Product Description
Titles include Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (33)

Two Ridiculous Books in One
The hero of The Fountainhead does his best to make himself the apple of the reader's eye by raping the leading lady.In the climactic scene, he consistently demonstrates his love of violence by dynamiting a building.Naturally, he gets away with everything.

Atlas Shrugged is much better, although the characters and the story are unbelievable.

OK book, Great Movie
The Fountainhead is a marvelous read. It's action packed, with wierd and convoluted and competely unrealistic characters. I loved to read it; it was so exactly like one of those movies from the forties, technicolor, with flashy costumes and expensive sets.

It's not a novel about real life, though; it's about millionaires, and people with expensive habits, like building million dollar houses and sailing yachts. Human nature is kind of sort of represented here, though it's somewhat simplified and put into stereotypes. It's also very convoluted. Everyone torturing everyone else in order to torture themselves in order to destroy other stuff in order to be happy. This is why Roark rapes Dominique; she likes it. (I had a problem with that. Women enjoying rape? Excuse me.) It's not justified, but it's in keeping with the character of the book.

I enjoyed it very much, but as good fiction and not as great literature.There are no graphic descriptions, by the way. It's not in-your-face, just lavish and very colorful.

Life Altering!!
The only more significantly life-altering book than The Fountainhead is Atlas Shrugged.Her ideas in The Fountainhead and her characters are the embodiment of achievment and pride. The book was given to me as a lesson in my youth to always strive for the best in me and not to let anyone harm my concept of what my mind says is right. The characters are bold, strong, and keep you wondering about their lives even after you put the book down.
I still read this book every year to remind myself that there are things in life that cannot be taken away or hurt, no matter what. The Fountainhead requires actual reading: you cannot skip through any of it, but it will be some of the best reading you ever do!

Ego:Abject Oddity or Unmitigated Self-Expression!
The teeming mob and the single individual.Howard Roark, the hero-oh what a radical if ever Ayn Rand conjured up one!But is he a hero?Isn't he arapist, a self-centered monster?Just when you thought he would relent thatone bit, just like Keating and Toohey in the book, he says no, and no andno again!Readers stand baffled as they fall down from the height ofcreativity to the depth of menial labor with Roark.Gail Wynand representsthe film or mafia hero, the one who conquers all after being repressed forlong, only to bow to the sheer strength of belief of Rand's ideal Roark whois far ahead of his times.You will be left mentally dishevelled, butthere's still Dominique to come-unpredictable, uncomprehensible andbrutally honest.Ayn Rand writes in vitriolic undertones,the cutting edge isthat her protagonists are not those who shout from rooftops but those whoutter a single word that sets fire to ice.It's crude at times but alwaysbrilliant.People might brand the 'Fountainhead' as capitalist, but it isessentially humanist, the intensity of love against the backdrop of thepillar of creative self-expression. Nothing more, nothing less.

AYN RAND
READING IS MY PASION, IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN, AND I'VE READ NUMEROUS BOOKS BUT I'LL TELL YOU THIS, IF ANYONE HAS EVER READ THE FOUNTAINHEAD BEFORE IN HIS/HER LIFE...WILL KNOW WHAT A REALLY GOOD BOOK IT IS. I WAS GIVEN THISBOOK AS A GIFT FROM A SPECIAL PERSON, FIRST, FOR IT'S SIZE I THOUGHT TWICEBEFORE DECIDING TO READ IT, BUT AS I READ IT I COULN'T STOP MYSELF. IT'SDETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EACH CHARACTER, AND THE PSYCHOLOGYCAL REASONINGTHEY CHARACTERS MAKE, MAKES THIS BOOK THE BESTEVER.

IT DEALS WITH THESTRUGGLES US, MANKIND, GO THROUGH, IT ENCIRCLES THE DIFFERENCE BETWEENPEOPLE, WHAT SETS US APART FROM ONE ANOTHER AND THE WAY WE THINK. IIDENTIFIED WITH HOWARD ROARK...OH WHAT A WONDERFUL CHARACTER! NEVER GIVINGUP!MY RESPECT FOR HOWARD.

THE FOUNTAINHEAD IS CLEARLY THE BEST BOOKEVER WRITTEN AND IT HAS BEEN FOR MANY GENERATIONS LIKE MINE.READ IT,YOU'LL LOVE IT!

