Dr. Peikoff on sex change surgery

[Carlos 0]

Might want to warn people that this is NSFW

Here's some facts to consider: SRS.

Not sure what that means, but be forewarned.

When one of the first things you see after clicking the link is a large, close-up image of a vagina, then it is Not Safe For Work (NSFW), in internet lingo. Board members should be forewarned before providing such a link, so that they don't accidentally embarrass themselves in a public place.

[Carlos 0]

Board members should be forewarned before providing such a link, so that they don't accidentally embarrass themselves in a public place.

I don't know why I said "Board". I meant to type "Forum".

[Paul's Here 0]

Might want to warn people that this is NSFW

Here's some facts to consider: SRS.

Not sure what that means, but be forewarned.

When one of the first things you see after clicking the link is a large, close-up image of a vagina, then it is Not Safe For Work (NSFW), in internet lingo. Board members should be forewarned before providing such a link, so that they don't accidentally embarrass themselves in a public place.

Sorry about that. Yes, I should have given warning.

[Carlos 0]

Might want to warn people that this is NSFW

Here's some facts to consider: SRS.

Not sure what that means, but be forewarned.

When one of the first things you see after clicking the link is a large, close-up image of a vagina, then it is Not Safe For Work (NSFW), in internet lingo. Board members should be forewarned before providing such a link, so that they don't accidentally embarrass themselves in a public place.

Sorry about that. Yes, I should have given warning.

Well regardless, thanks for sharing, because scientifically it's very interesting.

[Carlos 0]

Might want to warn people that this is NSFW

Here's some facts to consider: SRS.

Not sure what that means, but be forewarned.

When one of the first things you see after clicking the link is a large, close-up image of a vagina, then it is Not Safe For Work (NSFW), in internet lingo. Board members should be forewarned before providing such a link, so that they don't accidentally embarrass themselves in a public place.

Sorry about that. Yes, I should have given warning.

Well regardless, thanks for sharing, because scientifically it's very interesting.

From the fascinating link Paul provided, here is a Safe For Work informative essay.

http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/...ml#anchor107763

Bizarrely, the root address, http://www.eecs.umich.edu/ai/ , is the website of the Artificial Intelligence Lab at The University of Michigan.

[Carlos 0]

Another fascinating story from that:

The theory that gender identity is socially constructed is finally shattered:

The breakaway from John Money's paradigm escalated rapidly after the scientific community learned that Money had suppressed for many years clear evidence that his theories were wrong. The final straw was the highly publicized case of "John/Joan", presented in the book As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl, by John Colapinto.

Decades ago, John Money had advised the parents of an infant boy who had lost most of his penis in a medical accident to have the boy surgically changed into a girl - under the theory that "she" would then grow up to be a normal girl instead of an "abnormal boy". This was a very noteworthy case for scientific researchers because the child was born with an identical twin who could serve as a basis of comparison in the study of gender development. As a first step, the child was castrated and the rest of his penis removed. He was then raised as a girl. However, clearly exhibiting an innate gender identity as a little boy, "she" began to declare that "she" was "really a boy" and rebelled against efforts to make "her" behave like a girl. At puberty, still unaware of "her" childhood surgery, she resisted her parent's and physician's efforts to feminize her with estrogen and further surgeries. Eventually, she underwent gender transition to become male, much as would an FtM transsexual. In this case, raising a boy-child with apparently female genitals as a girl clearly did NOT alter the child's inborn sense of his own true gender.

Over many decades, John Money continually referred to the John/Joan case as a victory, fabricating facts to indicate that this case had been a "complete success". Money never "allowed" anyone to get close to "Joan" to learn more details about her life, begging off any contact in the name of "privacy". The case gradually became so legendary that it became the cornerstone of support for Money's entire theory of gender.

And then the shattering news came down, in the revelations that John Money knew full well that the infant's reassignment had not worked at all. And worse yet, he had deliberately concealed this counter-evidence to his theories for decades - decades during which thousands more infants had been subjected to infant intersex surgical maimings. Fittingly, it was Professor Milton Diamond, the scientist who'd bravely challenged Money as a young graduate students decades earlier, who uncovered the deception.

Professor Diamond had always been suspicious of Money's results. Over the years he had tried in numerous research studies and papers to persuade others to at least consider the possibility that gender identity was inborn. However, his efforts were to no avail, given Money's intellectual dominance of the field.

