Ed from OC

Didn't someone post on this topic before?

I don't have time at the moment (nor the CD-ROM) to look up the relevant quote(s), but if memory serves: Rand was initially inspired by Nietzsche, especially Thus Spake Zarathustra; she welcomed his apparent man-worship and individualism, but eventually determined he was at root an irrationalist and therefore not an ally. I believe she remained an admirer of his style of writing, though.

How does one say "green with envy" in French?

Les Miserables is one of my favorites. I'd recommend getting an abridged version, however, as Hugo has several lengthy essays that interrupt the story. Also be aware that bad translations abound. When you say "the french Les Miserables", I don't know if you intend to read it in the original French -- which I wish I could -- or just mean the story is originally in French. If you can read French well enough for that, that's great. Have fun.

There's something funny about this question that I haven't exactly pinned down. Try asking the question about a person: Can you think of any person who only accomplishes evil regardless of context? If that were the proper standard for judging a person, even Hitler (who was probably nice to his mother once in his life) wouldn't qualify. Obviously when judging a person we need to keep the context. We also need to look at essentials and know the proper standard of the good.

I don't have an exact answer to your query, but... I have Churchill's The Gathering Storm sitting on my "read soon" pile. This is volume 1 (of 6!) of his history of WWII. This from a guy who had just about the best seat in the house through the whole thing, AND was highly regarded for his oration. I think it will carry over to his writing, but I can't say firsthand -- yet. I greatly enjoyed American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964 by William Manchester. Although explicitly a biography, as a history of the war in the Pacific and the aftermath in Japan, this is an excellent read. Recommended by Second Renaissance Books. My father had Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich by William L. Shirer on the bookshelf growing up, and I never have gotten around to reading it. Someday I'll get to it. My favorite historian of the moment, Victor Davis Hanson, doesn't have a book whose single focus is WWII, but he does use battles from WWII as examples in several places. Another historian often compared to Hanson is John Keegan, though I haven't read any of his works. On Amazon, his book The Second World War is praised thusly: "The best one-volume treatment available, The Second World War by John Keegan is an outstanding synthesis of an enormous amount of material on "the largest single event in human history." The book proceeds chronologically through the war, but chapters appearing at appropriate moments focus on particular themes, such as war production, occupation, bombing, resistance, and espionage. Keegan's ability to translate the war's grand strategies is impressive, and the battle descriptions are superb." Hope that helps. If you do find the right match, let me know. I'd be interested.

