Which to read first: ITOE or OPAR?

[The Wrath]

I recently received these in the mail. Which one should I read first?

(Capitalized title-sNerd)

Edited November 2, 2005 by softwareNerd

[HaloNoble6]

Parts of chapter 1 in OPAR depend on Ayn Rand's theory of concepts, such as axiomatic concepts, and also refers to an essay of hers where she explains "the metaphysically given," which is in Philosophy: Who Needs It. Since OPAR is hierarchical in nature, building section upon section, I would suggest you start by reading chapter one in OPAR and when you hit a footnote that refers to ITOE, read the pertinent section. If, in your reading of ITOE, you find that you need to understand more fundamental concepts on the Objectivist Epistemology, then read those pertinent sections as well. OPAR itself is self-sufficient, but if you need more elaboration to understand what Peikoff is saying at some particular point where he refers to ITOE, taking a tangent into it may provide some further elucidation. After finishing OPAR in this way, then you might be interested in specialized topics within the Objectivist Epistemology, which would make reading ITOE from cover-to-cover useful.

[dianahsieh]

I recently received these in the mail.  Which one should I read first?

I strongly recommend reading ALL of Ayn Rand's major works (including IOE) before reading OPAR. OPAR is a fantastic book, but it's best used to systematize and deepen one's pre-existing knowledge of Objectivism, not to learn Objectivism.

Precisely because OPAR is so well-structured hierarchically, learning Objectivism originally from it seems likely to promote a rationalistic approach to the philosophy. (OPAR itself is not rationalistic, of course. But novices are far more likely to read it that way.)

Diana.

[The Wrath]

What do you consider her "major works?" I've read VoS, VoR, PWNI, AS, We the Living, Anthem, and Ominous Parallels.

[HaloNoble6]

I agree with Diana about reading all her major works first, and I think with respect to the question of reading OPAR or ITOE first we're saying the same thing: that is, I say that certain ideas in ITOE are specialized and are not covered in OPAR, but reading pertinent sections within ITOE referenced in OPAR instead of reading ITOE entirely would be very useful, while Diana is saying you should read all AR's major works first, because OPAR, for novices, is best served as a reinforcer of her ideas.

[HaloNoble6]

What do you consider her "major works?"  I've read VoS, VoR, PWNI, AS, We the Living, Anthem, and Ominous Parallels.

You need to read CUI, and possibly RM.

[neverborn]

Umm... Fountainhead>?

[The Wrath]

I just thumbed through ITOE and didn't see anything about morality in there. Is it in there? If not, where is there something that details how we know what's moral and what isn't?

[HaloNoble6]

How long ago since you read VOS?

[The Wrath]

A while, and I read it when I first started getting into Objectivism, so it would probably make a lot more sense if I reread it now. I plan to do that soon, but I can't really remember there being anything about "moral knowledge" in there. Maybe I just don't remember.

[EC]

What? The whole first chapter is the Objectivist Ethics.

[Cole]

I just thumbed through ITOE and didn't see anything about morality in there.  Is it in there?  If not, where is there something that details how we know what's moral and what isn't?

No, ITOE deals with epistemology. Morality is discussed in VOS.

[Pony Girl]

I would read OPAR before ITOE, because you need to understand the metaphysics (covered in OPAR) before the epistemology (covered in both).

[Cole]

That's a good point, Pony Girl. ITOE assumes understanding of metaphysical axioms such as the validity of the senses and the objectivity of reality (together- that all reality is knowable and therefore measurable). If you're not comfortable with these axoims then you should learn about them (through OPAR or otherwise) before reading ITOE. I still think that OPAR is the best way to conclude and summarize your first reading of all of Ayn Rand's non-fiction.

Edited April 11, 2005 by Cole

[source]

I strongly recommend reading ALL of Ayn Rand's major works (including IOE) before reading OPAR.  OPAR is a fantastic book, but it's best used to systematize and deepen one's pre-existing knowledge of Objectivism, not to learn Objectivism. 

Precisely because OPAR is so well-structured hierarchically, learning Objectivism originally from it seems likely to promote a rationalistic approach to the philosophy.  (OPAR itself is not rationalistic, of course.  But novices are far more likely to read it that way.)

I do not second this opinion. In the context of falling into a rationalist trap, it doesn't matter when you begin reading OPAR. I myself have nearly fallen into it when I started reading it, even though I have read most of Ayn Rand's books on philosophy.

The problem is that Objectivism is a structured philosophy, and if you start reading something else before OPAR, you may realize that something Ayn Rand says is true, but you won't know why exactly. Then, you will remember some details from the books, and others you will forget because the necessary process of integration was incomplete, and no matter how true the things you read are, most of the things in those books will remain floating abstractions to you.

When I began reading OPAR, I realized that I will have to re-read all of the literature (save the novels) at least once more in order to achieve the same level of integration of the concepts presented in it that I would have had I read OPAR first and then everything else.

So, my suggestion would be to first read the novels (TF, AS, and maybe We the Living and Anthem), then OPAR, then everything else. Also, I second Felipe's suggestion from his first post in this thread.