Finally, in the early 1990's, Diamond managed to track down the child "Joan", now presumably a grown woman, whose case had been the foundation of Money's entire viewpoint. Wanting to simply confirm what had or had not happened to her, Diamond had stumbled into the incredible fact that "she" had never felt like a girl at all, and was now a married man!*

[*The story later came to a very tragic end. Although "John" had been able to socially and surgically reverse his childhood reassignment and become a male, "he acknowledged a deep well of wrenching anger that would never go away. "You can never escape the past," he told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer in 2000. "I had parts of my body cut away and thrown in a wastepaper basket. I've had my mind ripped away."" "John" committed suicide on May 4 2004.]

Diamond and a colleague, Sigmundson, then worked tirelessly to document what had happened in this case, and they wrote a journal paper to reveal the results. The paper was so controversial that many research journals simply turned it down! So great was the influence of Money and the knee-jerk buy-in into his now established paradigm of thought about gender identity. The various journals simply could not believe the evidence that was staring them in the face!

The paper, "Sex Reassignment at Birth: Long Term Review and Clinical Implications" by Milton Diamond & H. Keith Sigmundson, was finally published in 1997 in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. There was a firestorm of reaction in the media and the research community to its astonishing news. John Money was publicly revealed to have falsified evidence and suppressed counter-evidence in the case that was the cornerstone of his entire theory of gender identity. Within two years the writer John Calapinto's published a detailed account of the overall story, bringing it to the public at large.

An interesting story of a courageous young scientist defying the rationalism that dominated the field, eventually winning in the end. What was won though was much more than an academic dispute, as children's lives were being surgically experimented with and ruined based on the old dogmatic theories.

[PhilO 0]

There's another way to look at the horrific case of that attempt: that external genitalia are not *fundamentally* the source of one's sense of possessing a particular gender. Which makes sense, because it has to originate somewhere in the brain.

After thinking a bit more about it all, a couple of thoughts. First, even if the phenomenon exists that certain individuals have mismatched genders biologically re: brain vs. the rest of their bodies, current technology is light years away from really doing anything about it. "Sex change surgery" is really nothing of the sort; to do it right would actually require both "molecular surgery" within each cell and a retransformation of the body. I suspect that it will take at least a few more centuries before that's possible (if ever - since the really big issue is how to retain consciousness while all of that is happening over time.) This scenario was actually touched on by Heinlein in "Time Enough for Love" (Andrew Libby), and in a way, his novel "I Will Fear No Evil" (one of the few Heinlein stories I'm pretty sure I have not read.)

Second, if that phenomenon does exist, then since it is actually incurable, such individuals are currently facing an insolvable mind-body contradiction, and they are unlikely to ever really be happy no matter what they do.

[Arnold 0]

There's another way to look at the horrific case of that attempt: that external genitalia are not *fundamentally* the source of one's sense of possessing a particular gender. Which makes sense, because it has to originate somewhere in the brain.

After thinking a bit more about it all, a couple of thoughts. First, even if the phenomenon exists that certain individuals have mismatched genders biologically re: brain vs. the rest of their bodies, current technology is light years away from really doing anything about it. "Sex change surgery" is really nothing of the sort; to do it right would actually require both "molecular surgery" within each cell and a retransformation of the body. I suspect that it will take at least a few more centuries before that's possible (if ever - since the really big issue is how to retain consciousness while all of that is happening over time.) This scenario was actually touched on by Heinlein in "Time Enough for Love" (Andrew Libby), and in a way, his novel "I Will Fear No Evil" (one of the few Heinlein stories I'm pretty sure I have not read.)

Second, if that phenomenon does exist, then since it is actually incurable, such individuals are currently facing an insolvable mind-body contradiction, and they are unlikely to ever really be happy no matter what they do.

I don't see this. It seems pretty clear that your gender identity is in your brain, (but not subject to volitional choice). It is also apparent that genitals themselves don't determine one's sexual orientation, although they facilitate the expression of it. True, on a molecular level there will always be the wrong chromosome for the physical gender, but how does that affect the conditions that formed sexual orientation? Clearly there are thousands of cases where the physical and mental aspects are in conflict. In nature, such variations are to be expected, and hermaphrodites certainly show mix-ups on the physical level.

In the end, since one cannot transplant a brain form the opposite sex, the next best thing is to modify the body to some degree to match the sexual identity. I have no reason to expect none would ever be happy with the result.

