Thank you, Darcie; I've been looking through the Lexicon on all of the philosophers mentioned here, and Niezche (spelling) seems promising.

This book sounds interesting; I'll look into it. I agree with his statement; people listen to the buzzwords without thinking of what KIND of change they want.

Snezzy & M.A.
Yes to you both.
I find it interesting that lefties will try to alter reality to suit their agendas. As a result philosophers like Plato & Kant are shown to be beneficent and are used to justify almost anything. Pshaw!

An interesting sort of sidebar read.

While this is not, strictly speaking, a book on philosophy, I find it an invaluable tool to understanding a sometimes contradictory subject is. "Economics In One Lesson" by Hazlitt. As to ancient philosophers, Aristotle is your guy. Much of Objectivism starts with Aristotle. Guys like Kant might be looked into after a firm grounding in the philosophies of freedom. The other student of Socrates was Plato, from whom all things left have sprung When you go after Plato, find yourself a summary or Cliffs notes type info, because getting deeply into him turns out to be a waste.

Although Ayn was not in league with Nietzsche (spelling) she did appreciate the genius of his reasoning powers and with a number of his premises bi would recommend a serious student o f philosophy read Rand's thought on him in her lexicon and then read his 'Will to Power' for a clear understanding. Or Thus Spoke Zarathustra' for which he is most famous. He is not difficult nor obfussive and doesn't attempt to baffle one with bs. He wants you to 'get' it as juxtaposed to Kant who does not but rather wants to simply pontificate on a philosophical topic similar to a mental Möbius strip ( no beginning and no ending). I am a devout Ibkectivist and always fall back on Ayn for clarification when I'm confused by the premises. As she always said, when in doubt check your premises. Good premises to you all b

One easy to read, small book by a self-educated American philosopher Eric Hoffer, is "The True Believer, a Study of Mass Movements." It explains the phenomenon of unreasoned, emotional support of the "great leader". Written in the '50s, I was reminded of Hoffer's work when I recalled his statement that "all mass movements begin with the words hope and change."

I have read essays that criticized Rand for her failure to understand Kant correctly. Rather an unintended compliment, that, I would say.

yes, he is :)

hear, hear on Aristotle. I suggest "A Treatise on Government"
Locke is very tedious to get through but very important. 2nd Treatise on Gov't-look at the Sparknotes along with the original

Thanks! I'll definitely look into him too.

Aquinas may be worth reading. If you do I recommend Bertrand Russell, a bit lefty for some but specifically deals with Aquinas' arguments for faith.

Haha, they sound quite alike sometimes, don't they?
Happy Thanksgiving, take care!

Hello again, SarahMontalbano
You are quite welcome. I think you will enjoy the book on Aristotle. I have read The basic Works of Aristotle ( http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Aristotle... ). It was amonumental task. !500(?) pages of fine print difficult language and tedium. I got more bang for the buck (my time), reading Aristotle for Everybody. I only wish I had read it first as it would have helped me through The Basic Works... Yes, Kant's "The Critique of Pure Reason" is nebulous nonsense. Almost all Philosophers of note have at least one brilliant insight, yet they all spend a great deal of time trying to disprove one another. What good is a philosopher if he/she can't adequately express their profundity? Many seem to know, if you can't blind them with brilliance, baffle them with bull.... funny how some of them resemble politicians... :)

Happy Thanksgiving,
O.A.

Hello O.A, thank you very much for your thoughtful and considerate reply. Any other suggestions you can think of later are welcome.

I'm definitely going to investigate the books you've recommended by Locke, Smith, and Paine. I'm aware, though, that no philosopher is completely consistent with Rand's views, and I'm going to attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. Aristotle for Everybody looks like a very good book; hopefully I'll get it for Christmas.

I've read some articles about Kant, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and others; those were unclear, and I couldn't understand his ideas through the linguistic disguises that surrounded it. I thought it would be better to get it from the horse's mouth, but that's proven unsuccessful too. I had been under the mistaken assumption that a philosopher has to make his ideas clear to be taken seriously, and that it was the sites I visited that obscured the facts; I was wrong. The reason the articles are unclear is because nobody can make nonsensical ideas make sense. I've only gotten a few pages into Critique, and it's a mess of contradictions, in the stuff that I could understand - and most of it is complete and utter nonsense.