Pardon my ignorance, but to what history are your referring? Are you talking about hiring an entire army from outside, or supplemental resources? I haven't spent that much time considering whether a mercenary army is proper, but I think for the USA, modifying the military reserves to be more akin to an organized mercenary force may be a good idea. After 9/11 I considered enlisting in the military, but did not for several reasons. One big reason is the relationship I would have with the government. I would have little freedom to choose my duties. I would be eager to go to war in Iran, for example, or North Korea, or go after Bin Laden. I would not be eager to spend a year as a target in Baghdad pulling guard duty on some street corner. Nor would I want to go on "humanitarian" missions to pestholes in Africa. But suppose the Pentagon lacked sufficient troops to fulfill its missions. I see no problem with them contracting out some of the fighting to a small group of mercenaries. Under the strategic guidance of the regular military, a mercenary unit could be assigned a task via a contract, and when completed, perhaps get another one. Such a situation would enable me to be selective in the fighting I would do. If history is a guide, the efficacy of such a cadre could be quite astonishing. In Carnage and Culture, Victor Davis Hanson writes of the 10,700 Greek hoplite soldiers hired in 401 B.C. by Cyrus the Younger to "help press his claim to the Persian throne." After marching some 1500 miles to face their foe, how effective were they? "The price for destroying an entire wing of the Persian army was a single Greek hoplite wounded by an arrow." (page 2) "Though surrounded by thousands of enemies, their original generals captured and beheaded, forced to traverse through the contested lands of more than twenty different peoples, caught in snowdrifts, high mountain passes, and waterless steppes, suffering frostbite, malnutrition, and frequent sickness, as well as fighting various savage tribesmen, the Greeks reached the safety of the Black Sea largely intact -- less than a year and a half after leaving home. They had routed every hostile Asian force in their way. Five out of six made it out alive, the majority of the dead lost not in battle, but in the high snows of Armenia." (page 2) The author argues that the cultural gap between the Ten Thousand and the army under the whip of Persia gave the Greeks a significant advantage. I won't repeat the entire argument (see the book), but I think it is instructive to see just how much freedom the Ten Thousand had. Here's an indication: "Once the Ten Thousand, as much a 'marching democracy' as a hired army, left the battlefield of Cunaxa, the soldiers routinely held assemblies in which they voted on the proposals of their elected leaders. In times of crises, they formed ad hoc boards to ensure there were sufficient archers, cavalry, and medical corpsmen." (page 3) "Upon reaching the coast of the Black Sea, the Ten Thousand conducted judicial inquiries and audits of its leadership's performance during the past year, while disgruntled individuals freely voted to split apart and make their own way back home. A lowly Arcadian shepherd had the same vote as the aristocratic Xenophon, student of Socrates..." (page 3) And keep in mind this was 2400 years ago! So I'm not convinced that mercenary armies are a bad idea, provided the proper oversight of their ultimate goals and of the bounds on their methods. In fact, there are some good reasons to consider contracting out more than just support work for the military.

I haven't listened to whole lecture series, but I liked what I heard on the first few tapes. Bear in mind that Peikoff is giving brief summaries and analyses of these philosophers. Good as it may be, it should not be considered a substitute for reading the author first hand. If your goal is to see what a philosopher actually said, then read the author. If it is to make sense of what was said, look to analyses like this lecture series. If your goal is to get just a cursory overview, then the lecture series can provide that. If you want a little more than just the barest essentials, try the Jones series or its equivalent.

For fiction, see the books Ayn Rand discussed in The Romantic Manifesto. Even some of the naturalistic works like Arrowsmith I enjoyed tremendously. If you want philosophy, the W. T. Jones series is terrific. He provides exerpts and commentary to introduce the reader to the major philosophers of western history. It was recommended in one of the Objectivist periodicals and we used it in a few of my philosophy courses in college. Some may disagree, but I enjoyed discussing these ideas in the classroom. It may be hit and miss, but having a professor around to answer questions really aided my education, even if the answers weren't perfect or essentialized. So a class here or there MAY be fun and worthwhile. Another recommendation: "A New History of Philosophy" by Wallace Matson. Not as good as the Jones series, but much shorter and easier to read. For Aristotle, I'd first read his Ethics or Poetics, which are far more accessible than the Metaphysics. Or pick up the first volume of the Jones series and read up on Plato and Aristotle for an introduction to their thinking, then go on to read the full books that most interest you. I agree with you that Rand is very good at explaining complex abstractions. There are many authors like that out in the world, but usually they have much narrower specialties and write in great detail about their field. Rand's ability to integrate ideas from different fields and identify new principles from them is very rare. Happy reading!

Wow. That is so very mistaken. I wonder if you've read Aristotle in any depth. See the work of scholars like Allan Gotthelf or Robert Mayhew if you want to see how much Ayn Rand and Aristotle have in common. Sure, there are differences, but they have FAR more in common than just logic.

