What do you think?
Rate this book
For the New Intellectual: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand
This is Ayn Rand's challenge to the prevalent philosophical doctrines of our time and the "atmosphere of guilt, of panic, of despair, of boredom, and of all-pervasive evasion" that they create. One of the most controversial figures on the intellectual scene, Ayn Rand was the proponent of a moral philosophy - an ethic of rational self-interest - that stands in sharp opposition of the ethics of altruism and self-sacrifice. The fundamentals of this morality - "a philosophy for living on earth" - are here vibrantly set forth by the spokesman for a new class, "For the New Intellectual."
192 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 1961
320 people are currently reading
4591 people want to read
About the author
Ayn Rand
586 books10.3k followersPolemical novels, such as
The Fountainhead
(1943), of primarily known Russian-American writer Ayn Rand, originally Alisa Rosenbaum, espouse the doctrines of objectivism and political libertarianism.
Fiction of this better author and philosopher developed a system that she named. Educated, she moved to the United States in 1926. After two early initially duds and two Broadway plays, Rand achieved fame. In 1957, she published Atlas Shrugged , her best-selling work.
Rand advocated reason and rejected faith and religion. She supported rational and ethical egoism as opposed to altruism. She condemned the immoral initiation of force and supported laissez-faire capitalism, which she defined as the system, based on recognizing individual rights, including private property. Often associated with the modern movement in the United States, Rand opposed and viewed anarchism. In art, she promoted romantic realism. She sharply criticized most philosophers and their traditions with few exceptions.
Books of Rand sold more than 37 million copies. From literary critics, her fiction received mixed reviews with more negative reviews for her later work. Afterward, she turned to nonfiction to promote her philosophy, published her own periodicals, and released several collections of essays until her death in 1982.
After her death, her ideas interested academics, but philosophers generally ignored or rejected her and argued that her approach and work lack methodological rigor. She influenced some right conservatives. The movement circulates her ideas to the public and in academic settings.
Fiction of this better author and philosopher developed a system that she named. Educated, she moved to the United States in 1926. After two early initially duds and two Broadway plays, Rand achieved fame. In 1957, she published Atlas Shrugged , her best-selling work.
Rand advocated reason and rejected faith and religion. She supported rational and ethical egoism as opposed to altruism. She condemned the immoral initiation of force and supported laissez-faire capitalism, which she defined as the system, based on recognizing individual rights, including private property. Often associated with the modern movement in the United States, Rand opposed and viewed anarchism. In art, she promoted romantic realism. She sharply criticized most philosophers and their traditions with few exceptions.
Books of Rand sold more than 37 million copies. From literary critics, her fiction received mixed reviews with more negative reviews for her later work. Afterward, she turned to nonfiction to promote her philosophy, published her own periodicals, and released several collections of essays until her death in 1982.
After her death, her ideas interested academics, but philosophers generally ignored or rejected her and argued that her approach and work lack methodological rigor. She influenced some right conservatives. The movement circulates her ideas to the public and in academic settings.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 184 reviews
April 23, 2022
Ayn Rand was an evil woman, her ideas are evil and her followers are evil . those freaks who defend defend Ayn Rand — they’re like born-againers, people who’ve stumbled into a theory that is simplistic and purile, but because they are themselves simple-minded and childish, it makes sense to them. Besides being a crackpot economist and very bad novelist (and even worse screenwriter), Rand was a hypocrite and a psycho. She opposed all social programs, but when her chronic smoking resulted in her developing lung cancer, she didn’t hesitate to apply for Medicare in a (futile) effort to save her miserable, hateful, worthless life.
September 25, 2012
"I swear - by my life and my love of it - that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." There is a quality in Ayn Rand's writing that I find supremely attractive: the unflinching, unapologetic assertion of the sanctity of the individual human mind and that any system of thought, government, or economy which seeks to destroy the individual man's reliance on his own rationality is evil. Ayn Rand is not the first writer to speak of these things; Emerson, Thoureau, Nietzshce, and Steinbeck are all writers that I favor for a similar sentiment expressed.
At points I vehemently contend with her, at other points I unreservedly agree - but that's the point isn't it, to think for myself.
I took up Rand's book because I knew nothing about her writing except that most people who say something about her are almost angry with her and those who like her are angry at everyone else. For my part: I am not angry and I think that though there are merits to the philosophical criticisms of her shortcomings these do not eclipse the value of her work.
At points I vehemently contend with her, at other points I unreservedly agree - but that's the point isn't it, to think for myself.
I took up Rand's book because I knew nothing about her writing except that most people who say something about her are almost angry with her and those who like her are angry at everyone else. For my part: I am not angry and I think that though there are merits to the philosophical criticisms of her shortcomings these do not eclipse the value of her work.
December 24, 2018
Part III of multi-part review series.
A greatest hits: introductory essay and selections from the four novels. Will reserve commentary on the novels for those reviews.
Introductory essay develops two sets of binaries: Attila/Witch Doctor and Producer/Parasite. The latter is crass unexamined producerism--so it’s standard proto-fascistic aggressiveness.
Preface proclaims that the volume “presents the outline of a new philosophical system” and a “new theory of the nature, source, and validation of concepts“ (vii). By the end, we see that, vanity of vanities, there’s nothing new under the sun.
Introductory essay contains the master figure of her writings: “When a man, a business corporation, or an entire society is approaching bankruptcy” (10). This is neo-spenglerianism, tacitly admitted to be erroneous at the end of The Virtue of Selfishness. Nevertheless, “America is culturally bankrupt” (id.), whatever the hell that means. (Rand has no law, so the precise meaning of bankruptcy can’t be deployed here.)
Worse than bankrupt, “America is a country without a voice or defense” (id.), a fundamentally odd proposition to utter in 1961, when the US was launching coups d’etat with impunity and issuing nuclear threats with sprezzatura.
Her indictments of particular fascist states notwithstanding, we see the fascist roots of the doctrine here: “In times of danger, a morally healthy culture rallies its values, its self-esteem, and its crusading spirit to fight for its moral ideals with full, righteous confidence” (11). Mussolini wrote that--or could have, anyway, if he didn’t. Instead of rallying around objectivism, the US committed a “tragic error” by believing “the solution is to turn anti-intellectual and rely on some cracker barrel sort of folksy wisdom” (11).
