NAS

Ok, so I really want to get this project off the ground, so here's what I propose. I would like to establish a committee of rational minds they would have two roles, at this point. 1. Establish a policy of standards for inclusion, what can be used, the format of the wiki etc. 2. Define the scope of the project what information we want in the wiki, currently it is set up as a beginners guide, however I could envision it including a new users section and essays on philosophy, science etc. written, edited and peer reviewed by the community on advanced topics. Ideally I would like at least six other people with at least a moderate understanding of Objectivism to help with this, however, however many qualified people that want to help can, and this in no way stops anyone from adding content as needed. If you want to help, there's a few things you need to do. 1. Go register with an account on the wiki here preferably with a name similar to the one you use on the fourms. 2. Post a message here stating that you would like to help with the project. (put "# I would like to help out in the project [or other message here] ~~~~" the # will number you and the four tildes (~~~~) will sign and date your comment. 3. Come back to the fourm and post in this topic your username (or you can just PM it to me), to verify your identity. Hope to see you all there! -- NAS (Crazynas on the wiki)

I've been working on this recently, I was just wondering if everyone else had forgotten about it?

Although you have to pay attention to the differences between the philosophy as such and various applications of the philosophy or personal views by Rand or her close associates that isn't part of the system per say. (eg the often quoted article about why a woman wouldn't want to be President).

Pay attention Inspector... So I'm assuming that you haven't read ANY of her non fiction, the way I'd recommend doing it is finish Atlas, read Anthem, and We the Living (both fiction). Read the first chapter of OPAR(Objectivism Philosophy of Ayn Rand) Then read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (ITOE), then continue through OPAR, Peikoff footnotes the book extensively, and most of the footnotes refer to essays in compilations, so I'd read through OPAR with the following books to look at as needed: For the New Intellectual The Virtue of Selfishness Capitalism the Unknown Ideal The Romantic Manifesto Good Luck! -- NAS (Fixed quotation block - softwareNerd)

Word.

Beethoven's 9th, 7th and 6th Symphonies + Piano Concertos (plus just about anything else) Bach Brandenburg Concertos Mozart #40, Eine Kleine Nach Music Mendelsson A midsummer nights dream Vivaldi 4 Seasons (Spring) Tchaikovsky 1812 Overture

Well as someone who read the fountainhead as a freshman in high school, Atlas Shrugged as a sophomore, and started working through the Essays my last two years, I'll say it's not easy. My advice, find a debate club, any political club etc that you can, even if you don't agree with them, it's someone to argue with and and codify your positions by arguing them with others. regarding: Indeed as was my high school. The bigger question is WHY do you need a collective learning environment. Just because that's the way school is doesnt mean it's the only (or even the best) way to learn. Read the fiction, read the non-fiction read OPAR read OPAR again, read all the essays referenced in OPAR as you need them to clarify. Re read the novels after having read the non-fiction you'll get a LOT more out of them. In short think critically about everything (stuff by Ayn Rand specifically) and focus. Don't worry, you'll finally meet people that you agree with. (and if you don't there is always the net)

How??? I know (and knew in high school) the Newtonian mechanics and dynamics was 'wrong'... dosn't mean that I can't shoot a model rocket down your chimney with it.

Indeed, one uses Newtonian formula (the inverse square law) even when Einstien 'proved' that it is false, never the less, in high school (and college) physics we use it because it's soooo much faster.

We think about it? I don't, but then I don't think about little blue men from venus abducting me either.(except right now when I was thinking up an absurd example).

I read it as a sophomore in high school, thought the discussions of the music(Bach) were interesting, the paintings (Escher) disturbing {if you understand Rand's theory of esthetics you'll see why} and Gödel confusing, of course this was coming of a precalculus background. It get's quite technical in the mathmatics of it.

Indeed, I could see the wiki acting as a starting point for a question from which you jump off into forum discussions or various books to get an in depth answer.

I feel quite comfortable with analyzing why reading certain books (Atlas Shrugged, et al) make me emotionally feel good. I'm getting better at analyzing why visual arts (David) give me a sense of magnificence. I'm stuck on analyzing music, closing my eyes and listening to the Forth Movement of Beethoven’s 9th on earphones (blocking everything else out) is one of the most joyous experiences I can have, it just makes me feel GREAT. I'm stuck on analyzing why. Can someone explain how to examine the subject (metaphysics) and form (epistemology) of (non vocal) music. -- NAS

No one seems to be using the wiki, GC and I do spam patrol, I've expanded the sections I know something about but it still needs quite a bit of work. The way it's organized like OPAR getting summaries of each chapter in OAPR then getting more info from the other works and your own interpretations... there are always people on here, always posting, when you post about some topic (the theory of government for example) go look at the wiki and update that part of it. If you're not sure what a wiki is, look here this would be a great way for people to (legally) get more then just the basics of Objectivism without spending $100's of dollars on the books (not that I don't think people that are interested won't get the books, especially) -- NAS

Two differnt tracks, first: I don't cite Newton (or Leibniz) every time I use calculus (or F=ma) Would someone who came up with the the theory of concepts via mesurement omission need to cite Rand whenever they used it?

Where do we draw the line? I have philosophic arguments with friends, boards, and other people that aren't familar with Objectivism. Say I'm proposing the theory of concepts and mesurment omission (which I agree with). Having gone through the rational steps to understand and accept Rand's theory, is it necessary to cite her everytime I use that argument? Put it another way, with statements of truth (most of Objectivism) the fact that Rand did it (and did it first) is monumental, if anyone asks who put me down the path I say Rand. But since I hold these principles as MINE is it stealing when I use them without citing?

First, chemicals aren't alive, I believe what mrocktor was referencing was the random COH groups that came together to form simple organic chemicals which came together to form more complex organic chemicals which came together to form the first single celled organisms, which... need I go on? The point is, somewhere between free carbon, oxygen and hydrogen atoms and the first single celled bacteria, life formed... everything before life 'formed' was random and everything after was goal directed. And if those chemicals could randomly combine in nature, then what is to say they couldn't combine in a lab, or a simulation on a computer... I think they're a good simulation of life, that programmers modeled after life to get a desired effect (spreading). note: the above is my best understanding based on high school level biology and chemistry.

I know... that post was more a bump to get people to look at this thread again.

I just found this wiki and started working on it, is anyone else contributing?

81 to be exact.

I'm stuck on 11.

If, by invisible, you mean imaginary, then yes it's completely valid: Imaginary numbers by wikipedia

Two, related questions. What are the (I hesitate to use best) most influential philosophical works from an epistemological and metaphysical standpoint? Second, what order would make the most sense for reading Objectivist nonfiction?

I think it should be earlier. I started studying (outside of class) the concept of mathmatical proof's and symbolic logic when I was 10. My brother in law plays logical and mental games with my nephews (7&10) all the time, I think that logic and and an overview of philosphy and religon (in historical terms) should be required courses in high school.

Hi all, I'm a high school student in Washington State. I read the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged a few years ago, and they really didn't have a big impact on me (I think I was too young). I just finished rereading them, and they got me interested in philosophy in general. I'm spending the summer trying to define my philosophy. So far, I agree with Rand, but I'm trying to build my philosphy from the ground up (so I can be sure) and to convince myself. Anyhow, Hi!