[PhilO 0]

In the end, since one cannot transplant a brain form the opposite sex, the next best thing is to modify the body to some degree to match the sexual identity. I have no reason to expect none would ever be happy with the result.

That's why I suggested a study of the actual results - but I doubt that the statistics will be favorable, even if some feel they are better off afterwards. I do think it's somebody's right to do what they want with their own bodies; it directly flows from the fact that one own's one's own body.

[Carlos 0]

There's another way to look at the horrific case of that attempt: that external genitalia are not *fundamentally* the source of one's sense of possessing a particular gender. Which makes sense, because it has to originate somewhere in the brain.

After thinking a bit more about it all, a couple of thoughts. First, even if the phenomenon exists that certain individuals have mismatched genders biologically re: brain vs. the rest of their bodies, current technology is light years away from really doing anything about it. "Sex change surgery" is really nothing of the sort; to do it right would actually require both "molecular surgery" within each cell and a retransformation of the body. I suspect that it will take at least a few more centuries before that's possible (if ever - since the really big issue is how to retain consciousness while all of that is happening over time.) This scenario was actually touched on by Heinlein in "Time Enough for Love" (Andrew Libby), and in a way, his novel "I Will Fear No Evil" (one of the few Heinlein stories I'm pretty sure I have not read.)

Second, if that phenomenon does exist, then since it is actually incurable, such individuals are currently facing an insolvable mind-body contradiction, and they are unlikely to ever really be happy no matter what they do.

Another layer of complexity is the observation in the website that transexuals who have their testicles castrated before puberty don't develop a libido and can never experience an orgasm, while transexuals who are castrated after puberty still retain a healthy functioning sex-drive and even the ability to orgasm (the orgasms were apparently detected and medically confirmed using scientific equipment, so there is no room for "subjective" interpretation from anecdotal accounts).

So during sexual development the genitals/reproductive organs permanently alter your physiology, even after they are gone. Clearly there is some complex interplay between hormonal chemistry in the brain and whatever the genitals/reproductive organs actually do. Intelligent is the man who will be able to untangle all of that.

[BillPennock 0]

In most of the cases I've heard of, the individuals are so obviously psychologically imbalanced that an objective survey of their "happiness" would probably be impossible or not even valid.

Do you consider it an objective assessment of these cases go to by "what you've heard of" rather than an actual study of the facts?

People "hear" a lot of things. I've seen people rant on about the "inherent" imbalance and abnormality of homosexuals in the presence of psychologically healthy homosexuals who stay quiet.

What I'm referring to are the cases where an individual that is medically a healthy male claims to be a "woman trapped in a man's body", and gets medical procedures done to reverse their sex. I think we are all aware that this happens, and that there isn't a rational justification for it.

This has no relevance to homosexuals who act rationally with respect to the nature of who they are and are attracted to others of the same sex. In the case of sex-changes, with people who have perfectly healthy genders and related sexual anatomy, what you have are individuals trying to erase or re-write their identity. There's no justification for that, just as there's no justification for Michael Jackson to give himself caucasian facial features or Heidi Montag to double the size of her breasts through bizarre surgeries.

Isn't that a bit judgmental? I am on the Ayn Rand Fan's page right? A person has a right to live their life according to THEIR OWN conscious as long as they don't use violence or force or fraud or coercion against another.

[ewv 0]

Isn't that a bit judgmental? I am on the Ayn Rand Fan's page right? A person has a right to live their life according to THEIR OWN conscious as long as they don't use violence or force or fraud or coercion against another.

A right to live your own life is not the opposite of being "judgmental". Whether or not you agree with Leanard Peikoff's comments on this subject, Carlos did not advocate "force or fraud" against anyone. That is not what it means to make judgments.

A supposed "right" to do whatever you feel like and be free of "judgment" is the not the basis of Objectivism and that notion contradicts the entire nature of the philosophy. Objectivism starts with rationality and objectivity in thought, which requires personally judging what is right and wrong about anything in all realms of knowledge, including physics, biology and human actions -- and in particular moral philosophy as an entire subject before you ever get to the basis of political rights.

Denouncing someone for being "judgmental" in the name of "rights" confuses politics with epistemology, inverts the hierarchy of knowledge, and is the opposite of Ayn Rand's philosophy. Ayn Rand was not an a-philosophical libertarian. Whether you agree with Carlos or not there are no bans on making scientific and moral judgments in the name of "rights".

