Rating: 
Summary: Religion: Who Needs It
Review: Ayn Rand clearly needed it. Her vision of the world as an intelligible and rational whole simply makes no sense when divorced from the view that it is the Creation of a single Divine Mind. And if, as she wishes us to believe, there are 'principles' which when followed lead to a blessed life (she does not, of course, describe it in these terms) - then Whose are the principles and Who does the blessing? Her so-called 'benevolent universe'?Hardly. It is only by refusing to ask some very fundamental questions that 'Objectivism' manages to retain its essentially religious *conclusions* while adopting a secularist/materialist *foundation* that owes more to Marx and Lenin than to G-d and His Torah. What a shame that this often brilliant thinker was so alienated from the historical faith of her Russian-Jewish father. Had her intellect been disciplined and her 'Aristotelian' philosophy been genuinely brought within the tents of Shem (as was that of Moses Maimonides z"tzl), she might have greatly advanced our understanding of the necessary *religious* foundations of the free society (the Torah and the Noahide Laws). Instead she has bequeathed us a sordid personal history that serves primarily to show us that 'philosophy' is no substitute for Divine revelation.
Rating: 
Summary: Rand's 1974 speech to West Point cadets is magnificent.
Review: Ayn Rand considered the invitation to address the West Point cadets as the greatest honor of her life. She titled her speech "Philosophy who needs it", and those at West Point liked the speech so much that they asked and received permission to use it as chapter one in the West Point Philosophy text book. It was later, in the early 90s, that I voiced an opinion that studying philosophy was a waste of time, so my army officer brother gave me a copy of this book. So I read the speech (it's chapter one in this book, too), and it changed my life - impressively so, for the better. Read the speech, and see for yourself.
Rating:
Summary: Everyone
Review: Ayn Rand was born in 1905 in Russia and died in 1982 in New York City. For virtually all of her seventy-six years, she lived a life of unswerving conviction in and brilliant insight into the fight for freedom and reason. (...)She was in the process of preparing a new collection of previously published essays, when illness overtook her; Leonard Peikoff, Ph.D, her pupil, heir and author of The Ominous Parallels, completed the task. The result is the posthumous publication of Philosophy: Who Needs It, with an introduction by Peikoff. The book contains eighteen articles, most of which appeared in The Ayn Rand Letter; the book's title derives from the lead essay, which was an address given to a West Point graduating class on March 6, 1974. Whether the reader agrees with Rand's ideas (this one, Frederic Marc Schorr, does emphatically), he cannot fail to recognize the trademarks of the typical Ayn Rand piece: the first faint gleam of a question mark; the sweeping aside of false alternatives and intellectual package deals; showdown with the heart of the matter; then a final, boldly illuminated answer to the problem. All premises have thus been "checked" by means of the unique forging of logic, passion and economy of language that was Miss Rand's literary trademark. Some of these essays help to recall the special excitement generated by Ayn Rand's public appearances. One remembers the quickness of her mind, the tone of her resolve, the warmth and accuracy of her humor, the autograph sessions, even the booing from a hostile balcony - in short, the general commotion caused by her lifelong clarion call for man's reason, justice, pride and happiness. At her funeral, Dr. Peikoff said that Ayn Rand has changed the course of history. She has. But the full sweep of that change is yet to be felt. To anyone, friend or foe, who wonders whether her name and philosophy will live on, the appearance of Philosophy: Who Needs It is a welcome reminder that they will. (...)
Rating:
Summary: Not Serious Philosophy
Review: Ayn Rand was not a philosopher, and her ideas are not worth serious consideration. Her "philosophical" writings are just ill-conceived attacks on people (like Kant) and ideas (like religion) she didn't understand or -- so far as I can tell -- didn't even make an effort to understand.