Edited for clarification.

Edited April 11, 2005 by source

[The Wrath]

What? The whole first chapter is the Objectivist Ethics.

Like I said, this is probably due to the fact that I didn't understand what I was reading at the time, but I don't remember anything about how we know what moral law is. I remember the Objectivist ethics being presented along with all its tenets, but I don't remember reading an explanation as to how those ethics are known to be true, epistemologically. I'll read it again soon and maybe it will make more sense.

[neverborn]

I, personally, am fairly new as well. I first discovered Rand last August, when I started reading Atlas Shrugged. I've read Atlas, Anthem, and Fountainhead. I own those 3, OPAR, Philosophy: Who Needs It?, For the New Intellectual, Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal, The Voice of Reason, The Ayn Rand Lexicon, We the Living(reading now)...

So, should I do things like PWNI, VoS, and C:tUI and THEN OPAR, or the other way around? I don't yet own ITOE.

[Gabriel_S]

Like I said, this is probably due to the fact that I didn't understand what I was reading at the time, but I don't remember anything about how we know what moral law is.  I remember the Objectivist ethics being presented along with all its tenets, but I don't remember reading an explanation as to how those ethics are known to be true, epistemologically.  I'll read it again soon and maybe it will make more sense.

"The Objectivist Ethics," does present Ayn Rand's argument for her ethics; it's not merely descriptive. In that essay she analyzes the concept of value: what the concept presupposes, what it means, and how it is objectively derived (both metaphysically and epistemologically).

Briefly

- presupposition: for what/for whom

- meaning: something that you act to gain and/or keep

- objective basis:

1. metaphysically:
   the existence of a fundamental alternative confronting phenomenon: life
   
   
2. epistemologically:
   the concept of value is genetically dependent upon the concept of value (using
   value apart from life is a hierarchy violation)
   

There's much more of course, but the highly condensed sketch above should indicate the general approach and might help you focus when you reread the essay (and OPAR's relevant section).

Edited April 11, 2005 by Gabriel_S

[Gabriel_S]

I strongly recommend reading ALL of Ayn Rand's major works (including IOE) before reading OPAR.  OPAR is a fantastic book, but it's best used to systematize and deepen one's pre-existing knowledge of Objectivism, not to learn Objectivism. 

Precisely because OPAR is so well-structured hierarchically, learning Objectivism originally from it seems likely to promote a rationalistic approach to the philosophy.  (OPAR itself is not rationalistic, of course.  But novices are far more likely to read it that way.)

Diana.

I second Diana's recommendation.

My general advice would be to follow this sequence roughly :

1. Read Anthem, The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and We the Living
   
2. Read all of Ayn Rand's non-fiction in publication order (perhaps by directly from the bound volumes of The Objectivist Newsletter, The Objectivist, and The Ayn Rand Letter)
   
3. OPAR & The Ominous Parallels
   
4. All the other relevant and interesting secondary literature
   

This has the virtue of reading the material in the approximate order that it was published. There's something enlightening about following the historical progression. I found there was for me at least.

If I was going to place any emphasis on this procedure, it would be to read the fiction first and then Ayn Rand's non-fiction (the major works) before tackling the rest. If possible, it might be edifying to listen to some of Dr. Peikoff's taped lecture courses before tackling OPAR and the rest of the secondary literature.

Edited April 11, 2005 by Gabriel_S

[Gabriel_S]

[*]epistemologically:

      the concept of value is genetically dependent upon the concept of value (using 

    value apart from life is a hierarchy violation)

This should have read:

the concept of value is genetically dependent upon the concept of life (using 

value apart from life is a hierarchy violation)

Otherwise, I'd be guilty of a hierarchy violation in my post on hierarchy!

[The Wrath]

I must say I'm somewhat disappointed that there's no discussion on why our senses are reliable sources of knowledge. Seems that that would be pretty important when you're trying to construct a view of acquiring knowledge.

[Cole]

I must say I'm somewhat disappointed that there's no discussion on why our senses are reliable sources of knowledge.  Seems that that would be pretty important when you're trying to construct a view of acquiring knowledge.

It's an axiom. If you're unsure about that, try denying that senses are reliable sources of knowledge without using your sensory data as evidence for the denial.

Edited April 13, 2005 by Cole

[The Wrath]

I never said that I doubt my senses. I don't doubt them when I'm dreaming either, but they're obviously wrong. I know it's cliche to use this as an example, but if I were plugged into the Matrix, I would trust my senses just as much as if I were in Zion, because I wouldn't know any better. I want to read an explanation as to how we know what we sense is real.

Edited April 13, 2005 by Moose

[Cole]

The fact that the reliability of the senses is an axiom is the reason why an explaination was not included.

[jrs]

Moose asked "... how we know what we sense is real.".

Cole said "... the reliability of the senses is an axiom ...".

What about: hallucinations, illusions, myopia, ringing-in-the-ears, etc.?

It is reasonable to PRESUME that sensations are accurate, but it must be a rebuttable presumption.

I think that the criterion has to be whether one's sensation or perception is consistent with the aggregate of facts which one has learned from one's senses and logic.