[Paul's Here 0]

------------

Isn't that a bit judgmental? I am on the Ayn Rand Fan's page right? A person has a right to live their life according to THEIR OWN conscious as long as they don't use violence or force or fraud or coercion against another.

I am curious exactly what that means to you. Such assertions have been put forth by libertarians since the '60's as if it is self-evident. Why does the issue of force or fraud consititute the basis for passing rational moral judgment, while passing such judgment when force or fraud are absent seems to be the basis for arguing against such judgment?

[B. Royce 0]

------------

Isn't that a bit judgmental? I am on the Ayn Rand Fan's page right? A person has a right to live their life according to THEIR OWN conscious as long as they don't use violence or force or fraud or coercion against another.

I am curious exactly what that means to you. Such assertions have been put forth by libertarians since the '60's as if it is self-evident. Why does the issue of force or fraud consititute the basis for passing rational moral judgment, while passing such judgment when force or fraud are absent seems to be the basis for arguing against such judgment?

Paul, it looks like it means that if you don't use initiate force you have a right not to be judged. Inotherwords, merely not initiating force sets you on the high plane of moral perfection, in which all other virtues, such as independence, honesty and rationality, aren't necessary.

[BillPennock 0]

------------

Isn't that a bit judgmental? I am on the Ayn Rand Fan's page right? A person has a right to live their life according to THEIR OWN conscious as long as they don't use violence or force or fraud or coercion against another.

I am curious exactly what that means to you. Such assertions have been put forth by libertarians since the '60's as if it is self-evident. Why does the issue of force or fraud consititute the basis for passing rational moral judgment, while passing such judgment when force or fraud are absent seems to be the basis for arguing against such judgment?

I was speaking specifically about the comments that there is no justification for sex change operation. It seems to me that the justification judgment is one that should be based on a persons personal desire and what makes them happy. I don't understand, I guess, the strength of the statements condemning the action.

[BillPennock 0]

------------

Isn't that a bit judgmental? I am on the Ayn Rand Fan's page right? A person has a right to live their life according to THEIR OWN conscious as long as they don't use violence or force or fraud or coercion against another.

I am curious exactly what that means to you. Such assertions have been put forth by libertarians since the '60's as if it is self-evident. Why does the issue of force or fraud consititute the basis for passing rational moral judgment, while passing such judgment when force or fraud are absent seems to be the basis for arguing against such judgment?

Paul, it looks like it means that if you don't use initiate force you have a right not to be judged. Inotherwords, merely not initiating force sets you on the high plane of moral perfection, in which all other virtues, such as independence, honesty and rationality, aren't necessary.

B. Royce, you are right my statement was much too broad. I do not believe that non initiation of force in any form gives license to be dishonest or irrational, etc. It seems to me that the sex change operation is not something that would be easy to automatically categorize as irrational or otherwise non-virtuous though. It seems to me it falls in the things a person get's to do because they think it will make them happy and it is not dishonest and I can't see where it's irrational. Therefore I'm just surprised at the strong condemnations.

[B. Royce 0]

------------

Isn't that a bit judgmental? I am on the Ayn Rand Fan's page right? A person has a right to live their life according to THEIR OWN conscious as long as they don't use violence or force or fraud or coercion against another.

I am curious exactly what that means to you. Such assertions have been put forth by libertarians since the '60's as if it is self-evident. Why does the issue of force or fraud consititute the basis for passing rational moral judgment, while passing such judgment when force or fraud are absent seems to be the basis for arguing against such judgment?

Paul, it looks like it means that if you don't use initiate force you have a right not to be judged. Inotherwords, merely not initiating force sets you on the high plane of moral perfection, in which all other virtues, such as independence, honesty and rationality, aren't necessary.

B. Royce, you are right my statement was much too broad. I do not believe that non initiation of force in any form gives license to be dishonest or irrational, etc. It seems to me that the sex change operation is not something that would be easy to automatically categorize as irrational or otherwise non-virtuous though. It seems to me it falls in the things a person get's to do because they think it will make them happy and it is not dishonest and I can't see where it's irrational. Therefore I'm just surprised at the strong condemnations.

