Rating: 
Summary: A great introduction to Objectivism!
Review: This book was my first formal introduction to the philosophy of Objectivism. The first essay a moving and thought-provoking introduction to the thinking of Ayn Rand, and provides a brief overview of her views on the history of philosophy, politics, and religion. For years after reading it, I would notice a detail of something I saw or read in my daily life and would suddenly find myself remembering and comprehending ideas and examples presented in the book with such clarity that it seemed that I knew them all along, and only now was able to put them into words. The rest of the book is excerpts from her fiction novels, and my recommendation would be to read the fiction books in their entirety instead, and then go over the excerpts. However if you are pressed for time or urgently wish to get into the philosophy first, this book makes a great introduction to Ayn Rand's philosophy.
Rating:
Summary: A refreshingly radical critique of philosophy.
Review: Encountering Ayn Rand's work when I was fifteen was a stuuning moment, an epiphany. It forced me to question everything I'd ever believed and been taught. More than a decade later, I am still deeply impressed by the scope and force of this book's indictment modern philosophy and culture, even while there are aspects of Rand's philosophy with which I fundamentally disagree. I recommend this book, and all of Ayn Rand's work, as a means for young people to stop living with unquestioned assumptions about life and value and forcing themselves to define what they truly believe. In the first few pages of "For the New Intellectual", you will discover that many of the beliefs and values you may have taken for granted are far from obvious.
Rating:
Summary: A Good Survey of Ayn Rand's Philosophy
Review: This book is composed primarily of essays and other excerpts from Ayn Rand's fiction and non-fiction works. From the nature of second-handedness, to money, to socialized medicine and the perverted ethics of collectivism, this book summarizes Miss Rand's critique of modernist culture and offers a reality-based alternative--the philosophy of Objectivism. Anyone interested in an introduction to Ayn Rand's philosophy will find this book an excellent starting point.
Rating:
Summary: Deconstructing modern philosophy via art and epistemology
Review: In the works of Ayn Rand, excerpted in this little book, a predominant concept is the concept of deconstructivist language. If Randian Objectivism holds, the works of Kant are in effect 'postmodern.' However, several materialisms concerning the role of the observer as reader may be revealed. The characteristic theme of Rand's opening essay on Objectivism is a mythopoetical paradox. In _We The Living_, Rand reiterates and counterposes Communist obscurity; in _Anthem_ she deconstructs anti-capitalist simulation. In a sense, Rand's analysis of Marxist simulacra suggests that consensus is a product of communication, given that culture is interchangeable with art. The subject is interpolated into a postconstructive discourse that includes narrativity as a reality. It could be said that the defining characteristic, and eventually the failure, of Rand's own simulacra depicted in Rand's _The Fountainhead_ is also evident in _ATLAS SHRUGGED_. Rand suggests the use of Marxist obscurity to read and modify class. Therefore, she uses the expression 'A is A' to denote the role of the writer as reader, the contribution of the artist to the creation of 'objective' reality. Marxist obscurity states that consciousness has objective value. It could be said that for Rand, the subject is contextualised into an Objectivist simulation that includes reality as a whole. Rand uses the term 'psycho-epistemology' to denote the bridge between class and society (and also between art and epistemology). But the primary theme of the works of Rand is not narrative per se, but subnarrative. Rand suggests that we have to choose between Marxist simulation and capitalist situationism. In a sense, the main theme of her opening essay, recapitulated in the excerpts from her works which follow it, is a neotextual paradox: as new philosophy has failed the intellectual, so the 'new intellectual' must fail philosophy.
Rating: 
Summary: Not bad for a Compendium
Review: I have never been a fan of books that are excerpts from other writings. That is the primpary purpose of this book, as she includes what she considers to be the best speeches from her four fictional writings, "Anthem", "We the Living", "The Fountainhead", and "Atlas Shrugged." To her credit, I agree with her selections, but that doesn't necessarily mean that these speeches are as good when taken out of context. That is not to say that they are not good as they are, but they are more enjoyable in their proper context. There is an original essay by Ayn Rand before she gives us a review of her other writings. This essay is in many ways an Objectivist Manifesto, where she explains her view of most of history being dominated by the "Mystics of Muscle" and the "Mystics of Spirit". She call them "Atilla" and the "Witch Doctor" at the suggestion of Nathaniel Branden, but I would call them the Baron and the Bishop. She does criticize other philosophers, especially Kant, for various reasons, including the much debated problem of Universals. Those who say she did not solve it in "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" show that they do not understand the solution, but that is not the subject of this book. There is a lot of impassioned vitriolic rhetoric being used against Ayn Rand, from those who's philosophy is threatened by the existence for hers, but do not let that dissuade you from what amounts to an Objectivistic Sampler.
