Rating: 
Summary: As before, without a word for her betters...
Review: Amazing how this "philosophical" work manages to spend its entire length without wasting a single word on the philosophers and thinkers that Rand had ripped -- incompetently and without credit -- most of the tenets of Objectivism from. Nietzsche springs to mind, obviously, but there are many others. There are far better ways to educate yourself and be a thinker without this kind of shamelessly middlebrow pandering.One thing I find consistently funny: The records bought by the people who also bought this book (and other Rand product) almost inevitably consist of the kind of music that Rand herself went to great lengths to despise (i.e., rock). Then again, this was the woman who said the bossa-nova was the most "logical" of dances. Sure, Miss Rand. Whatever.
Rating: 
Summary: Extraordinarily life-changing!
Review: The individual from Freeport, Bahamas, (April 3) has it right. Have these other "reviewers" actually READ the subject of their "review"? I trow not. If you're hungry for principle, and you dare to declare your own independence on a daily basis, then there is no substitute for the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Time is very, very young. Rand's ability to identify essentials and integrate them into a vast, cohesive whole, is a model for future thinkers throughout the world, throughout the future. Ignore her at your peril.
Rating:
Summary: I Like What I See
Review: I look at the reviews posted here and I like what I see. I enjoy them all immensly. Ayn Rand, long dead now, would have (probably) smiled knowingly at them, too. If you will browse around other books--even "heavy," contreversial ones--you'll see reviews that end mostly in the middle: 3 or four stars ratings is usual, and the reviews go "I liked this book"--"I didn't really like the book..." The word LIKE does not appear in a review on an Ayn Rand book. Nobody hardly ever gives her an avarage grade. People either love her--or hate her guts. And that means that this poor Russian immigrant girl with her clever smile reaches each and every one of us and touches something within us--something most of us never knew about. And for some of us, that something is a beginning of a new life. For others, it means that they were exposed to things they wanted to keep down there below, and worked hard all their lives to strangle and avoid. And these people have no choice but to hate Rand, or hate themselves. That's good also: it means that she touched them, too. The guy I'm reading now makes a comparison between Objectivists (those who follow Ayn Rand's philosphical heritage) and the Nazis. He calls the Author "metally ill." That's just great!
Rating:
Summary: Judge for yourself
Review: After reading some of the negative comments below by some reviewers, one must question whether they have even read the book. Rand used the term altruism, in its original meaning (as used by philosopher August Comte who coined the term): self-sacrifice. To Rand, to sacrifice a greater value (say your beloved child), for the sake of a lessor value (some strangers you did not know) was wrong. (I agree). To save your beloved wife from drowning would be selfish--because you loved her; to let her die to save some other stranger--when you loved your wife--would be unselfish. Selfish, as Rand uses the term, means to act in ones own LONG-TERM rational self-interest. It does not mean that one cannot have friends--only that "friends" who stab you in the back are not really your friends. In fact, if you think about it: love is selfish. To paraphrase Rand, before one can say 'I love you', one must first learn to say the word 'I'. Of course, if one actually READ the book, one would know this. If one reads the book, and still holds these distorted views of Rand's work, then one is either stupid, or dishonest. This does not mean one may still not disagree--there are some things I disagree with Rand on; but, one should not stoop to dishonest smears, name-calling, and outright lies about her work.
Rating:
Summary: Less than zero
Review: Rand's philosophy is evil. It is pure narcissism: split the world into white and black, all-good and all-bad, the grandiose and the devalued. She was mentally ill, her followers are mentally ill, and placed into power there would be mass murder equal to the Holocaust. Thank God these losers will never be able to do that.
Rating:
Summary: Controversial but innovative book
Review: At risk of making this "comment form" a debate, I would like to point out that too many view Rand as some sort of destroyer. Nietzsche got better reviews than this! Rand's For the New Intellectual is an excellent explanation of the only twentieth century philosophy to make by and large an impact on society. As such, it should be required reading for one wanting to call himself or herself a philosopher.
