Rating: 
Summary: Maybe you read a different book than I did...
Review: Alot of the problem with the arguments facing Objectivism is the fact that all use aspects of the Altruist philosophy which Ayn Rand was against. You should maybe stop saying that because she is not a professor in history that she cannot rationalize the causal effects of history, or maybe you shouldn't say that there is a problem with anyone who tries to do such. Because remember, in your philosophy there are no absolutes, except those needed in the expediency of the moment. Maybe try for one moment to rationalize a matter for yourself and see how it feels. When you can produce something for yourself and reap the rewards, like I have, you will no that Objectivism is the only true Philosophy.Good day all Looters and Moochers. :)
Rating: 
Summary: For the Pseudo-Intellectual
Review: If you want to evaluate Ayn Rand's ability as a philosopher, skip the excerpts from her novels and read the opening essay, "For the New Intellectual." This is, for lack of a better expression, Rand's philosophy of history. Rand provides a critique of numerous philosophers and their influence on history: Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Comte, Spencer and others. She give little evidence that she has read any of these thinkers, much less understood them. For example, she says of Kant: "An action is moral, for Kant, only if one has no desire to perform it . . ." (p. 32.) Where, Miss Rand, does Kant say this? Or, "[t]he prelude to the Renaissance was the return of Aristotle via Thomas Aquinas." (p. 23.) Doesn't she know of Aristotle's influence on the theologians who influenced Aquinas? Moreover, in her praise of the Renaissance, she seems oblivious on the influence of neo-Platonism and mysticism on many Renaissance thinkers. Finally, she describes religious thinkers with the title "witch doctor." Her description of the "witch doctor" doesn't fit with any religious thinkers I have read. Ayn Rand wasn't a philosopher and her ideas are not worthy of serious consideration.
Rating:
Summary: Out of her depth
Review: The title essay of this collection demonstrates to perfection what is wrong with Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism. In the essay, Rand claims that the course of history is determined by abstract philosophy--in other words, by mere patter. Her proof consists of nothing but a brief sketch of the history of civilization followed by a series of misleading descriptions of the doctrines of the major philosophers. No serious scholar in either history or philosophy could take anything Rand asserts all that seriously. She claims, for instance, that the Roman Empire fell because it was unable to resist the invasion of the barbarians. This view of the fall of the Roman Empire was refuted 80 years ago by the Belgian historian Henri Pirenne. (Also, it should be remember, that only the Western half of the Roman Empire "fell." The Eastern half remained on its feet until 1453, i.e., during the entire medieval period of Western Europe.) Rand had a very distorted view of the doctrines of the major philosophers of Western Civilization. She says of Hume's philosophy: "If it were possible for an animal to describe the content of his consciousness, the result would b a transcript of Hume's philosophy." She accuses Kant of believing "that man's concepts are only a delusion,...a collective delusion which no one has the power to escape." Nietzche, she declares, regarded reason, logic, principles as "futile and debilitating" and morality as "useless." Anyone who has taken the trouble to read and understand these philosophers knows that these descriptions of their ideas are distorted almost beyond recognition. The trouble with Rand is that she was not qualified to write a book about the causal determinants of history because her knowledge of the subject was superficial and afflicted with the irresponsibility of the dilettante. She really doesn't have any understanding of the tremendous problems facing those who attempt to investigate such matters. She is like a high school student who, after reading an introductory guide to physics, thinks he's ready to pronounce on what's wrong with quantum mechanics. Rand, when it came to history, was out of her depth.
Rating:
Summary: For The New Adolescent
Review: This is a poorly written book that relies on rhetoric and the author's hortatory and polemical style to make its points.
Rating:
Summary: Not an evil, but merely a poor philosophy.
Review: I agree with the reviewer who reacted to the "evil book" parody. I have read a great deal of FTNI and can say that what breaks Rand's philosophy completely are its inadequacies. For example (and this is a point brought up by other critics as well) Rand's philosophy is worthless to those who do not value their own lives: she assumes that everyone is supposed to want to live, and automatically assigns an absolute value to all mankind, where such an absolute doesn't exist. This is not the only such pseudo-absolute Rand created--there are others such as the idea that reason is an absolute, and that therefore faith is a corruption of man's mind. I am sure we all know many people who function as normal members of society and yet hold faith in something, so we have clear evidence that faith doesn't corrupt reason. But these are just some of the biggest, most obvious of her blunders. There are too many phallacies in Rand's thought to even begin to do them justice here. But I still understand where the "evil book" reviewer's distaste comes from, even if he/she expressed it in a state of ignorance. One must approach any idea with an open mind.