Ersatz epistemology in how humans must “integrate perceptions into conceptions by a process of abstraction,” but “he must perform it by choice” (14): “volition begins with the first syllogism” (15). None of this happens automatically as an apparatus of consciousness. Rather, one must choose as an act of volition to integrate two particular tall green & brown leafy things to achieve the concept of tree. Death-choosers apparently choose to evade the integration and therefore have no arboreal concepts. It’s odd: it seems for “choice” to be meaningful, even in the most naïve sense, the separate alternatives must be knowable, at least to a basic extent--and if the alternatives of “I’ll integrate the concept of treeness” or “I won’t integrate the concept of treeness” are available prior to the choice being made, it would seem that the point is mooted, as the concept must have been available when the rational mind evaluated the ramifications of the conceptual fork. So, yeah, it makes no sense in reality, but it probably makes a perverse sense in Randland.
Nifty comment that Witch Doctor provides “an insurance against the dark unknown of tomorrow” to Attila, “to sanction his actions and to disarm his victims” (19). I regard this comment, like “folksy wisdom,” supra, to be entirely unintentionally self-reflexive in this volume.
The text unravels completely when “it is not the case that Attila and the Witch Doctor cannot or do not think; they can and do--but thinking, to them, is not a means of perceiving reality, it is a means of justifying their escape from the necessity of rational perception. Reason to them is a means of defeating their victims” (19). This is odd when juxtaposed with the comments in VoS that humans are distinguished from animals by volitional thinking, equated with reason. That text then lays out the argument that capitalism, good governance, and whatnot arise out of reason. So: Witch Doctor and Attila use reason to beat their victims. Does the objectivist merely shrug away this tacit equivalence?
Text thereafter develops as a reading of history from the perspective of the simpleton Attila/Witch Doctor binary. It’s very schematic and puerile. But: “the first society whose leaders were neither Attilas nor Witch Doctors, a society led, dominated and created by the Producers,” was predictably enough the US (24).
Let’s back up for a moment: Attila “never thinks of creating, only of taking over. Whether he conquers a neighboring tribe or overruns a continent, material looting is his only goal and it ends with the act of seizure: he has no other purpose, no plan, no system to impose on the conquered, no values” (16). (This will of course be contradicted soon thereafter--“Attila herds men into armies, the Witch Doctor sets the armies’ goals. Attila Conquers empires--the Witch Doctor writes their laws” (2)--but never mind that.) The Witch Doctor “provides Attila with values” (16) and “preempts the field of morality” (17).
So: the US, with its slavery, and genocide of natives, and coverture for women, and property qualifications for voting, and exclusion statutes, and domestic torture, and starvation, and interminable war on the frontier, and religious supernaturalisms, is led by neither Attila nor Witch Doctor. Gotcha. We are assured that “during the nineteenth century,” again, as in VoS, “the world came close to economic freedom, for the first and only time in history” (25). Nevermind all the slavery and poverty and whatnot. Instead, we get the bizarre inversion that capitalism “released men from bondage of their physical needs, has released them from the terrible drudgery of an eighteen-hour workday of manual labor for their barest subsistence” (27).
Then comes the survey of philosophy, and it is a parade of sophomoric horribles, in which the summaries of others’ ideas is mendacious beyond measure:
Descartes is ridiculed for “the belief that the existence of an external world is not self-evident, but must be proved by deduction” (28). This is dismissed merely as the Witch Doctor, no explanation. After all, the material world is obvious, no? Hume is mocked for seeing “objects moving about, but never saw such a thing as ‘causality’” (29). This is dismissed merely as Attila (with some confusion of Hume’s ideas with Berkeley’s). Kant is pooh-poohed for the noumenal/phenomenal distinction (31) and the categories, which are dismissed, without refutation, as “preposterous,” a “pre-determined collective delusion” (id.); even if that correctly states Kant’s theory of ideology (and I’m not sure that it does), Rand has not refuted it. Rather, her dismissal is premised on a logical fallacy: “his argument amounted to a negation, not only of man’s consciousness, but of any consciousness, of consciousness as such” (31-32). I’m fairly sure that this is untrue, but the fallacy is argumentum ad consequentiam, i.e., she has argued that Kant must be wrong because otherwise consciousness is not true--and we can‘t have that. Hegel is dismissed in a sentence as he “proclaimed that matter does not exist at all, that everything is Idea […] and that Idea operates by the dialectical process” of contradiction (33).
The presentation of Marx demonstrates conclusively the unreliability of this text:
Thereafter follows equally bogus discussion of pragmatism, logical positivism, positivism proper, utilitarianism, Nietzsche, Spencer. Very much textbook Dunning-Kruger on display. A revealing slip toward the end:
Another tiresome refrain: “they [who? no citations] refused to identify the fact that industrial wealth was the product of man’s mind” (40). A silly idealism, buttressed by an even sillier idealist collectivism--as though no actual physical work was involved and capitalists dreamed up “wealth” ex nihilo, whatever that might mean.
The lack of citations is a real problem; it is more in the style of streetcorner jeremiad, impugning the alleged evils of a decadent society, than rigorous, researched colloquy. That fits the trite good/evil moralism and the spenglerian sky-is-falling paranoia.
Eponymous “new intellectuals” are revealed to be “any man or woman who is willing to think. All those who know that man‘s life must be guided by reason” (50). But isn’t Attila a thinker (supra)? Doesn’t the Witch Doctor use reason (supra)?
A contender for one of the worst books ever written--but likely not the winner, as greatest hits collections are mostly forgettable.
A greatest hits: introductory essay and selections from the four novels. Will reserve commentary on the novels for those reviews.
Introductory essay develops two sets of binaries: Attila/Witch Doctor and Producer/Parasite. The latter is crass unexamined producerism--so it’s standard proto-fascistic aggressiveness.
Preface proclaims that the volume “presents the outline of a new philosophical system” and a “new theory of the nature, source, and validation of concepts“ (vii). By the end, we see that, vanity of vanities, there’s nothing new under the sun.
Introductory essay contains the master figure of her writings: “When a man, a business corporation, or an entire society is approaching bankruptcy” (10). This is neo-spenglerianism, tacitly admitted to be erroneous at the end of The Virtue of Selfishness. Nevertheless, “America is culturally bankrupt” (id.), whatever the hell that means. (Rand has no law, so the precise meaning of bankruptcy can’t be deployed here.)
Worse than bankrupt, “America is a country without a voice or defense” (id.), a fundamentally odd proposition to utter in 1961, when the US was launching coups d’etat with impunity and issuing nuclear threats with sprezzatura.
Her indictments of particular fascist states notwithstanding, we see the fascist roots of the doctrine here: “In times of danger, a morally healthy culture rallies its values, its self-esteem, and its crusading spirit to fight for its moral ideals with full, righteous confidence” (11). Mussolini wrote that--or could have, anyway, if he didn’t. Instead of rallying around objectivism, the US committed a “tragic error” by believing “the solution is to turn anti-intellectual and rely on some cracker barrel sort of folksy wisdom” (11).
