Rating: 
Summary: Maybe you are disgusted by the fact...
Review: After I had read For the the Intellectual, I found myself craving to find more knowledge of her philosophy, I saw in a winderfully flowing style the actual points of Ayn Rand's philosophy. Unlike many of those who read this book(probably only the portions they needed to convince themselves of this Author's psychosis) and posted their reviews, I was not revolted by these words. I have seen these things around me all my life, and if Ayn Rand had not published her philosophy, I surely would have published something very similar eventually. It seems to me that the people who are turned away by this book are the people that take the most benefit from the current moral scheme. The people who are the fanatic crazy types about this philosophy are the one's who have been drained of their entire essence and wish to unlock their inner capabilities. If you wish to simply be able to live fully, fully for yourself, and wish to use YOUR potential to the fullest extent, then I suggest you read this stunning piece of work. And please take not that it is philosophy, and not an exact account of history
Rating:
Summary: A manifesto against nihilsm and wake up call for the brain.
Review: Let it be known that For The New Intellectual is a book dense with psychological insights and eye opening rational objectivism. This reader was awed by Ayn Rand's crisp writing, and cutting wit. Liberals will be immediately offended, but for those without philosophical bias, Rand is difficult to dismiss. The book includes the essay, "For the New Intellectual" as well as excerpts from We the Living, Anthem, The Fountainhead, and many speaches from Atlas Shrugged. The beginning essay is more than worth the price of admission, while the excerpts gave this first time Rand reader a good sense of where to turn next. Ayn Rand's philosophy is truly life affirming and hard with truth. Truth hurts sometimes, and Rand is not easy answers for idle minds. Rather, her philosophy dares to look starkly at where man's moral code has come and where it has led us. Ayn Rand seperates herself from all other thinkers that I've experienced because of her perspective as a 20th Century American. While many of her ideas find their root in Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy, she stands alone-- offering a positive solution for mankind. She absolutely asserts that man is the end in himself, and that his happiness on earth is his proper goal. For the New Intellectual is both a slap in the face and fire in one's pants. Some will answer Ayn Rand's call for a new moral code and meaning to life, and as she says of the others, "leave them to heaven."
Rating:
Summary: A great new perspective of dominant ideologies
Review: The first half of For the New Intellectual is a detailed non-fiction essay explaining past and current ideologies in terms of "mystics of muscle", aka "Attilas", and "mystics of the mind", aka "witch doctors". These basically translate into those who want to control what people *do* such as dictators, and those who want to control what people *believe* such as religious leaders. The essay goes into detail explaining their dependency on both each other and their victims. Perhaps most importantly it explains how not to be a victim.The second half of the book illustrates many of the principles described in the first half through excerpts from Ayn Rand's fictional works We The Living, Anthem, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged. WARNING: There are plot spoilers in the excerpts.
Rating: 
Summary: A review of 'For The New Intellectual'
Review: For The New Intellectual, by Ayn Rand, is one of the better philosophy books I have read. It is comprised of the title essay, and 3 chapters dealing with Rand's three best novels: We The Living, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged. In the title essay, Rand makes an excellent case for the need of a new breed of intellectuals. Her objectivist philosophy ties in well with the writing, lending the power of reason and logic to her sometimes extreme statements. Of the final three chapters, I found the treatment of Atlas Shrugged to be the most impressive. Rand gives commentary on many of the great speeches and conversations from the book, ending with the amazing "This is John Galt Speaking" speech. While her comments are short, they lend insight into what she intended the different pieces to portray to the reader, and what they mean to her. On the whole, I think 'For The New Intellectual' is a pretty good book. Only the first 50-60 pages are her philosophical writings, but the rest of the book is a valuable tool for anyone who is a fan of her novels. I would recommend 'For The New Intellectual' to anyone interested in learning more about the objectivist philosophy and anyone who has read her novels.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Book
Review: This book helped put things in perspective. We get further acquainted with Rand's brilliant philosophy of "objectivism."
