Stephen Speicher

Considering the structure of onions, I'm a bit surprised to hear that onion intolerance is "fairly common." I scan some of the allergy journals irregularly, and I do not recall seeing anything along the lines you seek. However, I think you might find this genetic analysis to be interesting, nonetheless. Genetic analyses of correlated solids, flavor, and health-enhancing traits in onion (Allium cepa L.), C. R. Galmarani, et al., Molecular Genetics and Genomics, Vol. 265, pp. 543-551, 2001.

To be fair here, we are talking about a young man who is supplementing his soon-to-begin college education with study on his own. If Amse actually follows a goodly portion of what he has already outlined, I suspect that such will naturally lead him to much else. As they say, all roads lead to Rome.

Over the years I too have heard views in regard to children that were almost unbearably horrible, most often from libertarian types who have little in the way of fundamentally correct moral and political principles. As Amse pointed out in a recent post in a different thread, political ideas are derivative from an ethical base

Try Robert Mayhew's book, The Female in Aristotle's Biology, which I reviewed in this post. .

No reason for that. Try a systematic study of the history of philosophy, getting to know the bad guys as well as the good. Try W. T. Jones' excellent A History of Western Philosophy, Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1952, and/or Wilhelm Windelband's A History of Philosophy, The Paper Tiger, 2001.

You would not be expected to finish a serious study of that book in such a short time. But, given the time that you have, if you will give the book serious study and present any questions or summaries here on THE FORUM, I will be happy to send the book to you. If you agree, then send me your mailing address privately by email or PM and I will forward the book right away.

My copy is more than forty years old, well-worn but still readable. I have been meaning to order a new copy from Fred Weiss' company, The Paper Tiger, Inc. I will offer to send you my used copy if you agree to Burgess' suggestion to present questions or summaries on THE FORUM based on your serious study of the work.

I don't think that is a fair assessment. You have received a number of good and reasonable responses, but I note that some of your follow-up posts set some different standards as to what in fact you are really after. And, don't forget that your very first statement in your beginning post was "I am bored." If we craft our ideas in order of importance and relevance to the point, then relieving the boredom is even more primary than satisfying any other particular intellectual pursuit. Frankly, I find it difficult to integrate your boredom with the impression you give of an eighteen year-old looking for intellectual challenges, when many brilliant people spend their lifetime seeking to understand a virtually endless array of ideas that were developed from antiquity to the present. Incidentally, since you have stated that you are looking for "studies in metaphysics and epistemology," have you read Alex's essay on The Unbounded, Finite Universe? Alex is an Objectivist philosophy student who moderates our "Who said this ... in Philosophy" forum, and the referenced essay is considered by some, myself included, to bring brilliant closure to a topic that has befuddled many for quite a long time. Why don't you read the essay and present your thoughts about it here?

Hmm. Perhaps we have somewhat different editions. I read Jones' use of "concentration" as meaning the selection of fewer theories to be better understood, rather than the mere recognition of many theories. Not so much a balance between "too dense" or "too academic" qua each theory, but an appropriate selection among theories to include. And, yes, Jones also focuses on context, but I do not see it as "an authors[sic] effect on his society." Rather, as Jones explicitly states, "We cannot hope to understand their theories unless we see them as expressions -- doubtless at a highly conceptualized level -- of the same currents of thoughts and feeling which were moving the poets and the statesmen, the theologians and the playwrights, the painters and the sculptors, as well as the average citizens who were their contemporaries." (I do not fully agree with Jones' assessment here, but, nevertheless, I believe the preceding to accurately reflect his view.)

Which fact possibly explains part of the reaction some had to your initial posts in another thread. Covering in two weeks material that others spend years studying in detail, is somewhat difficult to accept. I think you will find that scholarly material of any depth takes time to study and cannot readily be grasped on quick reading.

I will give a hesitant "yes" with the understanding that what you refer to as "style" is, in my terms, the totality of using the particular art medium for value-expression, and what you refer to as "themes" is to me the representation of a metaphysical sense of life. As to finding art that is "in sync" for both your "themes" and "style," have you ever listened to the music of Sergei Rachmaninoff (Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini), the sculpture of Frederick Hart (Ex Nihilo), the paintings of Jose Emanuel Capuletti (Not Guilty), or the buildings of John Lautner (Sheats/Goldstein)? There is a beautiful world out there for you to eventually discover.

I read Kafka, Camus, and the whole gang when I was quite young (and never re-read) so, frankly, other than remembering I enjoyed Kafka's Metamorphosis, I cannot really comment on the works as art. However, to answer your more general question, recall Ayn Rand's definition of art as "a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments." (The Romantic Manifesto, p. 19) The term "metaphysical value-judgments" does not restrict such values to be only of a certain kind. To judge art, qua art, in any medium, is to judge how well the work uses the medium in order to re-create and express the artist's metaphysical values. So, if your movie Scarface used the medium of film -- the visual quality, the plot, the characters, etc. -- in order to successfully project such metaphysical values, whether they be values that we agree with or not, then to that degree we can judge the work as good art. (Note, however, that this is a separate judgment from the art that you might personally enjoy. For instance, you might prefer a lesser quality film that expresses a sense of life more in accord with your own.)