Rating:
Summary: Dead Subject
Review: After reading these reviews I see why philosophy is a dead subject.
Rating: 
Summary: Of historical interest only
Review: This little book is a collection of excerpts from Rand's novels introduced by a nasty little essay in which Rand dismisses the entire history of philosophy (except for Aristotle) as the mindservants of "Attila and the Witch Doctor" (a pair of cartoony stereotypes for which she credits her then-lover Nathaniel Branden). The essay is of historical interest to those who want to see just where "Objectivism" went wrong. Essentially, Rand castigates philosophers for having failed to solve the "problem of universals" and therefore having failed to defend the efficacy of the human mind. Baaaaad philosophers. Ah, but Rand herself will fix things, as soon as she gets around to writing her big book on "Objectivism." Well, she never did get around to writing that big book, but she did write a small one that was supposed to deal with the "problem of universals" and introduce the "Objectivist" theory of concepts. It was, and is, called _Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology_ -- and it not only doesn't solve the "problem of universals," it doesn't even state it correctly. (Nor does she stick to her own proposed "solution" for even the length of her opening chapter.) Some of Rand's non-fiction essays weren't bad; a handful of them were even very good. But her attempts at philosophy were uniformly ill-informed, illogical, and based almost entirely on the power of her rhetoric. "For The New Intellectual" is _all_ rhetoric -- but the reader who is skeptical that "Objectivism" stands or falls with ITOE should read it as evidence. Rand herself is clear, both here and in ITOE (as well as in some of her private writings, published posthumously), that she thinks philosophy is fundamentally epistemology and that her pseudo-solution to the "problem of universals" is the _raison d'etre_ of "Objectivism." Make no mistake, her theory of concepts _is_ the basic subject matter of "Objectivism" -- and her theory of concepts is dead wrong. I leave the conclusion as an exercise for the reader. For anything _other_ than historical interest, check out a real philosopher instead. Brand Blanshard actually did the things some of Rand's readers think Rand herself did -- e.g., defend reason at a time when it was unpopular -- and he didn't debase our understanding of "reason" in the process.
Rating:
Summary: Good Condensation of Rand's Works
Review: For the more intellectually minded, who don't want to read the near 3,000 pages in Rand's various novels, this is an invaluable condensation of what's presented there. When Rand wrote fiction, she always had a point to make, and this would be presented in a speech by one of her characers. But fiction is an art form, and the speech had to be given meaning by all the plot events and character development that preceeded it. In this book, you'll find just the speeches. They are very emotionally charged, but if you look behind the language used to make them part of fictional novels, there is a wealth of original thought. You'll find everything from the moral value of money, to the evils of socialized medicine, to the nature of group-minded leaders, to John Galt's infamous 60-page speech in Atlas Shrugged. Unlike other anthologies of Rand's work, this one was written in her lifetime and has a lengthy introductory essay. Therein, she contrasts the common meaning of "intellectual" with her vision of what an intellectual should be. She argues for leaders to be both theoretical and practical, and to stand by their ideas as a way of living on earth, not as pet theories. I can't recommend the book for the essay alone, as one essay is not worth the price of a volume, but if you don't own Rand's fiction, or would like to have all the speeches in one book, this is an excellent choice.