What is meant by "..the things a person gets to do because he thinks it will make him happy..."? By acknowledging his nature as a rational animal a man knows that his happiness depends on his actions being in accord with his nature. He chooses long-range productive goals and makes a plan of action to achieve them. He doesn't wake up one morning and decide that if he had his front teeth pulled out it would make him happy. If he did come to that decision, we would not say it was a result of thinking, but of feeling---and a feeling which contradicted his nature-given nature. Sure, he can still eat without his front teeth, but having them pulled was not a rational means to a rational end, not in accord with a long-range productive life. To be rational, if a man asserts that he wants to get a sex-change operation, he must have arrived at that conclusion from a logical process of thought that ties the changing of his manly nature to the achievement of his goals. (As, How is my sex-change going to help me succeed as a factory foreman? or, How is my sex-change going to help me compose original and beautiful music? or, How is my sex-change going to help me start my own restaurant?) He needs relevant facts in order to make a rational decision. What he does not need is vague, neurotic feelings of pain and despair, and if he feels them, he should neither deny them nor act on them.

"Getting to do things" properly means being free to pursue your goals without being interfered with by force. For a virtuous man it does not mean doing anything you feel like, just because you're not hurting anyone else.

[ewv 0]

B. Royce, you are right my statement was much too broad. I do not believe that non initiation of force in any form gives license to be dishonest or irrational, etc. It seems to me that the sex change operation is not something that would be easy to automatically categorize as irrational or otherwise non-virtuous though. It seems to me it falls in the things a person get's to do because they think it will make them happy and it is not dishonest and I can't see where it's irrational. Therefore I'm just surprised at the strong condemnations.

You stated:

Isn't that a bit judgmental? I am on the Ayn Rand Fan's page right? A person has a right to live their life according to THEIR OWN conscious as long as they don't use violence or force or fraud or coercion against another.

That is not "too broad". It is wrong. Ayn Rand did not advocate being "non-judgmental", quite the contrary, and Ayn Rand was not a hedonist advocating doing whatever will "make you happy" with "justification" as "personal desire".

No one has advocated "violence or force or fraud or coercion against another" by advocating prohibiting people from getting "sex changes". Several people, including Leonard Peikoff, have given their reasons why they think "sex changes" are improper and destructive. That is not addressed by denouncing being "judgmental" on an "Ayn Rand Fan's page", accompanied by appeals to what people "get to do" in accordance with libertarian hedonism. Again, that confuses libertarian politics with epistemology and ethics. If you don't think sex changes are irrational then that is what you should be arguing if you want to discuss the topic, not denouncing as "judgmental", in the name of Ayn Rand, people arguing reasoned opinions.

[BillPennock 0]

Ok, I came here to get challenged and got what I came for. So let me first say I did not follow my own principles by using the reference to Ayn Rand fan pages. That was wrong and I apologize. I am going back to TOS and re-read parts about emotions and review some threads here. Then I'll try to come back to this thread and either admit to where my concepts have gotten sloppy or restart the discussion on firmer ground. "try to come back" because I also have a small business to run and only a bit of time to devote to this effort.

[ewv 0]

Ok, I came here to get challenged and got what I came for. So let me first say I did not follow my own principles by using the reference to Ayn Rand fan pages. That was wrong and I apologize. I am going back to TOS and re-read parts about emotions and review some threads here. Then I'll try to come back to this thread and either admit to where my concepts have gotten sloppy or restart the discussion on firmer ground. "try to come back" because I also have a small business to run and only a bit of time to devote to this effort.

It sounds like you have to do all the work, too, not just 'running' the business.

By TOS you mean The Objective Standard journal? What books of Ayn Rand's have your read? It sounds like you are over-emphasizing politics in realms in which it does not apply, perhaps without realizing that there is much more. Have you read Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand [OPAR] for an integrated overview?

[BillPennock 0]

Ok, I came here to get challenged and got what I came for. So let me first say I did not follow my own principles by using the reference to Ayn Rand fan pages. That was wrong and I apologize. I am going back to TOS and re-read parts about emotions and review some threads here. Then I'll try to come back to this thread and either admit to where my concepts have gotten sloppy or restart the discussion on firmer ground. "try to come back" because I also have a small business to run and only a bit of time to devote to this effort.

It sounds like you have to do all the work, too, not just 'running' the business.

By TOS you mean The Objective Standard journal? What books of Ayn Rand's have your read? It sounds like you are over-emphasizing politics in realms in which it does not apply, perhaps without realizing that there is much more. Have you read Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand [OPAR] for an integrated overview?

I meant VOS, Virtue of Selfishness. I have read Atlas Shrugged twice, Fountainhead once or twice and essays out of Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism and Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. But all of these have been far too long ago.