Ersatz epistemology in how humans must “integrate perceptions into conceptions by a process of abstraction,” but “he must perform it by choice” (14): “volition begins with the first syllogism” (15). None of this happens automatically as an apparatus of consciousness. Rather, one must choose as an act of volition to integrate two particular tall green & brown leafy things to achieve the concept of tree. Death-choosers apparently choose to evade the integration and therefore have no arboreal concepts. It’s odd: it seems for “choice” to be meaningful, even in the most naïve sense, the separate alternatives must be knowable, at least to a basic extent--and if the alternatives of “I’ll integrate the concept of treeness” or “I won’t integrate the concept of treeness” are available prior to the choice being made, it would seem that the point is mooted, as the concept must have been available when the rational mind evaluated the ramifications of the conceptual fork. So, yeah, it makes no sense in reality, but it probably makes a perverse sense in Randland.
Nifty comment that Witch Doctor provides “an insurance against the dark unknown of tomorrow” to Attila, “to sanction his actions and to disarm his victims” (19). I regard this comment, like “folksy wisdom,” supra, to be entirely unintentionally self-reflexive in this volume.
The text unravels completely when “it is not the case that Attila and the Witch Doctor cannot or do not think; they can and do--but thinking, to them, is not a means of perceiving reality, it is a means of justifying their escape from the necessity of rational perception. Reason to them is a means of defeating their victims” (19). This is odd when juxtaposed with the comments in VoS that humans are distinguished from animals by volitional thinking, equated with reason. That text then lays out the argument that capitalism, good governance, and whatnot arise out of reason. So: Witch Doctor and Attila use reason to beat their victims. Does the objectivist merely shrug away this tacit equivalence?
Text thereafter develops as a reading of history from the perspective of the simpleton Attila/Witch Doctor binary. It’s very schematic and puerile. But: “the first society whose leaders were neither Attilas nor Witch Doctors, a society led, dominated and created by the Producers,” was predictably enough the US (24).
Let’s back up for a moment: Attila “never thinks of creating, only of taking over. Whether he conquers a neighboring tribe or overruns a continent, material looting is his only goal and it ends with the act of seizure: he has no other purpose, no plan, no system to impose on the conquered, no values” (16). (This will of course be contradicted soon thereafter--“Attila herds men into armies, the Witch Doctor sets the armies’ goals. Attila Conquers empires--the Witch Doctor writes their laws” (2)--but never mind that.) The Witch Doctor “provides Attila with values” (16) and “preempts the field of morality” (17).
So: the US, with its slavery, and genocide of natives, and coverture for women, and property qualifications for voting, and exclusion statutes, and domestic torture, and starvation, and interminable war on the frontier, and religious supernaturalisms, is led by neither Attila nor Witch Doctor. Gotcha. We are assured that “during the nineteenth century,” again, as in VoS, “the world came close to economic freedom, for the first and only time in history” (25). Nevermind all the slavery and poverty and whatnot. Instead, we get the bizarre inversion that capitalism “released men from bondage of their physical needs, has released them from the terrible drudgery of an eighteen-hour workday of manual labor for their barest subsistence” (27).
Then comes the survey of philosophy, and it is a parade of sophomoric horribles, in which the summaries of others’ ideas is mendacious beyond measure:
Descartes is ridiculed for “the belief that the existence of an external world is not self-evident, but must be proved by deduction” (28). This is dismissed merely as the Witch Doctor, no explanation. After all, the material world is obvious, no? Hume is mocked for seeing “objects moving about, but never saw such a thing as ‘causality’” (29). This is dismissed merely as Attila (with some confusion of Hume’s ideas with Berkeley’s). Kant is pooh-poohed for the noumenal/phenomenal distinction (31) and the categories, which are dismissed, without refutation, as “preposterous,” a “pre-determined collective delusion” (id.); even if that correctly states Kant’s theory of ideology (and I’m not sure that it does), Rand has not refuted it. Rather, her dismissal is premised on a logical fallacy: “his argument amounted to a negation, not only of man’s consciousness, but of any consciousness, of consciousness as such” (31-32). I’m fairly sure that this is untrue, but the fallacy is argumentum ad consequentiam, i.e., she has argued that Kant must be wrong because otherwise consciousness is not true--and we can‘t have that. Hegel is dismissed in a sentence as he “proclaimed that matter does not exist at all, that everything is Idea […] and that Idea operates by the dialectical process” of contradiction (33).
The presentation of Marx demonstrates conclusively the unreliability of this text:
While businessmen were rising to spectacular achievements [detail of achievements that looks as though it were lifted from The Communist Manifesto] (against the scornful resistance of loafing ex-feudal aristocrats and the destructive violence of those who were to profit most: the workers [!])--what philosophy was offering, as an evaluation of their achievements and as guidance for the rest of society was the pure Attila-ism of Marx, who proclaimed that the mind does not exist [error], that everything is matter [mostly error], that matter develops itself by the dialectical process of its own ‘super-logic’ of contradictions, and what is true today will not be true tomorrow [?], that the material tools of production determine men’s ‘ideological superstructure’ (which means machines create men’s thinking, not the other way around, and the seizure of omnipotent machines will transfer omnipotence to the rule of brute violence) [chain of error]. (33-34)It’s a litany of sleights of mind, misreading, silliness. I’d assume that it were plain dishonesty had I any confidence that the text of Marxism had been read--but as there are no citations, I suspect that this is reported second hand, mixed with incidental prevarication.
Thereafter follows equally bogus discussion of pragmatism, logical positivism, positivism proper, utilitarianism, Nietzsche, Spencer. Very much textbook Dunning-Kruger on display. A revealing slip toward the end:
The intellectuals, or their predominant majority, remained centuries behind their time: still seeking the favor of noble protectors, some of them were bewailing the ‘vulgarity’ of commercial pursuits [who? no citations], scoffing at those whose wealth was ‘new,’ and, simultaneously, blaming those new wealth-makers for all the poverty inherited from the centuries ruled by the owners of nobly ‘non-commercial’ wealth. (39)Here is a rare sense of historical effect in Rand. Rand will never give the Soviet Union the benefit of the doubt for inheriting a feudal economy and for being destroyed by world war and civil war and world war again. Nor will she give the individual worker a break. But here the industrialist can’t be blamed for the poverty under capitalism--that was all inherited. Or is the result of government interference. Or caused by shiftless proletarians. Whatever. It’s deplorable.
Another tiresome refrain: “they [who? no citations] refused to identify the fact that industrial wealth was the product of man’s mind” (40). A silly idealism, buttressed by an even sillier idealist collectivism--as though no actual physical work was involved and capitalists dreamed up “wealth” ex nihilo, whatever that might mean.
