Ed gives us a masterful summary of a eudemonian worldview. His breath and depth is as impressive as his sense of proportion and balance. And, equally important, is the appreciation of the great tradition that is at the base Objectivism and other neo-Aristotelian philosophies.

I have long observed, with some sadness, that Objectivists seldom seek common ground with kindred spirits while appreciating and living with differences of emphasis and even outright differences of position among the various neo-Aristotelian camps. We can gain by interacting within this broader community and further our cause and our lives.

I’m also sympathetic to the need for a “thicker theory” to go beyond the Objectivist hierarchical skeleton. This is consistent with Rand’s notion of a “spiral” approach to knowledge. This consists in a continual return and enrichment of the original knowledge including greater depth, extension and even pruning some problematic branches.

I think there is one point that is worth a critical review. I’m in the camp that takes Rand's use of “survival” as not mere survival but full survival: flourishing. For Rand surviving as a man requires the actualization of human capacities that enable a robust and long-lasting life. Thus, I think your whole article is a description of the fuller implications of the original insight.

Now, I must admit that Ed’s summary is dense in content. However, it is well worth the effort of a careful read. And reflection! Bravo! Now, I’ll re-read it.