I have a few books concerning nuclear, molecular, atomic and quantum physics(most of which blend), and a few on water treatment and distribution.

Just thought I’d throw in a category to see what other’s thought about it.

What is higher thought worth when a civilization cannot last to speak the conclusions, both truths and lies?

-=T=-

I looked the linked article though, and think that it would be beneficial to structure some of these points in such a way that show a progression of thoughts. For example, to attack Kierkergaard’s Either/Or you would really like to have Hegel’s Phenomenology down, which requires Critique of Pure Reason, which is a result of Berkeley + Descartes + Malabranche…..

And for what it’s worth for Descartes’ Meditations not to be there is a glaring omission.

For the record, Rand never said anything interesting that Aristotle or Nietzsche didn’t say before she did ( as much as she makes a big noise about NOT being a Nietzschean ). And don’t try to convince me she has a coherent moral theory either, I know what happened after a certain heiress scratched her marble fireplace.

I own the 60-book Brittanica’s set, as well as the 100 greatest books from the Franklin Library (gorgeous books, not considered estate collectibles, they still are leather covered with 24 karat gilt edges and good paper, pleasurable to read). I consider those 2 sets as an acceptable “core” of a private library for anyone who wants to have a semblance of a Renaissance education, liberally assisted with additional texts.

Each one I read becomes an absolute favorite but the all time must read for me so far is “War and Peace”. Other favorites: Discourse on Method by Descartes and The Law by Bastiat (not usually on great books lists, but represents a large body of liberal thought from the 19th century). I’m working on the Brothers Karamazov right now, which I think you would like.