The lack of citations is a real problem; it is more in the style of streetcorner jeremiad, impugning the alleged evils of a decadent society, than rigorous, researched colloquy. That fits the trite good/evil moralism and the spenglerian sky-is-falling paranoia.
Eponymous “new intellectuals” are revealed to be “any man or woman who is willing to think. All those who know that man‘s life must be guided by reason” (50). But isn’t Attila a thinker (supra)? Doesn’t the Witch Doctor use reason (supra)?
A contender for one of the worst books ever written--but likely not the winner, as greatest hits collections are mostly forgettable.
October 13, 2019
Boy, where do I start? First, I chanced upon Ayn Rand thanks to Netflix and the documentary I watched that focused on Atlas Shrugged. Intrigued, I went to my local used book store and all I could find was "For the New Intellectual" which, I now know was possibly the best book I could have encountered in the first place, as far as Rand's works are concerned. It does a good job of featuring excerpts from some of her other works and giving the general layout of her philosophy.
Now, I found myself feeling deeply disturbed, deeply engrossed, utterly fascinated and a part of my soul was delightfully touched while I read things I always felt and never dared utter aloud. Things that talk about givers and takers, morality and independence. Much of what she has said is contrary to how we are raised or how our society actually maneuvers. I don't see any harm in her philosophy, though I am aware how controversial it is, and I was happy to entertain every bit of what I read. Her writing does require someone to have an open mind. Having also read the communist manifesto, multiple Buddhist texts and other books that promote the greater good or some kind of selfless altruistic sacrifice, I find myself agreeing, in part, with each of them. Both sides of the argument have merit. However, the dedication to independence, to caring for oneself above all others, to actually earning your keep I find to be the greatest endeavor in regards to the greater good. The greater good starts with a greater individual. She does not preach evil selfishness. She does not preach theft, quite the contrary. She holds a great contempt for corruption, for it is the opposite of what she believes earning to be. She seems to admire the fair trade so much that her plausible and intelligible argument is exquisitely and perfectly rational. One must find it hard to argue against her, though there were some things I had to disagree with.
One thing that I cannot deny, Rand writes with such a fiery passion, the likes of which, I have never encountered before. Each excerpt was as passionate as the last. Her writing is superb and flawless. Her stories are interesting and engaging. It is refreshing to read something of this nature, written with language that does not condescend but seeks to treat the reader as an equal, as someone with a mind. Her respect for her readers and their intellect is astounding and I found such pleasure in reading her work, I even had to read some of it out loud to my husband. The parts that stood out the most, aside from the introduction was The Fountainhead excerpts and several sections from Atlas Shrugged, including, "The meaning of sex", "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", and of course, "This is John Galt speaking".
I know this in not everyone's cup of tea and that there are some out there who can probably pick this apart in mere moments, but I kept an open mind despite my personal reservations and was glad to have done so. I will read Atlas Shrugged in the future. In the meantime, I recommend this book to anyone curious, anyone bold and anyone who likes to think.
Now, I found myself feeling deeply disturbed, deeply engrossed, utterly fascinated and a part of my soul was delightfully touched while I read things I always felt and never dared utter aloud. Things that talk about givers and takers, morality and independence. Much of what she has said is contrary to how we are raised or how our society actually maneuvers. I don't see any harm in her philosophy, though I am aware how controversial it is, and I was happy to entertain every bit of what I read. Her writing does require someone to have an open mind. Having also read the communist manifesto, multiple Buddhist texts and other books that promote the greater good or some kind of selfless altruistic sacrifice, I find myself agreeing, in part, with each of them. Both sides of the argument have merit. However, the dedication to independence, to caring for oneself above all others, to actually earning your keep I find to be the greatest endeavor in regards to the greater good. The greater good starts with a greater individual. She does not preach evil selfishness. She does not preach theft, quite the contrary. She holds a great contempt for corruption, for it is the opposite of what she believes earning to be. She seems to admire the fair trade so much that her plausible and intelligible argument is exquisitely and perfectly rational. One must find it hard to argue against her, though there were some things I had to disagree with.
One thing that I cannot deny, Rand writes with such a fiery passion, the likes of which, I have never encountered before. Each excerpt was as passionate as the last. Her writing is superb and flawless. Her stories are interesting and engaging. It is refreshing to read something of this nature, written with language that does not condescend but seeks to treat the reader as an equal, as someone with a mind. Her respect for her readers and their intellect is astounding and I found such pleasure in reading her work, I even had to read some of it out loud to my husband. The parts that stood out the most, aside from the introduction was The Fountainhead excerpts and several sections from Atlas Shrugged, including, "The meaning of sex", "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", and of course, "This is John Galt speaking".
I know this in not everyone's cup of tea and that there are some out there who can probably pick this apart in mere moments, but I kept an open mind despite my personal reservations and was glad to have done so. I will read Atlas Shrugged in the future. In the meantime, I recommend this book to anyone curious, anyone bold and anyone who likes to think.
September 13, 2008
A great explication of Ayn's philosophy, and the primary reason I think she's an idiot.
February 2, 2016
I usually don't review comic books but I'll make an exception for this book. There is no grey in her world, and this book read like a comic book. The real world is such that you can't have perfect liberty with perfect equality (moreover she doesn't care about anything but the individual so inequality would have no meaning for her). She's got this weird worldview that the business man is the ideal man. Critical reasoning and intellectual thought must agree with what she says it is or what a 17 year old says it is otherwise she will reject it without explication. She really does mean the things she said in her novels. The individual is everything the group is nothing. Greenspan, one of her accolades, said after the finically crisis became real, "I'm shocked, I can't believe it, the bankers self interest did not lead to protecting shareholders equity".
Read
February 13, 2021This is an interesting presentation of Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy. Although it simplifies the views of many past philosophers, it provides a nonrelativist (ergo, "Objectivist") approach to philosophical thinking. In the latter respect, it is similar to the approach of Leo Strauss (1899-1973). However, Objectivism differs from Strauss in many respects, including its premise of economic libertarianism and its understanding of philosophy as a dogmatic tool in the service of preservation rather than skeptical, rational inquiry as an end in itself.