I've noticed this phenomenon and went through something like it. I don't fully understand it, but here's my stab at an explanation: Ayn Rand offers very intense moral praise or condemnation across a range of behaviors and contexts. For someone new to the philosophy, it is easy to catch the passion while missing the details of the explanation. Now an earnest, ambitious student is hard on himself - always demanding "the best" and wanting no moral flaws or irrationality in any aspect of his life. Instead of pursuing values, he focuses on avoiding negatives. The negatives can be anything - including not exercising the "right" way, or not eating the "right" foods. Please note my point is not that proper diets don't exist, but that they are adopted with a near-religious mania, where one feels tremendous guilt for the smallest of slips. The problem in thinking method - context dropping and rationalism - leads to guilt and repression. This type of Objectivist can quote chapter and verse on any topic Ayn Rand covered, but has a real problem pursuing personal passions. There is a night and day difference between this type of Objectivist and one who pursues his own values. Another distinction: the former sees adherence to Objectivism in some way as an end in itself, perhaps out of pseudo-self-esteem or a sense of moral superiority, while the latter sees Objectivism as a tool to use to pursue one's goals and enhance one's life. Another related issue is the sense of life. Many of Ayn Rand's essays point out the depravity of the modern era, and after immersing oneself in these writings, the world as a whole can look like a threat with Objectivism as an oasis. Yes, the world has flaws, but not metaphysically. One can pursue one's values and achieve them. Most Objectivists accept this intellectually, but I think many don't accept it emotionally. They seem unwilling to attempt to pursue deep, meaningful goals. Maybe they have challenging jobs and read interesting books, but they have no passion for career or hobbies. The end result is that a philosophy whose goal is happiness has been turned into a means of eliminating the cause of happiness from one's life. And more than anything, that's a shame. BTW, I don't mean to condemn Ayn Rand or this type of Objectivist for this. It is an error, and hopefully a temporary state.

There are different ways to answer your question, so here goes: It's hard to answer your question as stated, because there are simply so many good books out there. If you are looking to put together a reading list, you need to specify your goals and values. The more specific you can get, the easier it will be to answer this question. If what you have in your mind at the moment is something along the lines of "I need to learn as much as possible about everything", you've set yourself up to fail, because nobody - including Ayn Rand - can master every topic under the sun. That said, a general education across a range of subjects - arts, sciences, humanities - is a wonderful thing. It can provide an overview of the fundamentals of different fields. For someone about to enter college, that can also allow one to explore alternatives if one's career goals are not yet clear. 14 years after reading Ayn Rand for the first time, I still am discovering new authors such as novelist Rafael Sabatini (Captain Blood, The Sea Hawk) and military historian / classics professor Victor Davis Hanson. I haven't set out a reading list, but rather have done what Gail Wynand did: took up one book after another in what might seem to someone else a random path. Often I would discover something in one book that perked up my interest and led to another book that I didn't anticipate. Cliche it may be, but learning really is a life-long process. Over the years, a secondary Objectivist reading list of sorts has developed. By that I mean books Ayn Rand or Leonard Peikoff have recommended in their writings or lectures, as well as excellent materials in fields often of interest to Objectivists (such as economics or architecture). Some used to be available through the Ayn Rand Bookstore; some are still for sale at The Paper Tiger. You might look through the bibliographies or book reviews in the Objectivist literature as a starting point. These books are among those that Objectivists often read, but nobody, to my knowledge, has read them all. The best answer to your question: follow your passions. There is no one "correct" way to learn about the world, in terms of starting with a particular field over another. If you want to learn more about egoism or individualism, as you indicate, be aware that very few philosophers even attempted a defense of them; nearly all were altruists. The exceptions were Aristotle, Nietzsche and Spinoza, despite their errors. (I believe I learned this from Peikoff, but my memory is fuzzy on this.) If you're interested in philosophy as such (vs. applications), learning the contrasts between Ayn Rand's views and those of these guys would be quite instructive -- and not a small undertaking. One of my favorite philosophy courses was a 10-week class on Aristotle's ethics. So if you can be more specific, there are plenty of authors to be recommended. Bear in mind that there's only one Ayn Rand - someone who was revolutionary across so many fields. I would say the closest person in that regard would be Aristotle.

A personal favorite that rarely gets mention: Don Juan de Marco.

