue. - HIT's goal is fatigue. - HST's goal is hypertrophy. - HIT is based on a philosophy of stress. - HST is based on the physiology of muscle cells. - HIT came from the imagination of Mr. Jones. - HST came from the research of dozens of independent researchers. Understand that it is not necessary to train at 100% voluntary strength levels to stimulate "growth". This is one fundamental difference between Hypertrophy-Specific Training (HST) and HIT. HST is designed only to stimulate growth. Strength of course will increase as well during HST training but this is not the primary goal of the method. It isn't necessary to push against a weight that won't move (due to load or fatigue) to induce the necessary strain to muscle that leads to growth. After years of training I realized that I would never get any bigger training the way I was unless I could get stronger, but I couldn't get any stronger until I got bigger. I had to discover a way to get bigger without getting stronger first. The HST method allows a person to get bigger before they get stronger. Accomplishing this is dependent on frequent loading (hitting same muscle at least 3 times per week), rapid progression in loading (mandatory increase in weight every workout), and Strategic Deconditioning (a week or so completely off to allow the muscle to become vulnerable to the training stimulus). HIT training takes this "deconditioning" too far. They think the muscle is "recovering" when it is actually past recovery and beginning to decondition thus allowing the stimulus to work the next time the muscle is trained. Unfortunately, the rate of growth is greatly dependant on the frequency of the stimulus. So with HST you hit a muscle at least 3 times as often as with HIT, and growth is greatly accelerated." - Bryan Haycock "I used HIT-type training principles before I began to analyze muscle-cell research. It should be understood that HIT and Heavy Duty are not based on muscle-cell physiology. HIT and HD are actually based on Selye's GAS (General Adaptation Syndrome) more than anything. Jones and Mentzer loved to talk about philosophy and logic, but seldom ever mentioned a sarcolemma, MAPk, myogenic stem cells, or even such obvious things as intracellular IGF-1. The reasons they chose to ignore such basic principles of muscle cell physiology remain with them. HST differs methodologically from HIT primarily in the fact that HIT uses extremely infrequent workouts and requires that the lifter always use 100% RM weight loads regardless of the condition of the muscle. Conversely, HST incorporates a training frequency based on the time course of elevated protein synthesis after training, and weight loads sufficient to induce hypertrophy based on the muscle's current condition. These types of things can't be determined without acknowledging how muscle cells respond to loading, so HIT and HD couldn't be expected to incorporate these methods. My only other problem with HIT is its blind devotion to "intensity." Intensity as described by Jones, is based on perceived effort, and doesn't necessarily measure a set's ability to stimulate growth of the tissue itself. The authors of HIT and HIT-type routines believed fundamentally in GAS, supercompensation, and the intensity myth perpetuated by popular muscle magazines in the 80's. All three of these principles are, at best, only indirectly related to muscle growth." - Bryan Haycock

I loved this movie simply because I'm culturally Sikh. In fact, I think I'm the only Sikh turned Objectivist in the world. I actually find many similarities between the philosophies.

Although Mentzer was an Objectivist, he was not a scientist & was horribly wrong when it came to exercise physiology. If you're interested in scientific bodybuilding, then go here: http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/hst_index.html

P.S. It's easy to take this guy out of context. I suggest you read the whole book before you start criticizing it.

I'm looking for books on physics & psychology, respectively, that provide systematic presentations of the respective subjects, & also agree w/ Objectivism. Books written by Objectivists would be preferred. Any suggestions?

Has anyone read "Guide to Objectivism" by David King? If so, what are your thoughts on it? http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/7695/

AIM: BIGBANGSingh