Ayn Rand (1905-1982) has been co-opted by the right wing of American politics. Although she shared with some (not all) conservatives the postulate of economic liberty, she differed from many of them in her atheism (she famously told William F. Buckley, Jr. that he was too intelligent not to be an atheist) and in her insistence that the basis of individual rights is not historical custom or divine revelation but rather philosophic natural rights. Aristotle and Locke were her favorite philosophers. She eschewed the emerging libertarian movement, writing that it was bound to end up as a hippie phenomenon because it lacked a philosophical basis for ethics. She similarly criticized Milton Friedman and "Chicago School" economic conservatives. Although she sympathized with Austrian School economics, she thought that Friedrich von Hayek's concessions to governmental actions were heretical, and she did not accept the fact-value dichotomy of Ludwig von Mises. She kicked the Austrian School theorist Murray Rothbard (1926-75) out of her inner circle (ironically called by the members themselves "the Collective") because he advocated anarchocapitalism as distinguished from her teaching that limited government was necessary. Needless to say, she would have been appalled by the theocratic turn of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. She never proved, to my satisfaction, how limited government could be consistent with her nonaggression principle, which I believe she obtained from Locke. Specifically, taxation and other governmental requirements cannot, in my view, be possible if one adheres strictly to her principles. She seemed to support some sort of voluntary financial support of government, which is self-evidently absurd. Similarly, the logical conclusion of the nonaggression principle, Rothbard's anarchocapitalism, is, as Rand herself said, totally unrealistic. Accordingly, one must find a different rational basis for government than that proffered by either Rand or Rothbard.
When one reads Rand herself instead of the writings of her many epigones, one often finds nuggets of wisdom. Unfortunately, however, Rand's philosophy itself has its limitations.
(Originally posted 3/16/2016; revised 3/17/2016.)
Ayn Rand (1905-1982) has been co-opted by the right wing of American politics. Although she shared with some (not all) conservatives the postulate of economic liberty, she differed from many of them in her atheism (she famously told William F. Buckley, Jr. that he was too intelligent not to be an atheist) and in her insistence that the basis of individual rights is not historical custom or divine revelation but rather philosophic natural rights. Aristotle and Locke were her favorite philosophers. She eschewed the emerging libertarian movement, writing that it was bound to end up as a hippie phenomenon because it lacked a philosophical basis for ethics. She similarly criticized Milton Friedman and "Chicago School" economic conservatives. Although she sympathized with Austrian School economics, she thought that Friedrich von Hayek's concessions to governmental actions were heretical, and she did not accept the fact-value dichotomy of Ludwig von Mises. She kicked the Austrian School theorist Murray Rothbard (1926-75) out of her inner circle (ironically called by the members themselves "the Collective") because he advocated anarchocapitalism as distinguished from her teaching that limited government was necessary. Needless to say, she would have been appalled by the theocratic turn of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. She never proved, to my satisfaction, how limited government could be consistent with her nonaggression principle, which I believe she obtained from Locke. Specifically, taxation and other governmental requirements cannot, in my view, be possible if one adheres strictly to her principles. She seemed to support some sort of voluntary financial support of government, which is self-evidently absurd. Similarly, the logical conclusion of the nonaggression principle, Rothbard's anarchocapitalism, is, as Rand herself said, totally unrealistic. Accordingly, one must find a different rational basis for government than that proffered by either Rand or Rothbard.
When one reads Rand herself instead of the writings of her many epigones, one often finds nuggets of wisdom. Unfortunately, however, Rand's philosophy itself has its limitations.
(Originally posted 3/16/2016; revised 3/17/2016.)
May 27, 2017
I read this book during guard duty in the army. It was a perfect fit.
A few years ago, I got into a discussion with a bookstore keeper about Marxism and capitalism. He pretty much told me I have to read Ayn Rand and so here we are.
As I've grown up, my opinions have mellowed out. I do think Marxism can work but I think socialism is more useful in the current state of the world. Nonetheless, I am so against capitalism so it was important for me to read this.
Ayn Rand makes a good point. It's a solid argument and I can see why she's such an important philosopher. She's such a revolutionist and I like that. I just can't agree with her. I think she looks at philosophy a bit too briefly. You can't split the world into Attila and the Witch Doctor, no matter how much you'd like to. It was enlightening and yet it was so wrong.
I'm far too sleepy to write an entire intellectual review, thus proving that I am probably not one of the new intellectuals. It's a neat book.
what I'm taking with me
• It's time for some new blood in the world of philosophy.
• Ayn Rand is proof that confidence is key. Believe you're the best and someone else is bound to agree with you.
• I would so watch a rap battle of Marx and Rand.
A few years ago, I got into a discussion with a bookstore keeper about Marxism and capitalism. He pretty much told me I have to read Ayn Rand and so here we are.
As I've grown up, my opinions have mellowed out. I do think Marxism can work but I think socialism is more useful in the current state of the world. Nonetheless, I am so against capitalism so it was important for me to read this.
Ayn Rand makes a good point. It's a solid argument and I can see why she's such an important philosopher. She's such a revolutionist and I like that. I just can't agree with her. I think she looks at philosophy a bit too briefly. You can't split the world into Attila and the Witch Doctor, no matter how much you'd like to. It was enlightening and yet it was so wrong.
I'm far too sleepy to write an entire intellectual review, thus proving that I am probably not one of the new intellectuals. It's a neat book.
what I'm taking with me
• It's time for some new blood in the world of philosophy.
• Ayn Rand is proof that confidence is key. Believe you're the best and someone else is bound to agree with you.
• I would so watch a rap battle of Marx and Rand.
November 20, 2009
This book by novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand, (author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead") consists of one brilliant essay analyzing the backward and mystical state of the humanities throughout all of man’s history, and the most philosophical selections of Rand’s fiction.
This book is wonderful for studying some of the grand speeches Rand’s characters make without having to mark up your fiction copies, and for the sheer convenience of having all these noteworthy expositions in one book.
Plus, the title essay is one of Rand’s finest, stressing the importance of thought, and the necessity of new thinkers to study her unique philosophy of Objectivism in order to replace the irrational intellectuals of the present--that a commitment to a philosophy of reason is needed to revolutionize the humanities and to provide the proper foundation for the special sciences.
This book is wonderful for studying some of the grand speeches Rand’s characters make without having to mark up your fiction copies, and for the sheer convenience of having all these noteworthy expositions in one book.
Plus, the title essay is one of Rand’s finest, stressing the importance of thought, and the necessity of new thinkers to study her unique philosophy of Objectivism in order to replace the irrational intellectuals of the present--that a commitment to a philosophy of reason is needed to revolutionize the humanities and to provide the proper foundation for the special sciences.
December 18, 2020
Good philosophy is usually recognizable, and awakens a desire to understand it more deeply. Bad philosophy inevitably has something fishy about it, but it is not often easy to articulate where the smell is coming from. And then who really wants to get closer? Often, I suppose, the badness has to do with questions that the philosopher does not even deign to ask. In Rand's case, the question, whether human being means a strictly individual human being or rather individual human beings in community? seems to be a question she thinks not even worth asking--to the grave detriment of her thinking, not to mention to the detriment of the acolytes who--all too ironically--elect to let her think for them. (I'm looking at you, former Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan.) But also, it seems strange that Rand's philosophy seems to need to consist in monologues and allegories that never quite transfer to the dialogical reality of the business of daily life. Still, full disclosure: this is all the Rand I have read. I am open to correction.