Rating:
Summary: A good writer with a small, rodent-like mind
Review: Ayn Rand's suggests we persue epistomological discourse to it's primaries instead of encountering epistemology as a path of least resistance, overshadowed by random emotions. I will agree, this is a good thing. More people should actually follow this suggestion of hers ... including Ayn Rand herself. Because that's where her "contribution" ends to anyone who is serious about "a philosophy to live by". The rest of her very emotional, clouded-by-her-own-experiences-in-Communist-Russia-as-a-child, "philosophy" of "Objectivism" doesn't hold up to her own methods of scrutiny. Aside from many of her bland pronouncements about "truth", which read like headlines to articles in "Duh" magazine, in this book she insists that all human knowledge is heirarchical. This is simply not true as any sophomore philosopy major can tell you. She also insists that the United States has never been in a war of conquest. This is also not true. Quite the opposite, our history shows us. Her obsession with this diameteric opposition of "altrusim" vs. "egoism" is actually almost hillarious. "Altruism" and "egoism" are the same thing: they are two sides of the same concept. If I am ultimately concerned with my own well being and my own desires, I may and often will wish to make a better society for all people. Conversely, if I wish to make a better society for all people, I will wish to do it _for myself_. Make no mistake, the former Soviet Union was a real Evil Empire. However, if we "follow ideas to their primaries", does that condemn "altrusim"? The Leninists / Stalinists were garden-variety _tyrants_, not communists (the dictionary definition of the word "communist", heh) at all. The fact that they ocassionally used communistic mechanisms to further their goals is the exception to what was the real form of government in the former USSR: a dictatorship. They used nice-sounding homilies about "community" and "for the people" to justfy slaying and starving people for a generation. Are we to believe Ayn Rand when she extrapolates tyranny into communism? I hope not: that would be in violation of her own "imperative". Why are Rand's books so successful? I think Rand has been catapaulted higher than she should have in the West because she's a great fig leaf for a lot of insanely wealthy people who use her "philosophy" to justify their opression. This is a shift away from when they used religion, which big captialists used to invest a lot in to get people distracted from their real concerns, ie; "Stop thinking about striking for a living wage and go to church and pray" kind of tack. When someone has a boot on your neck, they will spend an inordinate amount of time explaining to you how you are "better off that way, it's for your own good". Ayn Rand's drivel is one thing they use to do that. So you see, Rand is quite a mawkish lightweight; a "tool". Don't be fooled by her mind poison.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent mental model of the world
Review: Few books have effected me to the degree that Atlas Shrugged did. I followed that book we this intro. The first chapter that is the text of a speech that Ms Rand gave in 1974 to the West Point Cadets was particularly inspriring. The model of man and the world that Ms Rand presents is very motivational to anyone searching for an "integrated view of existance."
Rating:
Summary: Passionate about reason.
Review: Firstly, it is extremly important not to confuse Rand's views on reason with the Kantian concept of "pure reason". She held to the view that all science begins and ends with the observation of nature, i.e. it is the senses aided by the reasoning mind, not a disembodied consciousness speculating on how the universe "must" be. The idea of "pure reason" is the opposite of her philosophy. She does a masterful job of disecting the political package-deals of "liberal" and "conservative", and exploding ancient dichotomies such as heart/mind, matter/spirit, the moral and the practical, and self-interest vs. the "common good". These dualistic beliefs were used in cultures such as ancient Egypt and medievil Europe to justify society's dichotomies of ruler/ruled, master/slave, nobleman/peasant, etc. The morality of altruism is derived from this same mysticism, as she explains. The vague ideal of the "common good" was used to justify the death camps in Nazi Germany, the purges in Soviet Russia, the "killing fields" in Asia, etc. etc. This worldview is still widely accepted in "modern" times, which is why Rand's work is so important. Observe the fact that any noble, courageous act (like that of the N.Y. police/firefighters) is almost always refered to as a "selfless" act. And why not simply call it a kind, benevolent, or generous act? I think the reason is that by calling it "selfless", the emphasis is actually taken away from the people who were helped, and put on the act of "self-sacrifice" itself. In other words, as she has pointed out, collectivism ultimately comes down to sacrifice for it's own sake. If most people are not aware of these implications when they say these things, then she was all the more right to say that everyone needs philosophy.
Rating: 
Summary: This page is a joke!
Review: For a totally fresh approach to philosophy, read "Philosophy Who Needs It." Ms. Rand presents a highly moral approach to philosophy while rejecting the mysticism that modern philosophers use to justify morality. Believe me, you were not introduced to Ms. Rand's approach to philosophy at your Ivy League University!