Rand's perception of human nature were far ahead of her time. Thanks to my friend Chris Artig in college for introducing me to Ms. Rand. Jeffrey McAndrew
author of "Our Brown-Eyed Boy"
Rating:
Summary: A great new perspective of dominant ideologies
Review: The first half of For the New Intellectual is a detailed non-fiction essay explaining past and current ideologies in terms of "mystics of muscle", aka "Attilas", and "mystics of the mind", aka "witch doctors". These basically translate into those who want to control what people *do* such as dictators, and those who want to control what people *believe* such as religious leaders. The essay goes into detail explaining their dependency on both each other and their victims. Perhaps most importantly it explains how not to be a victim. The second half of the book illustrates many of the principles described in the first half through excerpts from Ayn Rand's fictional works We The Living, Anthem, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged. WARNING: There are plot spoilers in the excerpts.
Rating:
Summary: right on!
Review: Everything ayn rand says is thoroughly scientific and rational. I hate nature, higher powers, religions,altruism, and I love myself more than you. I'm tired of helping the poor- they should starve and die. Disabled people are weaklings who should be left behind and I would never submit to any group of humans certainly not my family. I hate taxes, we should privatize roads, libraries, parks, etc.. I'm going to buy it all. Thanks Ayn Rand for giving me an excuse.
Rating:
Summary: Where did Rand go wrong?
Review: This book consists of an introductory essay, followed by several philosophical essays originally published as integral parts of Ayn Rand's various novels. Ayn Rand's core philosophy was ultimately motivated by hero-worship, an emotional need to idolize men (and it was always men!) of grand gestures and great achievements. Although the protagonists of her novels (Dominique Francon in "The Fountainhead," Dagny Taggart in "Atlas Shrugged," and Kira Argounova in "We the Living") were generally women, the heroes of the books were always men (Howard Roark, John Galt, and Leo Kovalensky/Andrei Taganov). Rand's life-long goal was to create in the real world a new sort of man, a man unlike those she saw all around her, a man she could honestly admire and worship. Hence the title of this book -- ii is written for her hoped-for "new intellectual." She failed. Anyone who has run into "Randian cultists," whether in real life or on the Internet, will realize why the phrase "Randian cultists" is apropos: I have yet to meet a single one who is a model of rationality and achievement. Is it a coincidence that the best-known Randian in the real world is Alan Greenspan, the evasive, self-serving, simpering bureaucrat who brought us the "dot com" debacle and who yet manages to survive under Democratic and Republican Presidents alike? What went wrong? Part of the answer, I think, is that Rand and her followers suffer from an enormous emotional and social insecurity, a huge lack of self-esteem. For example, in the final essay in "For the New Intellectual," Rand furiously condemns government scientists who "scorn the use of their science for the purpose and profit of life, they deliver their science to the service of death, to the only practical purpose it can have for looters: to inventing weapons of coercion and destruction." This deserves applause as a brilliant and scathing condemnation of the military-industrial complex. But, in real life, I have never seen Rand or any of her core followers condemn the actual American military-industrial complex, the actual government scientists who created the atomic bomb in "the service of death," or the actual American drive for world hegemony. Rand's and her insecure followers' eagerness to identify with and feel part of the ruling regime prevents them from actually materially and openly challenging that regime. Another part of the problem is that Rand, with a novelist's attention to symbolism, allowed symbolism to overpower reality. Although she denounced taxation in any form and defended laissez-faire capitalism, she eulogized the government-created, tax-financed American manned space program. You see, symbolically, the manned space program was a great symbol of human rationality and achievement, even though, in reality, it was scientifically pointless political propaganda which actually retarded the development of an economically viable free-market space industry. (As to the symbolism, Tom Wolfe's phrase from "The Right Stuff," 'spam-in-a-can,' is actually a scientifically apt description of the early American astronauts!) But perhaps Rand's greatest error, which her followers propagate, is her claim, stated clearly in "For the New Intellectual," that "there is no such thing as 'non-practical knowledge' or any sort of 'disinterested' action..." Aside from the fact that this is obviously false, it has disastrous consequences. When one judges ideas only by their uses and consequences, one loses sight of the ideal of disinterested truth. This is the grand totalitarian temptation, to which the twentieth-century succumbed. Whether in the form of Marxism, social-democratic pragmatism, or Rand's own "Objectivism," it means the death of the mind and of the spirit of man. This error is, I think, integral to her system. Aristotle began the "Metaphysics" by stating that "all men by nature desire to know." While Aristotle certainly did not despise putting knowledge to practical use, he viewed knowledge for its own sake as an end, indeed the highest end, in and of itself. But, the solitary disinterested seeker after truth cannot satisfy Rand's need for hero-worship. A Randian hero must build, control, and dominate the natural and social world. To merely seek enjoyment, beauty, and understanding of the world, to quietly live one's own life with one's friends and family, is not to be fully human in the Randian perspective. Such a perspective is inhuman. As Murray Rothbard once remarked, there