I saw this on Wikipedia..
Objectivism as a “closed system” that consists solely of those philosophic principles Rand herself endorsed
What are these principles exactly, straight-foward and summarized?
Read OPAR.
That didn’t really help, kind of clever though… 
That didn’t really help
Why?
That didn’t really help, kind of clever though…
I think the point being made is that this web site shouldn’t substitute reading the material yourself. Jenny’s suggestion was helpful in pointing you in the right direction to get the answer you sought. The fact that it would take some effort on your part shouldn’t desuade you. After all, just for argument’s sake, how do you know they would give you the same answer you would get from reading the material yourself?
What are these principles exactly, straight-foward and summarized?
I must be missing something here. Mammon, I thought you had some idea what Objectivism was? You’ve been here a while.
OTOH I know sometimes I completely misunderstand what you are trying to say.
That didn’t really help, kind of clever though… <_<
Why not? What were you expecting?
Mammon, if Objectivism is defined as Ayn Rand’s philosophy, then OPAR describes Objectivism because Dr. Peikoff only discusses what Ayn Rand herself believed. So to understand Objectivism, you must understand OPAR. Any other book will not necessarily represent Objectivism but of course might supplement your understanding of the philosophy.
You can, of course, also read Ayn Rand’s three major non-fiction works: Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, The Virtue of Selfishness, and The Romantic Manifesto. Dr. Peikoff’s OPAR, however, basically covers these three works, as well.
You can, of course, also read Ayn Rand’s three major non-fiction works: Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, The Virtue of Selfishness, and The Romantic Manifesto. Dr. Peikoff’s OPAR, however, basically covers these three works, as well.
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology , makes four.
Introduction to Objectivist Metaphysics, five.
Introduction to Objectivist Metaphysics, five.
There’s a book called “Introduction to Objectivist Metaphysics” or are you confusing it with ITOE.
I would like to put in my 2 cents and say that ITOE is fundamental, but OPAR does a good job of completely summarizing the philosophy in a single tome.
There is one, I’m sure about it. There is informal “Big Five”, each book addressing corresponding branch of Objectivism, I guess they all should be read in order to understand Objectivism completely, if OPAR is not enough.
There is one, I’m sure about it.
Certainly not one written by Ayn Rand, or sold by the Ayn Rand Bookstore.
“Philosophy: Who needs it?” may fit the bill for #5 for the informal list. Perhaps this is the one that Lex has in mind as dealing with metaphysics? Even if not it is still worth reading alongside CUI, VOS, TRM, ITOE, and OPAR.
JJM
Certainly not one written by Ayn Rand, or sold by the Ayn Rand Bookstore.
Right. It’s strange, I don’t usually make such big mistakes. Thank you for pointing it out.
If there were an “Introduction to Objectivist Metaphysics”, it’d be a short book. In “Journals of Ayn Rand”, she states:
““Existence exists” (or identity plus causality) is all there is to metaphysics. All the rest is epistemology.”
Why?
Because I said simple and straight-foward. Spending $20 on a book I don’t have time to read at the moment isn’t a simple straight foward answer to a simple question. If you asked me where Atlanta was, telling you to go get a Ph.D in geography would help you find the answer, but it’s unnessicary because it’s a simple question with a simple answer. I also realized I thought I posted something, but turns out I didn’t. I was asking the question because the Wikipedia site said if you don’t agree with those principles then you’re not an Objectivist. (I think it was talking about Objectivists vs Neo-Objectivists). I thought I knew what they were, but I wanted to double check to find out what the principles the article was refering to exactly and if anyone knew.
Still, I ask for something simple , and sNerd seems to be the only person who caught that part. Here is where I get testy. I appreciate the suggestions, but come on. I’ve actually already read a good bit on my own and Steve kind of caught onto it by saying
Mammon, I thought you had some idea what Objectivism was? You’ve been here a while.
*facepalms*
Yes I do. And yes, a red flag should of popped up when someone who has been here for awhile was asking a question like this. I see that I assumed wrong to think you guys knew my level of understanding. Either that or there is a quick-draw attitude about these things. Or there is a confusion because I accidently left out the part about “agreeing to this makes you an Objectivist” again, I wanted to double check that I wasn’t agreeing to something I don’t believe is true.