In this book of easy to read short essays, Ms. Rand stresses the importance of philosophy in the modern world, but criticizes the direction it has taken. Don't expect to get bogged down in technical terms such as "noumenon" and "transcendental idealism" in this book, because the author's approach is to not let philosophers define the terms of the debate.
The thesis of the book is that philosophy is extremely important to shaping modern thought, but that modern philosophers have "let us down" by their obtuse and intellectually dishonest approach to the subject. Ms. Rand is especially critical of Kant and the modern University system in which an entrenched establishment will not allow an individual to "strike out on his own" and disagree with Kant by introducing fresh ideas.
Although not directly addressed in the book, the astute reader will observe that Ms. Rand is probably an Atheist who believes that a religious (Ms. Rand uses the term "mystical") influence forced men like Kant to attempt a philosophical system that could reconcile science and religion.
Ms. Rand also explains why the 21st century teachers of philosophy continue to support the fundamentally mystical approach of Kant, although those teachers don't do from a religious motivation. She does reveal what she believes is the motivation of modern philosophers to embrace a basically dishonest and mystical approach, but I will leave that for you to discover in reading the book.
If you were ever intimidated by a college professor to agree with Kant "or else", then read Ms. Rand's book. If you were ever bothered by modern philosophical notions of "freedom", "free will", "individual self-worth, and "duty vs. obligation", then read Ms. Rand's book. If you believe that "rational self interest" can be moral and not evil, then read Ms. Rand's book.
Ms. Rand presents a compelling argument that the Humanities today are crippled by a reliance on the fundamentally flawed approach of modern and post-modern philosophers. If you are NOT open to new ideas that are usually BANNED from consideration by the Ivy League pseudo-intellectuals to whom we entrust our education, then don't read Ms. Rand's book.
Rating:
Summary: A Non-Traditional Look At Modern Philosophy
Review: For a totally fresh approach to philosophy, read "Philosophy Who Needs It." Ms. Rand presents a highly moral approach to philosophy while rejecting the mysticism that modern philosophers use to justify morality. Believe me, you were not introduced to Ms. Rand's approach to philosophy at your Ivy League University!
In this book of easy to read short essays, Ms. Rand stresses the importance of philosophy in the modern world, but criticizes the direction it has taken. Don't expect to get bogged down in technical terms such as "noumenon" and "transcendental idealism" in this book, because the author's approach is to not let philosophers define the terms of the debate.
The thesis of the book is that philosophy is extremely important to shaping modern thought, but that modern philosophers have "let us down" by their obtuse and intellectually dishonest approach to the subject. Ms. Rand is especially critical of Kant and the modern University system in which an entrenched establishment will not allow an individual to "strike out on his own" and disagree with Kant by introducing fresh ideas.
Although not directly addressed in the book, the astute reader will observe that Ms. Rand is probably an Atheist who believes that a religious (Ms. Rand uses the term "mystical") influence forced men like Kant to attempt a philosophical system that could reconcile science and religion.
Ms. Rand also explains why the 21st century teachers of philosophy continue to support the fundamentally mystical approach of Kant, although those teachers don't do from a religious motivation. She does reveal what she believes is the motivation of modern philosophers to embrace a basically dishonest and mystical approach, but I will leave that for you to discover in reading the book.
If you were ever intimidated by a college professor to agree with Kant "or else", then read Ms. Rand's book. If you were ever bothered by modern philosophical notions of "freedom", "free will", "individual self-worth, and "duty vs. obligation", then read Ms. Rand's book. If you believe that "rational self interest" can be moral and not evil, then read Ms. Rand's book.
Ms. Rand presents a compelling argument that the Humanities today are crippled by a reliance on the fundamentally flawed approach of modern and post-modern philosophers. If you are NOT open to new ideas that are usually BANNED from consideration by the Ivy League pseudo-intellectuals to whom we entrust our education, then don't read Ms. Rand's book.
Rating:
Summary: Quasi-philosophy of the worst sort
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.
| 