September 23, 2007
I think the most egregious part of this book is how she butchers Kant's ideas. In the tradition of a typical "straw man argument," she offers a simplistic version of his ideas, and then knocks it down.
I am not a Kant follower, but if you are going to attack his philosophy, at least try to get it right.
The two stars are for spelling and grammar.
I am not a Kant follower, but if you are going to attack his philosophy, at least try to get it right.
The two stars are for spelling and grammar.
February 21, 2025
This book starts with an essay by Rand titled “For the New Intellectual”. The second part is excerpts from her novels that pertain to her idea of objectivism. Having read Galt’s speech twice now, I can confidently say it is painfully too long. But of course she hits the nail on the head in so many ways throughout this book.
December 22, 2021
I have tried REALLY hard to understand and respect the philosophy of Ayn Rand, but it’s difficult. I really don’t like throwing this world around, but at certain points while reading her books, I think, “Is she a sociopath?”. If I’m being generous, Ayn Rand makes good arguments that being a pure altruist is not a good thiing and can lead to some very bad results. As a recovering drug addict who spends a lot of time trying to help others, I get that. But Ayn Rand takes this to an extreme. If the world ran how she wanted it to, we never would have reached the top of the food chain as humans. The biggest issue with Ayn Rand is that she thinks she has the monopoly on truth, rationality, logic, and knowledge. From that premise, she then goes on to describe what an intellectual is. On the surface, it sounds like she’s just trying to convince people not to listen to people into pseudoscience, and I can get on board with not falling into the trap of mystics and those who believe in the supernatural. The issue is that Ayn Rand somehow twists that argument into saying that we should all only worry about ourselves and our needs while neglecting others unless we’re doing some Machiavellian manipulation. I have yet to meet an Ayn Rand absolutist, and anyone who I’ve come across who thinks they are would have a hard time agreeing with everything she argues. And if there are absolutists out there, my suggestion is to run for your life because I wouldn’t trust them at all. I may read some more Ayn Rand or books by people who are fans of her philosophy, but I’ve yet to see much good that can come from it.
October 16, 2013
A disappointing work, despite its ambitious title and underlying promise of potential. Written in what feel like the "mania years", there is a clear sense of bitterness in the short opening essay that takes away half the enjoyment in reading it, since the forceful (and sometimes repetitive) manner in which the ideals are presented make it be more of a manifesto and less of a refreshing new read. To this is added the laughable fact that the opening essay is merely that, and amounts to no more than 25% of the book -- the rest of which is a series of excerpts on Ayn Rand's novels.
As someone who has read Ayn Rand, I cannot say this book was particularly interesting -- it is too synthetic a piece to provide sufficient insight into her philosophy, or excitement in what increasingly feel like hammered-down, one-size views on businessmen, the world, businessmen, politics, businessmen, ethics and men (of business).
All in all, I was expecting a more detailed account of Objectivism as applied to modern society, especially as to how it relates to conflicting philosophical codes (an interesting and fundamental passage of which can be found in this work, but is too briefly approached to go beneath the surface). Instead, I got a short, averagely written essay compiling thoughts Ayn Rand has been heard saying too often to be surprising, and a series of loose quotes from novels I already own.
The joke, clearly, is on me.
As someone who has read Ayn Rand, I cannot say this book was particularly interesting -- it is too synthetic a piece to provide sufficient insight into her philosophy, or excitement in what increasingly feel like hammered-down, one-size views on businessmen, the world, businessmen, politics, businessmen, ethics and men (of business).
All in all, I was expecting a more detailed account of Objectivism as applied to modern society, especially as to how it relates to conflicting philosophical codes (an interesting and fundamental passage of which can be found in this work, but is too briefly approached to go beneath the surface). Instead, I got a short, averagely written essay compiling thoughts Ayn Rand has been heard saying too often to be surprising, and a series of loose quotes from novels I already own.
The joke, clearly, is on me.
June 8, 2021
This book is a compilation of extracts Ayn Rand's four novels, with a long introductory essay. I think it's a pretty effective smörgåsbord. It's a pretty thorough cross-section of the Objectivist philosophical position. The extracts from We the Living and Anthen are very short. The Fountainhead features a little more prominently, but over half of this book is given over to extracts from Atlas Shrugged. I suppose that's understandable. Atlas Shrugged is certainly the most comprehensive expression of Rand's thinking, and by all accounts also the novel that she was most proud of.
The introductory essay has been received negatively by some readers, and I understand why. I doubt this book has ever found its intended audience. Clearly, this collection is targeted at readers new to Rand, and new to Objectivism, but I doubt that many of its readers fall into that category. Instead, this book is mostly being read by people who find the introductory essay too surface-level. Indeed, if you've read really anything by Ayn Rand before, that will probably be your experience too. But for readers totally new to Rand, I do think this essay is just about the best non-fiction introduction to her thinking that you're likely to find. It features all the immediacy and passion which makes Rand interesting to read, while also featuring all of the logic flaws and self-indulgence that renders her writing infuriating.
The introductory essay has been received negatively by some readers, and I understand why. I doubt this book has ever found its intended audience. Clearly, this collection is targeted at readers new to Rand, and new to Objectivism, but I doubt that many of its readers fall into that category. Instead, this book is mostly being read by people who find the introductory essay too surface-level. Indeed, if you've read really anything by Ayn Rand before, that will probably be your experience too. But for readers totally new to Rand, I do think this essay is just about the best non-fiction introduction to her thinking that you're likely to find. It features all the immediacy and passion which makes Rand interesting to read, while also featuring all of the logic flaws and self-indulgence that renders her writing infuriating.
April 22, 2015
This is a ~50 page title essay with several excerpts taken from We the Living, Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged. The vast majority of the book consists of the title essay and John Galt's objectivism speech in Atlas Shrugged. I agree with Rand's philosophy, but I was hoping for more novel material in this book. The title essay is very good, so that was worth the $1 I paid for this at a thrift store. The title essay discusses the two categories of enemies to producers and men of thought: Attilas and Witch Doctors. Attilas are people that achieve goals through the use of and threat of force, while Witch Doctors are those that seek to influence people to go against their rationality. Attilas and Witch Doctors need each other to be complete and, though they may appear very different, they are actually similar and both cause human inventiveness and rationality to be suppressed.
