Greetings SarahMontalbano,

You are beginning a journey I started long ago. I too have always returned to Rand and Objectivism. Kant was a mystic and his appeal has been overly influential. It is almost all nonsensical jargon designed to obfuscate the weakness of his irrational views of morality, epistemology and metaphysics. With him A was not A. His "Categorical Imperative" was not based on reason, but emotion and duty. "Always act so that you can will the maxim or determining principle of your action to become universal law; act so that you can will that everybody shall follow the principle of your action." This is total mystic nonsense. He seems to believe that his will can change reality, or the actions of others... A reality he doesn't even believe his senses can evaluate or determine. Big contradiction. His "noumenal" world was unknowable; it is the "real" reality, "superior" truth and "things in themselves" or "things as they are"---which means: things as they are not perceived by man. So you cannot trust your perceptions or faculties. He claimed his "phenomenal world" was not real; "reality, as perceived by man's mind, is a distortion." The distorting mechanism is man's conceptual faculty; man's basic concepts (such as time, space, existence) are not derived from experience or reality, but from an automatic system of filters in his consciousness (labeled "categories" and "forms of perception") which impose their own design on his perception of the external world and make him incapable of perceiving it in any manner other than the one in which he does perceive it. Mostly it is utter nonsense that suggests that you cannot in any way trust your own senses. this is not to say that your senses are infallible, but they are as Rand and Locke have asserted, your tools of cognition... in Rand's words, "Man’s senses are his only direct cognitive contact with reality and, therefore, his only source of information. Without sensory evidence, there can be no concepts; without concepts, there can be no language; without language, there can be no knowledge and no science."Philosophy: Who Needs It, 90 “Kant Versus Sullivan” People can have false conclusions and perceptions, but that does not nullify all input from the senses. Without your senses there is no world, no philosophy.. only darkness. One must check their premises against all available input.

Above in addition to my own comments, I have generally quoted and paraphrased from three sources: Philosophy: Who Needs It, For the New intellectual, approx. pg.28 and Basic Teachings of The Great Philosophers, S.E. Frost, Jr. approx. pg. 40.

Kant is problematic and contradictory to say the least. Here is the Lexicon Link for your convenience. http://aynrandlexicon.com/searchresul...

I have read many general philosophy books and also many specific works from the most renowned philosophers. I would suggest that it is a good journey to embark on. However, with each philosopher you do investigate, I would highly recommend investigating Rand's words and her critiques on each of them as they are generally unassailable in their logic and objectivity. She did not find any other philosophy/philosopher completely satisfactory which was the impetus for her creation of Objectivism. For all philosophers of note, there is some wisdom and insight to be gleaned but you must separate the wheat from the chaff.

In addition to the philosophers and warnings mentioned by previous respondents to your inquiry I would recommend John Locke (Second Treatise of Government, A Letter Concerning Toleration ), Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations) and Thomas Paine (Common Sense, The Rights Of Man, and The Age of Reason.)

General philosophy books are fine for an overall picture, but when you find someone of particular interest, it is wise to go to he source and examine the full context and specifics.
Here are a few links to reviews of books I have posted here in the Gulch that may be of interest.
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

I do not know to what extent you have exhausted your inquiry into Rand's writings, but you can't go wrong reading all of her offerings as well as Peikoff's "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand", but beware, in this book you are getting Peikoff's extrapolations and there are some notables in the Objectivist camp that differ with Peikoff on a few specifics.

I have produced this reply at my office where I have a limited library. If you wish more input I can peruse my library at home later for more suggestions, though I believe between my suggestions and that of other respondents you have quite a bit to keep you busy.

Respectfully,
O.A.

Although Ayn was not in league with Nietzsche (spelling) she did appreciate the genius of his reasoning powers and with a number of his premises bi would recommend a serious student o f philosophy read Rand's thought on him in her lexicon and then read his 'Will to Power' for a clear understanding. Or Thus Spoke Zarathustra' for which he is most famous. He is not difficult nor obfussive and doesn't attempt to baffle one with bs. He wants you to 'get' it as juxtaposed to Kant who does not but rather wants to simply pontificate on a philosophical topic similar to a mental Möbius strip ( no beginning and no ending). I am a devout Ibkectivist and always fall back on Ayn for clarification when I'm confused by the premises. As she always said, when in doubt check your premises. Good premises to you all b

I have read essays that criticized Rand for her failure to understand Kant correctly. Rather an unintended compliment, that, I would say.

Ayn Rand recommends the three A's: Aristotle, Aquinas, and Ayn Rand. You might say Spinoza wasn't all wrong. But, if you have not read Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, you might find it more palatable than Kant - to say the least!

For a survey of the various philosophers in an unusual format you might try Action Philosophers! by Fred Van Lente. It's a 300 page graphic novel (comic book) introducing 42 philosophers and their ideas (including Ayn Rand).

While this is not, strictly speaking, a book on philosophy, I find it an invaluable tool to understanding a sometimes contradictory subject is. "Economics In One Lesson" by Hazlitt. As to ancient philosophers, Aristotle is your guy. Much of Objectivism starts with Aristotle. Guys like Kant might be looked into after a firm grounding in the philosophies of freedom. The other student of Socrates was Plato, from whom all things left have sprung When you go after Plato, find yourself a summary or Cliffs notes type info, because getting deeply into him turns out to be a waste.

One easy to read, small book by a self-educated American philosopher Eric Hoffer, is "The True Believer, a Study of Mass Movements." It explains the phenomenon of unreasoned, emotional support of the "great leader". Written in the '50s, I was reminded of Hoffer's work when I recalled his statement that "all mass movements begin with the words hope and change."

Well, I have read Plato's Republic ( I thought it
stunk, but I read it), and some of Aristotle. Aristot-
le seems to me to be the most intelligent person
who ever lived (possibly excepting Ayn Rand; but
I'm not certain even of that). I read his validation of
the Law of Identity, maybe about 6 times be-
fore I understood it. The thing was, he was val-
idating something that normal people would nev-
er have thought of questioning, that was what
made it so difficult. He made some mistakes in
biology, but he was still a genius. I also read
Augustine's Confessions and City of God
(that was really rotten), and some of Thomas
Aquinas. I have read John Locke's Two Treat-
ises of Government. I have not read Kant yet;
sometime maybe when I have plenty of time and
plenty of Coca-Cola (as a stomach-settler). Ad-
mittedly, I have a prejudice against him already,
but I guess it is a little unfair of me to denounce
him without having read him (other than in quotes by others).

Why not start with Aristotle - Ethics would be a good one. He observed the emerging mind and the resulting behaviors of mankind. It's also more direct and based in real human potential. Politics is another one.
In terms of natural law verses manmade law there is always Frederic Bastiat..The Law.
And of course, there is my favorite mentor of a more recent time...Mark Hamilton, Neothink and Neotech.
I'll save this link during the week end, perhaps I'll come with a few other unusual ones.

when I was very young, I learned philosophy from
both Rand and also Robert Heinlein. . during a break,
you might want to check these notes out, from one of
his books:::

http://www.angelfire.com/or/sociology...

best to ya, Sarah!!! -- john
.