Well, one thing that comes to mind is that there can be a difference between thinking one is right, and feeling that way. In other words, sometimes our conscious convictions can differ from the earlier views we formed -- perhaps formed earlier even implicitly, rather than explicitly -- which are stored in our subconscious and then automatically expressed in terms of feelings. This sort of situation -- a conflict between conscious and subconscious views -- occurs often for young people who are in the process of forming their explicit philosophical views. What is required is an integration, an identification of the feelings and the subconscious premises on which they are based, re-evaluated in light of one's conscious convictions. Sometimes this can be a very long process, but ferreting out earlier subconscious estimates and replacing them with what one knows is right, is the only way to restore a conflicted mind to an integrated whole. p.s. I moved the thread to this forum, which I thought was more appropriate than the Literature forum.

Wonderful. Go to it!

The list has four sections: The first three books are on relativity; the next four books are related more to cosmology; the next two books are on the quantum, and the final two books touch upon both relativistic and quantum issues. I would suggest reading the relativity books in the order presented, and the cosmology books in whatever order interests you the most. However, before reading any of the books on cosmology, I would first establish a base by reading at least the first book on relativity. The two quantum books can be read independent of the other groups, with Baggott's book first, followed by Beller's. Before reading the Feynman book or the Icke book, I would read at least the first relativity book and the first quantum book. (Note that these suggestions represent just a few I skimmed off the top. If anyone has serious interest in reading beyond these, there are many other choices I can provide, depending upon interest. Also, the books are meant to be in addition to whatever portion of Lewis Little's papers are accessible to you, as well as my own non-technical presentation of his theory.)

Of what I have studied (most of it), it seems fine as far as it goes. The list is weighted towards the classical end of physics, with the notable absence of relativity (except for the little that is contained in Feynman). This is a glaring absence considering the importance of the subject, both in terms of ideas and practical applications. Feynman's physics course also seems a bit out of place considering the non-technical level and focus of the rest of the material. That course was a challenge for the bright young minds starting physics at Caltech many years ago, so I do not see how it fits with the rest of the material. But, anyway, it is always safe reading Galileo and Newton.

If sticking to that list, I would certainly replace one of Faraday's references with something by James Clerk Maxwell, perhaps On Physical Lines of Force, or A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field (despite its inclusion of mathematics not meant for laymen, which can be passed by). At least that provides an historical link to relativity. And, for that, I would included a decent book on modern relativity, one like Spacetime Physics, Edwin F. Taylor & John Archibald Wheeler, W. H. Freeman Company, 1992. And, before reading Feynman's QED I would add an overview of quantum mechanics itself, something like Jim Baggott's The Meaning of Quantum Theory, Oxford University Press, 1992/1997. But, frankly, I think that the time and money spent reading the works on that list would be better spent getting a really good overview of all of physics, from ancient times to now. I would suggest reading instead the three-volume set by Jefferson Hane Weaver, The World of Physics : A Small Library of the Literature of Physics from Antiquity to the Present, Simon and Schuster, 1987. These volumes contain excerpts from some of the most important and most interesting writings in physics throughout the ages. A marvelous collection, punctuated by Weaver's sometimes insightful comments. The set is, unfortunately, out of print, but readily available on the used book market. (Make sure you are buying the whole set, and not just a single volume.)

I share your joy at discovery. I have found many treasures at used bookstores over the years. Though, I must say, the ease of used-book shopping on the internet nowadays is a pleasure all its own.

I am not an expert and do not know what can be solved solely on your own. But, having difficulty grasping and controlling the forces that guide your life, and contemplating suicide several times, seems to me as a justifiable reason to seek the help and advice of an expert.

Sometimes it is best to seek professional help and advice from those who specialize in psychotherapy. There are certain general principles that can be outlined -- in this respect see the two-part article "The Base of Objectivist Psychotherapy" in the June and July 1969 issues of The Objectivist -- but often it is necessary, or, at least advisable, especially for young people, to have professional guidance in dealing with the sort of problems that you have outlined.

The quote I gave you was from a beginning chapter. I had the impression, since you were so impressed by Mill's thinking and spoke of advocating his views, that you had read at least the beginning parts of the essay, if not the whole thing. In the future may I suggest that you delve into a work at least deeply enough to know the esssentials before posting such a provocative position as you did.

This is hedonism, plain and simple.

I must say, Amse, I am a bit confused. When you came here just two months ago you told us that when you were first introduced to the works of Ayn Rand that you "soon after devoured all of AR's fiction and non-fiction, and devoted myself to her principles." You listed a vast array of reading that you did, and said you were "bored" and wanted to find essays that were "more philosphical[sic] challenging" than what ARI puts out. You also indicated that Peikoff's Understanding Objectivism course should be "required listening." And now you want to advocate the notion of "the greatest good for the greatest number?" What happened to the foundation of Ayn Rand's development of ethics?

To be fair to Mill he does go on to distinguish and elevate the human experience over animal appetities, though this does not change his more fundamental hedonistic flaw.

I just gave you a quote early-on from Mill's essay, in which he states that by "happiness" he means "pleasure" ("By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure."). This is not just simply in conflict with Ayn Rand's ethics, but fundamentally so.