Rating: 
Summary: A Bit of Objectivity in the Midst of all this Biased Vitriol
Review: Given the absurdly slanted reviews I've seen here, I thought I'd try to give a bit more of an, er, objective account. And since the book is sort of a sampler of all Rand's work, a bit of broad background is in order. What Ayn Rand's critics say about her personally is mostly on the mark. She was a hypocritical megalomaniac, tolerated independent thought only insofar as it agreed with her, was far too quick to levy personal attacks rather than substantive rebuttals to opponent's arguments, and often engaged in scholarship that was less than, um, scholarly, for the sake of expediency. Unfortunately none of this excuses Rand's critics for making the same mistake with regard to her. Too often her arguments are ignored in lieu of her personal peccadilloes, and while Rand's claim to perfection (more or less) might excuse a bit more enthusiasm in pointing out her errors, it doesn't excuse writing her off entirely. This is classic ad hominem argumentation, the sort of thing that would have us write off "In Principia" because Newton wasted forests of paper writing about alchemy and believed in biblical inerrancy. As a result, much of what Rand's critics say about her philosophy, and those who view it with some value, is NOT on the mark. While it is true that some of Rand's followers act as if every body expulsion of hers carries philosophical significance, the vast majority of people simply see some value in Rand's writings while recognizing that she makes mistakes like everyone else. Her writings on sex are best used for kindling, but her unique and insightful views on the symbolism in the Garden of Eden myth, and the purpose and value of money (all included in FTNI), alone make her a benefactor to the history of human thought. The claim that Rand mostly appeals to high school students is so baseless and preposterous it is difficult to take seriously. One would be hard pressed to find one high school student in a thousand that even knows who Rand is, much less having read and understood what she had to say. No, Rand appeals mostly to people who are fed up with the gooey postmodern movement in society that has us being asked to promote feelings over facts (see any liberal response to anti-gun control arguments), and pretending that changing the name of a condition changes the condition (see any PC verbiage). The problem with most of the criticism that actually bothers to deal with Rand's arguments is that her arguments are often misunderstood, and this is partially Rand's fault. She used language very precisely and somewhat idiosyncratically, at least when viewed from the knee-jerk view of the layman. From my POV she used words as they should be used, and that such semantic battles are crucial to promoting a change in the way people think. But when one uses words in a minority way, one must expect to be misunderstood unless one is willing to put forth considerable effort to contextualize what one says, and Rand too often failed to do this. Thus when she said something like "man cannot exist sans rationality", a previous reviewer can be forgiven for thinking that she meant no person can remain alive via faith, and therefore she has been refuted. However this isn't at all what she meant. What she was getting at is that rationality is the tool via which mankind acquires what it needs to function as human beings should, a far more complex proposition, and one that requires much background to understand. But without that background, one could easily erroneously, but understandably, conclude that Rand's writings are "pseudointellectual". The bottom line is that Rand promotes some highly intriguing ideas backed by quite a bit of thought. Where else will one see the producer placed on a higher rung than the giver? Who can totally blow off the motivation of socialism in those who simply want to gain at the loss of those they consider "rich"? Anyone who reads this or any Rand writing for the first time and claims to be unmoved intellectually is kidding himself. A prime example would be those who are religious and see no similarity between them, and their leaders, to Rand's "witch doctor" persona. They simply haven't forced themselves to think past the pious-babble that accompanies most religious thought, for it rarely takes me more than 5 minutes of questioning a believer to get them to practically quote Rand's "witch doctor" persona. It's tough to read about Attila and the Witch Doctor and NOT think of the Roman empire and the history of the papacy. Which brings me to Rand's historical errors. Most of those I've seen fall into the true-but-irrelevant category a la Bluto's famous "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor" quote in animal house - her fact was a bit off, but the point made still holds. Some Gore fans might be able to relate to this. Just because the fact you present as evidence for your view is false doesn't make your view false. It only makes it unsupported, but too often Rand's critics stop there and dismiss her. So, all in all, 3 stars. It is after all, only a sampler, but it is guaranteed to get you to think about issues in a way you never have. For the real meat, read Atlas Shrugged, which along with 1984 and Brave New World, will pretty much give you a complete understanding of everything that goes on in modern society and politics.
Rating:
Summary: The Peaks and Pitfalls of Ayn Rand's Philosphy
Review: Ayn Rand's philosphy is correct, and beautiful, if you will, in that it speaks for the indivdual and for self-motivation. It also speaks against all principles which I identify as Communism, Socialism and Dictatorships, all of which I hate with a passion. However, in standing up for the indivdual, she also speaks for selfishness, which, like the power if Socialism, corrupts anyone, brings them to hatred in the eyes of peers and in the eyes of many religions. More than anything, though, Ayn Rand's For the New Intellectual makes you think, and you come up with your own profound philosphy on ego and the indivdual, a philosphy which will touch your life deeply, and hopefully, the lives, the souls, around you.
|