Thanks, Stephen. High praise indeed. No, I haven't read that one. I did see an interview with him on C-SPAN regarding that book and the premise looks intriguing. I'm in awe of his skill as a scholar. He is the type of professor I wish I had found in my humanities classes in college - a joy to read, with insights grounded in a thorough knowledge of history and the ability to focus on essentials and principles. He also is quite firsthanded in his analysis. VDH recently launched his own website that features more info.

Dude, that movie rocks! But don't forget the best part: Reba McEntire with an elephant gun!

If you're interested in the history of the battle of Roarke's Drift, check out "Carnage and Culture" by Victor Davis Hanson. The theme of the book is that western armies have been the most lethal and effective in history beacuse of western culture and values(!). Each chapter identifies a theme and a representative battle - for instance, freedom and Salamis; capitalism and Lepanto; reason and Tenochtitlan; individualism and Midway; or discipline and Roarke's Drift. VDH is not an Objectivist. Normally I don't need to specify that when recommending an author, but he has so many points that demonstrate the historical and military efficacy of Objectivist virtues and principles that one might think otherwise.

Me too. Problem is, what is the best way to vote for more war? A vote for Bush could be taken as endorsing further aggressiveness. But more likely, it will be taken as general support for his policies, which are part of the problem. A vote for Kerry could be taken as a vote against Bush; a vote for Kerry; or a vote against the war. While I don't like Bush, he is far better than Kerry. But a vote for Kerry could open the way, down the road, for the GOP to regroup around a stauncher pro-American foreign policy. Also, with Congress in Republican hands, Kerry will face gridlock for much of his term. The counter-argument: how many times in a row can you write off four-year terms before significant harm comes to the US?

When I vote, I prefer to vote on issues which are clear cut and impact my life. On ballot initiatives that call for higher taxes or more regulation, the choice is easy and the trip to the voting booth worthwhile. But electing officials is harder. If two candidates (say, Dole and Clinton) are so close that I can't tell them apart, I don't bother. Some people try to outflank the candidates by guessing how the public will react, with the hope of influencing the choice of candidates in the future. For example, some argued for voting FOR Clinton with the hope that the public would so despise him that a good GOP alternative would arise, or the GOP would gain control of Congress. That worked -- to an extent and for a while. We got the Contract with America, but the same party now accelerates the growth of federal spending. I think gridlock works, for the most part. The hard part in voting for a reason other than significant support for the candidate is that the mandate's content can be misread or distorted. Gridlock works through the nature of power-lusters: it sets up two opponents and keeps them quite busy fighting amongst themselves so that they are limited in the new laws they can implement. So regardless of the spin from the media or either party, gridlock can reduce the extent of the damage government can do. I had hoped Bush would do a better job than he has. I don't know how different a job Gore would have done with a Republican Congress in power. So, to sum it all up, I vote when the issues are clear and important to me, vote for gridlock on important issues otherwise (or not at all, if it doesn't appear to make a difference), and just abstain otherwise.

For sheer joy in poetry, it's hard to beat Ogden Nash. Just one example: My Dream by Ogden Nash This is my dream, It is my own dream, I dreamt it. I dreamt that my hair was kempt. Then I dreamt that my true love unkempt it.

You can compare different definitions of the term "Metrosexual" here. I wouldn't include classy guys like Cary Grant or Gene Kelly or James Bond under this concept. There's a world of difference between some guy who is not a slob and a prissy guy who constantly fusses over his appearance. I think South Park did a wonderful spoof of the whole "Queer Eye" / "Metrosexual" fad. In the episode, the women get upset with their husbands for not being, well, manly. And I agree: guys should be guys and women should be women. There's nothing homophobic about it. I like the fact that men and women are different. I find it ridiculous to see these guys so concerned with getting makeovers, facials, manicures, pedicures, another dozen shoes, the latest stylish haircut, etc., etc. Another way to put it: who would better fit the concept: Roark or Keating?

Speaking of Monty Python: if you haven't seen it, check out the philosopher's soccer match (the Germans vs the Greeks), a skit on the German episode.