This is a good introduction to Rand's philosophy if you don't want to commit more time to reading The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged. Also, it's worth it for the Rand junkie that wants to read the well-written title essay.
This is a good introduction to Rand's philosophy if you don't want to commit more time to reading The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged. Also, it's worth it for the Rand junkie that wants to read the well-written title essay.
October 11, 2015
I was somewhat surprised to see that this volume is more like anthology of Rand's fiction and not a collection of essays on Objectivism. Despite this lack of original content (with the exception of the opening essay), I am pleased with the volume as it is composed of Rand's better moments with the lackluster ones minimized. Objectivism is a flawed philosophy, but those flaws are not as apparent here. Some of the flaws I've come across in the sampled volumes were even omitted here, which can be viewed as a cause of concern for those who are of a more impressionable mind and a cause of intrigue for those who wish to better understand Objectivist thought. My favorite aspect of this work, however, is its intertextuality. Reading this as a companion piece to the works excepted from here allows the reader to better understand the ideas Rand was trying to convey, which in turn allows one to compare how successful these books are at relaying said ideas.
December 1, 2020
I love Ayn Rand's ideas but this one (the long essay) was very repetitive. Another disappointment was that most of the book is actually quates from Rand's books.
I was expecting for some new insights on Objectivism but if you read her other books (fiction and non-fiction), this one won't teach you anything new.
I was expecting for some new insights on Objectivism but if you read her other books (fiction and non-fiction), this one won't teach you anything new.
September 10, 2016
"Love is not self-sacrifice, but the most profound assertion of your own needs and values. It is for your own happiness that you need the person you love, and that is the greatest compliment, the greatest tribute you can pay to that person."
April 6, 2016
This was an inspiring book. Its all about creating value in the real world by being intellectually sound. The world changes in proportion to its greatest thinkers.
October 11, 2021
Pretty cool. Good intro to philosophy.
July 31, 2023
Ayn Rand adeptly and unknowingly conveys the proof that man is fallen. While her rejection of traditional religion is nothing new, at least she had the honesty of rejecting Christian morality, particularly of altruism and self-sacrifice, and not merely the supernatural aspects. She constantly commits the fallacy of begging the question, such as her redefining selfishness and sacrifice to fit within her own philosophy of Objectivism. On the rare occasion that she is correct about a subject, it turns out she was correct only accidentally and/or for the wrong reasons. Her fierce objection to any form of collectivism, including any notion of the Common Good, stems from her background growing up under Soviet communism whence comes her extrapolation from one form of collectivism to all forms of it which she viewed as evil.
The two primary focuses of her critique she refers to as the “thugs” and the “mystics,” representing excessive materialism and spiritualism respectively. One denies the mind and seeks to force men to sacrifice themselves for the good of the collective (society). The other condemns the world and seeks to force men to sacrifice themselves to the unknown “zero” of God. Man should instead live for himself, not sacrificing his mind (something she held as of the utmost importance) to anything. He should use his mind to act in his own rational self-interest: to build rather than to destroy, and not to dominate the mind’s of others. The businessman, the philosopher, and the artist (all professions of the mind) are held as critical roles in society. No person, government, or entity should ever subdue man’s mind for some collective goal, or common good, as the thugs and the mystics desire. For her, morality was a choice one makes, not something that can be imposed. To impose a moral edict by force was not moral, but brutish.
Of course, one of her errors is in claiming that all instances of the common good are inherently evil. A materialistic vision of a utopian heaven on earth is not the same as the the Common Good of the “mystics” who pursue a Common Good through the use of reason AND revelation for the proper layout of society conducive to human flourishing, not an empty, hollow rendering of the common good.
Ayn Rand claimed to be an atheist, but I don’t believe she was as atheistic as she claimed. She certainly seemed to offer up sacrifices on the altars of reason and the mind, which became a sort of god to her. In effect, her Rand’s ideology turns man and the self into a god through his ability to use reason and rationality.
An excerpt from "Atlas Shrugged" perhaps expresses one of the more abrasive aspects of Objectivism. She believed that we owe kindness and love only to those who deserve it, and to help one without the virtues we have, “Be it only a penny you will not miss or a kindly smile he has not earned, a tribute to a zero is treason to life and to all those who struggle to maintain it. It is of such pennies and smiles that the desolation of your world was made.”
All of this can be put more succinctly (and I think she would agree): Ayn Rand long windingly describes the sin of pride. That man, in his fallen state, is most virtuous.
The two primary focuses of her critique she refers to as the “thugs” and the “mystics,” representing excessive materialism and spiritualism respectively. One denies the mind and seeks to force men to sacrifice themselves for the good of the collective (society). The other condemns the world and seeks to force men to sacrifice themselves to the unknown “zero” of God. Man should instead live for himself, not sacrificing his mind (something she held as of the utmost importance) to anything. He should use his mind to act in his own rational self-interest: to build rather than to destroy, and not to dominate the mind’s of others. The businessman, the philosopher, and the artist (all professions of the mind) are held as critical roles in society. No person, government, or entity should ever subdue man’s mind for some collective goal, or common good, as the thugs and the mystics desire. For her, morality was a choice one makes, not something that can be imposed. To impose a moral edict by force was not moral, but brutish.
Of course, one of her errors is in claiming that all instances of the common good are inherently evil. A materialistic vision of a utopian heaven on earth is not the same as the the Common Good of the “mystics” who pursue a Common Good through the use of reason AND revelation for the proper layout of society conducive to human flourishing, not an empty, hollow rendering of the common good.
Ayn Rand claimed to be an atheist, but I don’t believe she was as atheistic as she claimed. She certainly seemed to offer up sacrifices on the altars of reason and the mind, which became a sort of god to her. In effect, her Rand’s ideology turns man and the self into a god through his ability to use reason and rationality.
An excerpt from "Atlas Shrugged" perhaps expresses one of the more abrasive aspects of Objectivism. She believed that we owe kindness and love only to those who deserve it, and to help one without the virtues we have, “Be it only a penny you will not miss or a kindly smile he has not earned, a tribute to a zero is treason to life and to all those who struggle to maintain it. It is of such pennies and smiles that the desolation of your world was made.”
All of this can be put more succinctly (and I think she would agree): Ayn Rand long windingly describes the sin of pride. That man, in his fallen state, is most virtuous.
January 6, 2025
Rand does a good job diagnosing the problems of society, and explicating these in her fictional works. However, her philosophical underpinnings are riddled with holes and contradictions and are overall weak. She seems to think that there is an objective reality around us that man can recognize and then use his independent thought/rationality upon. She also is firm in her conviction that every use of thought must spawn from somewhere inside man, completely independent of any outside factor or influence (I think this is ironic because she hates communism because she grew up in Russia, talk abt outside influence on your ideas!!!)
