Taylor Caldwell (a woman): "The Devil's Advocate."
She and Ayn Rand were contemporaries. This book echoes Ayn Rand's thoughts in many instances. I highly recommend it.

I read BNR as a young teen for school. Also read 1984 around that time. I was more into Asimov and Bradbury sci-fi at the time, but I enjoyed BNR. I liked Huxley more than Orwell back then.

Thank you!

I really enjoyed Shadows Live Under Seashells. I will be writing my review later today or tomorrow.

I have an edition on my bookshelf. :) BNW is Staple food for thought.
SHAMELESS PLUG ALERT: a book along the same vein, is my work Shadows Live Under Seashells. (thanks again Mike).

Love Brave New World
I'd also like to add Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron: It is the year 2081. Because of Amendments 211, 212, and 213 to the Constitution, every American is fully equal, meaning that no one is stupider, uglier, weaker, or slower than anyone else. The Handicapper General and a team of agents ensure that the laws of equality are enforced.

If BNR = Brave New World -- Yes
A very long time ago. Only remember bits a pieces

The topic is "Brave New World REVISITED" a set of essays by Huxley comparing "modern" times of 1958 with his "predictions" 30 years earlier. Have you read BNR?

Brave New World was an excellent book, a true visionary masterpiece.

"Understanding Objectivism" - The 2012 edition of Dr. Leonard Peikoff's 1983 lecture series, edited by Dr. Michael S. Berliner, does not so much explain Objectivism as it does argue against intrinsicism, subjectivism, rationalism and empiricism. The book opens and closes with a problem we all know from personal experience: Objectivism versus the world. Does life have to be one long argument against everyone else's wrong ideas? Are we condemned to live among dishonest and foolish people?

"... the fact is, since you're in a very small intellectual minority, if you're an Objectivist, you're going to quickly conclude that people in general are rotten and that life is miserable." (page 351) His answer may not be satisfying, as he offers no pollyanna reply. By a string of examples, he suggests that a reasonable person, an Objectivist, must navigate a dreary swamp of depressing nonsense. The best you can hope for is good friends - a good spouse - and the knowledge that the purpose of Objectivism is to make you happier.

Page 170, the Q&A for Lecture 5: About Peikoff's list of 20 key items, arranged hierarchically, a student asks: "If metaphysics comes first in the branches of philosophy, then why do the first ten items go back and forth between metaphysics and epistemology?" (The list is presented and discussed on pp. 150-166.) Peikoff says: "Because metaphysics does not come first. Metaphysics and epistemology are simultaneous -- what exists and how we know it are the foundation that starts together. ... The two are completely intertwined."

On that basis, the three fundamental axioms of Objectivism are (page 166 and again page 224):
- Existence. (Existence exists)
- Consciousness. (Consciousness as the faculty of perceiving existence.)
- Identity. (A is A, with corollaries "The Primacy of Existence" and "Free will and volitional consciousness." pp 166-167)

It was a surprise to me after all these years. I always thought that the Three Axioms of Objectivism were metaphysical: A is A (identity), Either-Or (the excluded middle), Non-Contradiction (Aristotle's statement of the law of identity). He also says later that these three cannot be arranged in a hierarchy of their own. The desire for a single root axiom - A is A - is an example of the fallacy of monism applied to Objectivism. (Page 224)

print copies should be easy to find on amazon, either used or new. for anyone with access to one, i recommend half price books.