Rating: 
Summary: Sacred Texts of the Objectivism Cult
Review: I believe Ayn Rand's writings are very destructive. And this isn't because of her highly un-original philosophy. No, the reason for this is the powerful grip the books has on her followers. In her books they find justification for behaving in a anti-social manner that is slowly destroying the fabric of the societies of the Western World. This egoism is supposedly derived from "reason". In the real world however there is no reason for people not to find fulfillment and meaning from helping others and caring for their family and friends. The accusation that "altruism", i.e. decency and goodness, leads to tyranny is nothing but products of a very paranoid mind. The craziest thing about this though is the fact that Ayn Rand has been raised to a saint-like status by her followers. No disagreement with her writings is ever accepted and if you disagree you are an evil communist/collectivist. To be a true individualist you must agree with everything she has ever written. Isn't this collectivism in a true sense? No, says her followers, those views are derived by reason and must therefore be share by all intelligent human beings. Pretty scary!! Note that Objectivism, like Marxism, Freudianism and Jungianism, is a closed system of thought in the sense that any critisism of the system is automatically seen as a symptom of unreason. This is what makes Objectivism a religion rather than a philosophy or scientific method. And this is also the reason for the fanatical behavior of her disciples.
Rating:
Summary: One of the best cases for the abolition of western civlizati
Review: Rand spews more of her worthless, destructive selfishness which is already quite rampant in this world. I find it hard to take her seriously while she attempts to promote the individual while she has founded yet another "-ism" to define people by.
Rating:
Summary: Give me the "old intellectual" any day
Review: In order to focus properly on the content of this work, I must begin with a contrast. "Blanshard's personal demeanour," concludes the _Oxford Companion to Philosophy_ entry on Brand Blanshard, "was one of extraordinary graciousness." As far as I have been able to determine, Prof. Peter H. Hare's entry on Blanshard is the _only_ one to comment on the personal manner of a philosopher. And with good cause; Blanshard's seamless unity of style and substance in the service of reason was all but unique in intellectual history. Even Ayn Rand's most die-hard followers were not able to eulogize her in this way, and this book unfortunately demonstrates why. The self-proclaimed paragon of reason here adopts a bitter, badgering, hectoring tone; "illustrates" the history of philosophy with cartoonlike stereotypes ("Attila and the Witch Doctor"); dismisses entire schools of philosophy in summary fashion; and follows her opening agitprop essay with long excerpts from the most "speechifying" portions of her overblown, melodramatic meganovels. The upshot: she vastly overstates her own minuscule role in the history of philosophy at the expense of everyone else, including her own unacknowledged sources (e.g. Nietzsche). Even Aristotle comes in a distant second to this intellectual diva -- who, stunningly, arrived at her unspeakably irresponsible views of Immanuel Kant without ever so much as cracking open one of his works. Blanshard, who was _genuinely_ intellectual, could never have written a book like this. His own careful and thorough expositions of philosophical history display real sympathy and generosity toward opposing positions; never once does he lapse into stereotype or name-calling; and his own views are developed and presented with the utmost urbanity and grace. Rand claimed to be an admirer of Blanshard's philosophical works. If so, it doesn't show here; for all that she may have admired what Blanshard called the "rational temper," she displays precious little of it herself. Objectivism -- which, for all that I have said here, does contain some good ideas -- is better introduced elsewhere. Try _Philosophy: Who Needs It_ instead; it isn't perfect either, but it's a lot better than this pile of prephilosophical polemic. Better yet, read Blanshard before you ever go anywhere near Rand. As even she herself must have dimly recognized, he exemplifies her avowed ideals far better than she ever did.
Rating: 
Summary: Objectivism: a clever counterfeit for actually having a life
Review: In this book, Rand portrays herself as the intellectual champion of the 20th century; she asserts that her philosophy of Objectivism is built on the corpses of every other philosopher from Aristotle to the present time; she claims to have slain these intellectual villains with the sword of her pure reason, although this claim is supported more by methamphetamine than by any solid scholarly evidence. Rand's dashed-off, single sentence dismissals of entire bodies of philosophical work are an insult to any person with even a minimal overview of Western philosophy. At the end of this book, I decided that Objectivism isn't properly classified as a "philosophy" at all, but would be more aptly thought of as a motivational system similar to EST or Dianetics. In other words, Objectivism isn't about understanding "the ultimate reality" so much as it is about finding a reason to out of bed in the morning. It doesn't work for me, but if it helps other people get through their lives peacefully and productively, I can't wholly condemn it. This book is a good read for anybody who wants an overview of Rand's thoughts without having to waste the time slogging through _Atlas_Shrugged_. To balance it out I'd recommend reading _Critical_Path_ by Rand's archenemy R. Buckminster Fuller.
| 