are no children in Ayn Rand's imaginary worlds: a Randian world would survive only one generation, after which the human race would be extinct! When I first read "For a New Intellectual" as an adolescent, I found it exciting and intellectually stimulating. It raises a host of questions which need answering. Much of Rand's assault on the prevailing culture -- both popular culture and high-brow culture -- is on-target. I heartily recommend reading this book. But it must be read critically and with caution. Rand captures an important side of human life -- her emphasis on reason as the key tool of man's existence is absolutely correct (and, of course, goes back to Aristotle's definition of man as the "rational animal"). She is right that the twentieth century was a vast intellectual wasteland, and that we do indeed need "new intellectuals." But those new intellectuals need more than the writings of Chairman Ayn. They need to refamiliarize themselves with the whole heritage of civilization which the twentieth century so cavalierly swept aside -- the existentialism of Aquinas, the humanity of Aristotle, the decency of Catholic just-war teachings, the anarchism of Henry Thoreau, etc. Uncompromising rationalism, untrammeled free markets, individual liberty, strictly limited government, on all of this Rand was right. But she was wrong to worship achievement, to allow symbolism to trump reality, and to accept in practice a ruling regime that she condemned in principle. She was wrong to believe that humans should live solely to work and to dominate. She was wrong to ignore the human need for loving families or the disinterested human interest in knowledge. This book is, at best, a launching pad for the "new intellectuals." They must soar far beyond it if they are to succeed.
Rating: 
Summary: Not suitable as a history of philosophy
Review: When reading this book I was reminded of some of the works of the philosopher/poet Friedrich Nietzsche, who never attempted to pull the punches and whose dialog was interesting and fun, and not ever in the mainstream. However, he did not usually address the philosophical issues at stake because of this. The author of this book is very harsh in her criticism of philosophy, indeed of most of the schools of philosophy throughout history. Her criticism though is not detailed enough, and too vituperative to be of much use to the understanding of the trends in the history of philosophy, especially ethical and moral philosophy. The author mentions Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas, Hegel, Kant, Compte, Marx, Nietzsche, Spencer, Bentham, Hume, and Descartes. To be fair to any one of these philosophers would take perhaps an entire lifetime of careful analysis and research, and thousands of pages of written material, but the author spends only a few paragraphs on each, classifying them according as to their status as being "Witchdoctor" philosophy or not. Of all these philosophers, the author is sympathetic with only two of them: Aristotle, who she labels as "the intellect's Declaration of Independence", and Aquinas, who she labels as "the prelude to the Renaissance", and responsible for the return of Aristotle to Europe. That Aquinas was influenced by Aristotle there is no doubt, but it was the efforts of Islamic scholars who translated the works of Aristotle, and thus they should be viewed as the progenitors of the Renaissance, not Aquinas. And even though Aristotle's philosophy is highly interesting and of course greatly influenced the history of Western philosophy, the author does not give sufficient justification for her enthusiasm for it. Having read much of Aristotle's philosophy, I have yet to run into passages from his texts where he states that there is only "one" reality, as the author imputes to him in this book. She gives no textual quotation for this view, even though it indeed might be correct. The remaining philosophers are classified as being "Witchdoctors": these individuals are spoken of as those who are frightened by physical reality, never practical, emotional, and embrace mysticism as their essential worldview. The author however gives no examples from the works of these philosophers to support this strange classification. In addition, she evidently believes she has full understanding of the mind and how it works, reducing it to sensations and perceptions, followed by conceptions, the latter of which is uniquely human. If only it were this easy, as they current efforts in neuroscience will illustrate. The author makes no attempt to justify her view of the mind from a scientific viewpoint, and gives no references to the scientific literature. In addition, the author seems that consciousness is needed for an entity to be able to form concepts. That this is not really true is proven by current developments in artificial intelligence: concept formation can indeed be done by certain software programs, which can prove (original) mathematical results and arrive at new scientific knowledge. These programs are not conscious in the way the author describes however (and albeit then only superficially). Should we label the intellectuals today, or even at the time of publication of this book as "frightened zombies", as the author does early in the book? Does this serve any scholarly purpose that will further our understanding of modern culture and its philosophical overtones? Such individuals she says have abdicated the realm of the intellect and have embraced Buddhism and Existentialism in some instances. But what of these last two schools of thought? What makes them an abdication of the intellect? The author does not give textual support for her reasons for her labeling, making her claims unsubstantiated in this regard. I know a few brilliant scholars and productive scientists who practice Buddhism, and some who are sympathetic with Existentialism. These individuals have certainly not abdicated their minds and their goals, and show no sign of doing so in the future. They are confident, rational individuals, not frightened zombies.