The proponents of hard science might counter your proposal with the claim that there is no hard science indicating human activity at present has more than a minute effect on the ozone layer. However, they would be glad to engineer something to piss off Kyotoists, tree-ists, and Planet Ten-ists. What's this? I'm shocked -- SHOCKED! -- to hear this! Obviously a conspiracy is afoot... "Planet Ten-ist" sounds like "Planet Tennis"; is there a connection? I hadn't thought of one, but maybe those fuzzy green balls are symbolic of the Green Moon of Planet Ten. And those rackets are awfully reminiscent of an ancient artifact from temple ruins on the moon. Of course, it could just be coincidence...

I'm from the dark side. Ya know, we really have a bad rep throughout the galaxy. People constantly underestimate our power generation capabilities. I guess it has something to do with a lack of solar energy. But we have a neat slogan for Dark Side Electrical Co.: "You Underestimate the Power of the Dark Side." Catchy, eh?

My first Ayn Rand book was The Fountainhead. How it happened: I was on a break at a high school debate tournament at UC Berkeley. In perusing a bookstore I ran across "Visions," a biography of the band Rush (of which I was a huge fan at the time). On page 15, in describing how the drummer, Neil Peart, came to join the band, is an interesting passage: "He had one consolation while he was in England. He found a copy of Ayn Rand's book The Fountainhead on the London tube. He found Rand's tales of fiercely individualistic characters struggling to maintain their integrity inspiring." Well, needless to say, that caught my interest. That fall, in my college bookstore, while looking for something to read on the flight home for winter break, I came across The Fountainhead. I remembered that passage and made the best $7 investment of my life. 14 years later, here I am.

A little about me: I hail from Orange County, CA and answer to the name of "Ed". I picked up a physics degree several years ago and have been happily employed as an engineer since. I spend quite a bit of time managing my investments and working on my first novel. Hobbies include movie watching (oh yeah, I'm a HUUGE movie fan), fiction, and Krav Maga. I'd like to find a tennis partner in my area with whom I can develop my game. Once upon a time I was actually pretty good... How I encountered Objectivism: Waaaay back in 1990, I happened across "The Fountainhead" in my college bookstore. I devoured it over winter break and haven't been the same since. Unfortunately it would be several months before I encountered another Objectivist (who would later go on to be a speechwriter for Rudy Guiliani). A little more about me: I originally came from Planet 10, near what you call "Cygnus X-1." I was bred in a "gene plant," as they're called -- factories to produce legions of genetically engineered super-warriors. When I was but a wee lil' tadpole, I was placed in a long-term incubation chamber to hasten the aging process. (One side effect of our genes is that we age quite slowly -- which explains why I look younger than I am.) We were indoctrinated from the beginning to blindly follow the Overlords. But despite the best genetics and the best brainwashing, free will and reason could not be controlled. Some of us fought for freedom, to shape our own futures. Most of us died. I and a handful of others escaped to this planet, to regroup and plan our next move. But as we were to later discover, our escape was not perfect. The Mindpolice tracked the thought trail of one of us to this planet. We have, to our shame, brought terrible danger to this planet. But all is not lost. We can still fight. Just as much of Earth technology runs on gasoline, ours is based on ozone. We require significant amounts to power our starcruisers. Most importantly, the mighty Galaxy Cannon uses a chain reaction within ozone to literally detonate a planet's atmosphere. We expect that when the Overlords arrive, they will fire the cannon at Earth, hoping to ravage the planet and destroy all of us in one shot. But if we do not have an ozone layer, the cannon will not work. Not only that, but the inability of the chain reaction to occur will lead to a catastrophic reaction within the cannon itself, blowing the armada to pieces. So, people of Earth, now is the time to act! Step outside and use every aerosol device you possess! Cast of the chains of catalytic converters on your cars! Let slip the dogs of CFC's! For the future of Earth depends on the removal of our ozone layer...