Rating:
Summary: Poor parodies prove negative reviews
Review: The poor parody, "Don't dare read this!", just confirms what the negative reviewers are saying. Whoever submitted this review clearly didn't *read* the negative reviews very well, because quite a few of them *do* seem to have read the book. And just in case this reviewer is actually *serious* - no, you're not entitled to such a negative opinion unless you've actually read the book.
Rating:
Summary: Don't dare read this!
Review: This is an awful book: Ayn Rand is insane. I couldn't stand it, and barely read any of it, but I didn't need to read any further to find out what a sick, twisted fascist Rand was. Don't ever read anything she wrote, especially not Philosophy: Who Needs It or Atlas Shrugged (her cult's bible). No, I don't hate Ayn Rand, since hatred is evil, but I sure don't like her either! Just don't read this book!
Rating:
Summary: A poor, ignorant little Jewish girl
Review: Alice Rosenbaum (Rand's real name) was many years ago babbling about her "philosophy" to Ludwig von Mises, the greatest free-market economist of the 20th Century. Mises finally could take no more and told her she was being very foolish. At this point Alice burst into tears and exclaimed, "You are treating me like a poor, ignorant little Jewish girl!" To which Mises (himself Jewish) responded, "That is exactly what you are!" Every major free-market economist of this century--Mises, Friedrich von Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Murray Rothbard--opposed Rand because they knew she did not understand the free market and was in fact a dangerous foe of the liberty she professed to defend. To be blunt about it, Rand's problem was that she was a short, dumpy, unattractive woman. Those who knew her said when a more attractive woman entered the room (which would have been almost every woman) Rand's envy of her could be felt in the air. Envy is the main characteristic of the narcissist, which Rand was. Narcissists see others as things, not as people. Everything is split into a grandiose "all-good" and an utterly vile, evil "all-bad." All problems are blamed on the "all-bad," which has to be destroyed, leaving only the "all-good." This is the same basis as Nazism, which Objectivism is related to. Rand's philosophy is an expression of her mental illness. Since she could not deal with what she really was, she created her own "grandiose" self in which she was the second-greatest philosopher of all time (after the safely dead Aristotle, who could not dispute her). This was a woman who did not know the Sun was a star, who "logically" proved that cigarettes did not cause the lung cancer that killed her, who "logically" proved her favorite dance was the best, and who thought paralegics could reproduce and pass on paralysis to their children. Fortunately her philosophy will go nowhere. Of course, there will always be a handful of nutcases who fall for it (read the reviews below). They, like Rand, are narcissists. And the main weakness of all narcissists is being patronized and condescended to. It collapses their fragile "grandiose" self and allows their true, weak "devalued" self to show. Rand's philosophy, like Socialism, is simple-minded, clear, and false. This is one of the main reasons it appeals to naive high-schoolers and college students, most of whom grow out of it. Those who don't, well, narcissism is generally considered to be an incurable psychiatic illness.
Rating: 
Summary: Skip it; try P:WNI
Review: Boy, I stay away from these pages for a while and look what happens. My old review is buried somewhere under "click here for all customer comments," so here's another -- a short one. Skip this book; the main essay is mostly polemic, and the excerpts from Rand's novels are available in the novels, where they belong. If you want a fairly good introduction to Ayn Rand, try _Philosophy: Who Needs It_ (but see my review there for warnings). As for the philosophy itself, Objectivism doesn't present a coherent philosophical outlook anyway, so never mind who is and isn't a true "Objectivist."
Rating:
Summary: Beware of false Objectivists!
Review: Some people calling themselves "Objectivists" don't like it when a *real* Objectivist speaks the truth about what the movement stands for. I guess they haven't read this book. *All of human history* has been a battle between the Attilas and the Witch Doctors, on one side - and the men of the mind on the other. There is no in-between, and no compromise is possible - any more than a "compromise" is possible between health and disease or between life and death. And make no mistake, we *are* talking about life and death here - the Attilas and the Witch Doctors, so well described by Rand in this book, have *always* operated on the premise of death; history runs with rivers of blood because of them. So let Atlas shrug. Let the seekers of death have what they deserve. Let the mystics, altruists, and collectivists drown in rivers of their *own* blood for a change. But watch out for false "Objectivists" who are willing to "compromise" the message of Ayn Rand. Parasites on the philosophy of Ayn Rand and working to undermine it from within, *they* are the deadliest second-handers of all.
|