She seems to think that feelings should be completely ignored and are a weakness (which makes sense considering she basically cheated on her husband) but I’m kinda confused by this because she doesn’t believe in mind/body duality and thinks man should be an integrated being????
This volume contains experts from her fiction that are great and worth the read. However, “For the new intellectual” as an essay can be skipped because it’s kind of a load of crap.
She seems to think that feelings should be completely ignored and are a weakness (which makes sense considering she basically cheated on her husband) but I’m kinda confused by this because she doesn’t believe in mind/body duality and thinks man should be an integrated being????
This volume contains experts from her fiction that are great and worth the read. However, “For the new intellectual” as an essay can be skipped because it’s kind of a load of crap.
September 23, 2021
The start of this book, Attila v. Witch-Doctor, was interesting and would have made a nice short essay. Interestingly Ayn describes herself ideas as the moderate and logical moderate. I'll summarize the rest of the book (and my thoughts on it) by paraphrasing:
"The concepts I've been expressing in my books and essays are needed in America now more than ever. It's time that smart, successful people like myself step forward and start practicing what I'm preaching. Now I will remind you of these ideas by quoting some of my own works."
There were some serious MAGA vibes, but I am positive that Ayn would despise Trump, she's all about integrity and she measures worth through accomplishments.
While I agree with many of her core values and ideas, this book was a bit of a disappointment because it didn't really introduce anything new. It was just sort of a call to arms and a recap. Also, many of her arguments in this book were particularly straw-mannish and especially black-and-white (which is saying something for Ayn).
"The concepts I've been expressing in my books and essays are needed in America now more than ever. It's time that smart, successful people like myself step forward and start practicing what I'm preaching. Now I will remind you of these ideas by quoting some of my own works."
There were some serious MAGA vibes, but I am positive that Ayn would despise Trump, she's all about integrity and she measures worth through accomplishments.
While I agree with many of her core values and ideas, this book was a bit of a disappointment because it didn't really introduce anything new. It was just sort of a call to arms and a recap. Also, many of her arguments in this book were particularly straw-mannish and especially black-and-white (which is saying something for Ayn).
October 2, 2011
Айн Ранд дефинира новия интелектуалец
http://www.knigolandia.info/2010/06/b...
Произведенията на Айн Ранд определено ме въведоха в едно различно измерение на светоусещане и отношение към живота. Най-силно влияние ми оказаха, разбира се, романите й “Атлас изправи рамене” “Изворът” и “Ние, живите”, както и есетата от сборника “Капитализмът: непознатия идеал”.
“За новия интелектуалец” е синтез на тезите й от горните произведения. Основната посока е дефинирането на досегашната човешка история като следствие от щенията на две фигури – Атила и Шамана, в чиито образи тя припознава военни/политически и религиозни лидери, които са налагали своята воля над обикновените хора или чрез сила, или чрез заблуди. А обединението между двете неща според нея е най-опасното нещо.
http://www.knigolandia.info/2010/06/b...
Произведенията на Айн Ранд определено ме въведоха в едно различно измерение на светоусещане и отношение към живота. Най-силно влияние ми оказаха, разбира се, романите й “Атлас изправи рамене” “Изворът” и “Ние, живите”, както и есетата от сборника “Капитализмът: непознатия идеал”.
“За новия интелектуалец” е синтез на тезите й от горните произведения. Основната посока е дефинирането на досегашната човешка история като следствие от щенията на две фигури – Атила и Шамана, в чиито образи тя припознава военни/политически и религиозни лидери, които са налагали своята воля над обикновените хора или чрез сила, или чрез заблуди. А обединението между двете неща според нея е най-опасното нещо.
April 14, 2021
Two principles
1. Emotions are not tools of cognition
2. No man has the right to initiate force on another.
Pretty easy concept. Not sure why people are calling Ayn Rand evil over this idea. Seems like they are ignoring principle number one.
I really enjoyed the first half of the book focusing on laying out the idea of objectivism. I appreciate her writing knowing that it comes from a position of experience in getting her ass kicked by communism.
I didn’t need to re-read the portions of her fictional books when people began speaking in full essays (second half) . It was a bit of a chore to read, even though I agree with most of it. I’d say you should pick this up from the library, but I’m against anything publicly funded after reading this.
1. Emotions are not tools of cognition
2. No man has the right to initiate force on another.
Pretty easy concept. Not sure why people are calling Ayn Rand evil over this idea. Seems like they are ignoring principle number one.
I really enjoyed the first half of the book focusing on laying out the idea of objectivism. I appreciate her writing knowing that it comes from a position of experience in getting her ass kicked by communism.
I didn’t need to re-read the portions of her fictional books when people began speaking in full essays (second half) . It was a bit of a chore to read, even though I agree with most of it. I’d say you should pick this up from the library, but I’m against anything publicly funded after reading this.
June 21, 2020
This is the best single source for the philosophy of Ayn Rand as espoused in her fiction. While she would go on to write some additional philosophic essays that rivaled these -- this is the compendium that forms the base of her philosophy of Objectivism. In addition to the title essay the collection includes excerpts from four of her novels (Anthem, We the Living, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged). The selections from Atlas Shrugged alone are key statements of the Objectivist philosophy and conclude with the seventy-five page long section "This is John Galt Speaking". This is useful as a reference to the work and thought of Ayn Rand.
January 25, 2010
Made up almost entirely of excerpts from her novels. Who is this "New Intellectual"? Only Ayn Rand and those who are willing to adhere to her philosophy. As far as her philosophy - she actually has me agreeing with her most of the time, but to a point. In order for her views to be plausible to the point of implementation, every child in America must be born with equal opportunity and privilege. I submit to you that this is hardly the case. I confess to socialistic tendencies, but I think if Rand's utopia = everyman for himself, I think we should at least even the playing field. But that would be fair, wouldn't it?
October 5, 2012
Kind of a funhouse mirror of the intellectual giants who came up with the social contract notion of philosophy. It's a bit like a petulant child, crying out that nobody understands anything but her. Reason is good, sure, and I'll even accept that the Attila and Witch Doctor dynamic is an interesting thread to run through the eponymous essay. I just think it's pretty horrendous to call out, in my mind, some of history's most interesting people -- like Hume, Marx, and JS Mill -- although, this being the fourth of her books I've gone through, I can't say I'm surprised.
August 10, 2014
Some of the best rhetoric I've ever read in defense of man's right to enjoy himself -- an extremely logical, extremely powerful, and easily digestible series of speeches on heroes, production, art, sex, and civilization. One of my new favorites of all time.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 184 reviews