(I'm probably going to give up on it, and take a refreshing re-read of Atlas Shrugged.)

Greetings SarahMontalbano,

You are beginning a journey I started long ago. I too have always returned to Rand and Objectivism. Kant was a mystic and his appeal has been overly influential. It is almost all nonsensical jargon designed to obfuscate the weakness of his irrational views of morality, epistemology and metaphysics. With him A was not A. His "Categorical Imperative" was not based on reason, but emotion and duty. "Always act so that you can will the maxim or determining principle of your action to become universal law; act so that you can will that everybody shall follow the principle of your action." This is total mystic nonsense. He seems to believe that his will can change reality, or the actions of others... A reality he doesn't even believe his senses can evaluate or determine. Big contradiction. His "noumenal" world was unknowable; it is the "real" reality, "superior" truth and "things in themselves" or "things as they are"---which means: things as they are not perceived by man. So you cannot trust your perceptions or faculties. He claimed his "phenomenal world" was not real; "reality, as perceived by man's mind, is a distortion." The distorting mechanism is man's conceptual faculty; man's basic concepts (such as time, space, existence) are not derived from experience or reality, but from an automatic system of filters in his consciousness (labeled "categories" and "forms of perception") which impose their own design on his perception of the external world and make him incapable of perceiving it in any manner other than the one in which he does perceive it. Mostly it is utter nonsense that suggests that you cannot in any way trust your own senses. this is not to say that your senses are infallible, but they are as Rand and Locke have asserted, your tools of cognition... in Rand's words, "Man’s senses are his only direct cognitive contact with reality and, therefore, his only source of information. Without sensory evidence, there can be no concepts; without concepts, there can be no language; without language, there can be no knowledge and no science."Philosophy: Who Needs It, 90 “Kant Versus Sullivan” People can have false conclusions and perceptions, but that does not nullify all input from the senses. Without your senses there is no world, no philosophy.. only darkness. One must check their premises against all available input.

Above in addition to my own comments, I have generally quoted and paraphrased from three sources: Philosophy: Who Needs It, For the New intellectual, approx. pg.28 and Basic Teachings of The Great Philosophers, S.E. Frost, Jr. approx. pg. 40.

Kant is problematic and contradictory to say the least. Here is the Lexicon Link for your convenience. http://aynrandlexicon.com/searchresul...

I have read many general philosophy books and also many specific works from the most renowned philosophers. I would suggest that it is a good journey to embark on. However, with each philosopher you do investigate, I would highly recommend investigating Rand's words and her critiques on each of them as they are generally unassailable in their logic and objectivity. She did not find any other philosophy/philosopher completely satisfactory which was the impetus for her creation of Objectivism. For all philosophers of note, there is some wisdom and insight to be gleaned but you must separate the wheat from the chaff.

In addition to the philosophers and warnings mentioned by previous respondents to your inquiry I would recommend John Locke (Second Treatise of Government, A Letter Concerning Toleration ), Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations) and Thomas Paine (Common Sense, The Rights Of Man, and The Age of Reason.)

General philosophy books are fine for an overall picture, but when you find someone of particular interest, it is wise to go to he source and examine the full context and specifics.
Here are a few links to reviews of books I have posted here in the Gulch that may be of interest.
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

I do not know to what extent you have exhausted your inquiry into Rand's writings, but you can't go wrong reading all of her offerings as well as Peikoff's "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand", but beware, in this book you are getting Peikoff's extrapolations and there are some notables in the Objectivist camp that differ with Peikoff on a few specifics.

I have produced this reply at my office where I have a limited library. If you wish more input I can peruse my library at home later for more suggestions, though I believe between my suggestions and that of other respondents you have quite a bit to keep you busy.

Respectfully,
O.A.

Much more palatable than Kant- that book is on my Christmas list. (I would buy it now, myself, but that wouldn't leave many ideas for my parents, and I'm willing to wait.)

Haha, I'm not thinking that's likely, but I'll keep my guard up just in case!

Are you being facetious?

Ayn Rand recommends the three A's: Aristotle, Aquinas, and Ayn Rand. You might say Spinoza wasn't all wrong. But, if you have not read Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, you might find it more palatable than Kant - to say the least!