The author would have made the book much more palatable if she would engage in more rigorous scholarship. One can agree with many of the ideas in the book, such as the notion of morality as being a code of values to guide human choices and actions. Interestingly, this view can be justified scientifically, even given a mathematical formulation, and further formulated in the context of rational intelligent agents in the field of artificial intelligence. In addition, she recommends that anyone interested in living in a free and rational society should follow the advice of the old Western sheriff and "leave your guns outside". She is certainly right about this, and her belief that no one has the right to force his ideas on others. The current rate of technological development is perhaps the biggest counterexample against the stance of the author on political and economic issues. The rate is unprecedented, and is itself increasing, and despite the "decadent" philosophies that currently exist (as seen through the author's eyes), shows no sign of abatement. This might prove that folly and reason can exists in the same person(s); but it is also proof that humans are the best example of lifeforms that have ever evolved yet on this planet. Confident of the future, with a firm grasp of reality, unashamed of themselves, and always yearning for understanding and adventure, they are indeed true intellectuals.
Rating:
Summary: For the New Traditionalist
Review: Back in 1982, when I first read this tome, I was enamoured with a Devo album called "Freedom of Choice," the spudboys' anthem to radical libertarianism in a one-size-fits-all world. Thus, were some of my fellow petrochemical rocker friends and I also susceptible to the lilting iconoclastic strains of one Ayn Rand, who with her book "The Fountainhead," carved out her own Nietzsche (pun intended) among uebermensch, one Howard Roark, a prototypical punker before his time. So, put on your thinking caps, energy domes or plastic pompadours and your anti human-element suits and delve into this pussaint tome by Miss Rand. You will be doing neck salutes as you read her introductory essay of the same title as the book. After writing four major novels of varying philosophical degrees, Miss Rand finally sticks her toe into the swimming pool of profundity with this essay, and tries to stake out her territory vis-a-vis the writers of the great books (according to the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, at least). Voila! By her own objective analysis, she kicks the pants off of them, and conveniently categorises them into either one of two columns: "Attilas" or "Witch Doctors." The Attilas (big daddy zeros, in Devo-speak) are the proverbial gang of thugs who stifle thought and proscribe against actions resulting from independent agents. They carry around clubs and grunt like high school football jocks and generally make life miserable for artistic coffee house types who affect an air of bored sophistication. The Witch Doctors (Mystics of the Mind, the corporate media types of pesudo-intellectuals who pander to the masses in order to control them, sort of like Rod Rooter of Big Entertainment) are basically your monolithic hucksters who lure in otherwise smart people to carry out their evil deeds. Think Josef Goebbels, Jim Jones, Herf Applewhite, the Unibomber and Jerry Falwell here. They mouth slogans like "Duty Now For the Future," and reduce humanity to the level of mental mutants. The rest of the book is Rand's greatest hits, philosophically-bent speeches from her novels. The best are from "Atlas Shrugged," because the neo-industrialists delivering them always leave their opponents in the dust. Whip It. Whip it Good!
|