[RayK 0]

Ok, I came here to get challenged and got what I came for. So let me first say I did not follow my own principles by using the reference to Ayn Rand fan pages. That was wrong and I apologize. I am going back to TOS and re-read parts about emotions and review some threads here. Then I'll try to come back to this thread and either admit to where my concepts have gotten sloppy or restart the discussion on firmer ground. "try to come back" because I also have a small business to run and only a bit of time to devote to this effort.

It sounds like you have to do all the work, too, not just 'running' the business.

By TOS you mean The Objective Standard journal? What books of Ayn Rand's have your read? It sounds like you are over-emphasizing politics in realms in which it does not apply, perhaps without realizing that there is much more. Have you read Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand [OPAR] for an integrated overview?

I meant VOS, Virtue of Selfishness. I have read Atlas Shrugged twice, Fountainhead once or twice and essays out of Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism and Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. But all of these have been far too long ago.

If I may offer, it takes a lot more than just reading a book to understand the fundamental aspects of a philosophy such as Objectivism. I know a lot of people that have read Ayn Rand's books, enjoyed them and claim to agree with "her on a lot of points" but have very little understanding of the philosophy.

[BillPennock 0]

Ok, I came here to get challenged and got what I came for. So let me first say I did not follow my own principles by using the reference to Ayn Rand fan pages. That was wrong and I apologize. I am going back to TOS and re-read parts about emotions and review some threads here. Then I'll try to come back to this thread and either admit to where my concepts have gotten sloppy or restart the discussion on firmer ground. "try to come back" because I also have a small business to run and only a bit of time to devote to this effort.

It sounds like you have to do all the work, too, not just 'running' the business.

By TOS you mean The Objective Standard journal? What books of Ayn Rand's have your read? It sounds like you are over-emphasizing politics in realms in which it does not apply, perhaps without realizing that there is much more. Have you read Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand [OPAR] for an integrated overview?

I meant VOS, Virtue of Selfishness. I have read Atlas Shrugged twice, Fountainhead once or twice and essays out of Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism and Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. But all of these have been far too long ago.

If I may offer, it takes a lot more than just reading a book to understand the fundamental aspects of a philosophy such as Objectivism. I know a lot of people that have read Ayn Rand's books, enjoyed them and claim to agree with "her on a lot of points" but have very little understanding of the philosophy.

You asked I answered.

[ewv 0]

I have read Atlas Shrugged twice, Fountainhead once or twice and essays out of Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism and Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. But all of these have been far too long ago.

Then you have a lot to look forward to. There are many important aspects of her philosophy that you aren't aware of yet. Even though you started in the 1960s you are still on the threshold of a giant candy store.

Some of us were able to read it while she was still alive as the essays were published in her monthly journals -- and in back issues once we discovered them -- and to hear some of them first hand when she first presented them at Ford Hall Forum in Boston. Most of those independent essays have now been compiled in several anthologies published since the earlier VOS and CUI books so you can take a more systematic approach.

You also have the benefit of Leonard Peikoff's OPAR summarizing and integrating the whole philosophy in one book. A good way to put it all in perspective in the context of the historical development of philosophy is to listen to Leonard Peikoff's recorded lecture series from the 1970s on the history of western philosophy (available from the ARI book service). Especially since you already have some interest in the epistemology you would get a lot out of that.

[BillPennock 0]

I have read Atlas Shrugged twice, Fountainhead once or twice and essays out of Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism and Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. But all of these have been far too long ago.

Then you have a lot to look forward to. There are many important aspects of her philosophy that you aren't aware of yet. Even though you started in the 1960s you are still on the threshold of a giant candy store.

Some of us were able to read it while she was still alive as the essays were published in her monthly journals -- and in back issues once we discovered them -- and to hear some of them first hand when she first presented them at Ford Hall Forum in Boston. Most of those independent essays have now been compiled in several anthologies published since the earlier VOS and CUI books so you can take a more systematic approach.

You also have the benefit of Leonard Peikoff's OPAR summarizing and integrating the whole philosophy in one book. A good way to put it all in perspective in the context of the historical development of philosophy is to listen to Leonard Peikoff's recorded lecture series from the 1970s on the history of western philosophy (available from the ARI book service). Especially since you already have some interest in the epistemology you would get a lot out of that.

I will get OPAR next. I have listened to the Efficient Thinking lectures by Barbara Branden. I don't know what the general feeling about her personally is but I don't really care about her personal life, I think the series is brilliant.