CONGRATULATIONS AYN IS THE BEST BOOK EVER. ... Read more

Product Description
Ayn Rand presented Objectivism as a philosophy of reason. But is it? That is the question Scott Ryan seeks to answer in this careful examination of the Objectivist epistemology and its alleged sufficiency as the philosophical foundation of a free and prosperous commonwealth. Sorting painstakingly through Rand's writings on the subject, Mr. Ryan concludes that the epistemology of Objectivism is incoherent and debases both the concept and the practice of rationality. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (11)

Epitome of ungracious
Mr. Ryan says he admires Brand Blanshard. In an online article he chides Ayn Rand fans to learn about graciousness from Blanshard. He does not emulate Blanshard with this book. He is the opposite of gracious to Ayn Rand. The book is full of derisive remarks like "Rand failed to consider ... ", "she carelessly thought ...", "she wasn't entitled to think ...", and all her ideas simply stem from a "fear of religion." He regularly and ungraciously misrepresents her, e.g. having her perceive an abstraction (p. 48). Witness the title. It's not 'Objectivism and Rationality'.

Much of the book is about the theory (or problem) of universals. Ryan brings up the topic repeatedly, beyond annoyance. He claims it is an ontological, not an epistemological problem. Wrong, it's both. He asserts Rand is a nominalist in ontology but a moderate realist in epistemology. How can that be if the theory of universals is only ontological? I offer two reasons. First he confuses the two aspects. Second, he portrays her that way to try to make her look ridiculous. He calls Ayn Rand's solution an "optical illusion."

He claims Rand didn't understand the problem. Given what Ryan writes about it, she understood it better than he does. He says he agrees with Blanshard on universals. However, Blanshard's position is far from Ryan's own confused one he calls "realist",and Ryan's use of "generic universals" and "specific universals" does not match Blanshard's. I think Ryan fails to understand Blanshard's theory.

Blanshard rejected the Platonic theory and the Aristotelian theory, both realist. He rejected "generic universals" (Reason and Analysis, IX, 28, 29, 34) and non-specific, qualitative universals for lack of sameness (RA, IX, 14). Ryan does not. Blanshard endorsed specific, qualitative universals, based on identity (sameness). Blanshard: "By a generic universal, I mean one whose instances are individual things or persons, for example, man, horse, or stone. By a qualitative universal I mean one whose instances are qualities or characters of one kind, for example, colour, sound, or shape. By a specific universal I mean a quality or character that is incapable of sub-division into kinds, for example, this shade of red or this degree of loudness in a sound" (RA, IX, 14). Note that Blanshard's distinction rests on different instances -- entities and generic attributes (like color or number, but not red or three) versus specific attributes (like red or three, but not color or number). Ryan's does not.

Blanshard largely agreed with John Locke about generic and nonspecific qualitative universals, based on resemblance (RA, IX, 34). Locke's theory is usually regarded as a conceptualist, resemblance one. It is anti-realist (contra Plato and Aristotle and Ryan). Indeed, it is much like Rand's. Strongly related to universals in nearly all accounts except Ryan's is essence, which he barely mentions.

Chapter 8 is about two views of reason. He starts with some quotes from Rand. Included are two versions:
1. Reason is the faculty that perceives, identifies and integrates the material provided by his senses.
2. Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses.

Ryan exploits this difference. I believe Rand was a bit sloppy including "perceives" in the first one. Her perceptual/conceptual division and other common ones like senses/intellect and sensation/reflection justify its exclusion.

He describes Blanshard's view of reason and judges it far better. He says somebody may judge the two views have a lot in common, but Ryan insists such a judgment is far amiss. His arguments are flimsy. One is that Blanshard wrote more than 200 pages on perception and Rand very little! The key element in Blanshard's view is to grasp necessary connections. Ryan sees hardly anything in common between Blanshard's "grasp necessary connections" and Rand's "identify and integrate". Indeed, Ryan's book barely recognizes Rand's frequent use of "integrate" (and its cognates) and the great importance she gave to integration.

Ryan devotes Chapter 11 to "primacy of existence" versus "primacy of consciousness." Throughout he treats it as only an ontological question -- the existence of God, idealism versus materialism, and the mind-reality connection. But Rand also presented it as a choice regarding a person's mental functioning, as a person's epistemological orientation. Ryan even extensively quotes Rand to that effect on p. 267. Even more can be found in Rand's writing to support said orientation that Ryan does not include. Ryan's commentary evades all of them.

Contra the evidence that Rand's position on primacy of existence is far more than atheism versus theism, Ryan claims it is simply "fear of religion." I suggest the reader consider the opposite -- Ryan's philosophical motivation is simply "fear of atheism."

One more awful attribute of this book is it lacks an index. This is compounded by Ryan often referring to what he writes elsewhere without saying where or even indicating what he allegedly said.

I reluctantly say I did agree with Ryan infrequently, e.g. on measurement omission and some on the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. Most of the latter is based on an essay by Leonard Peikoff, not Rand herself, but I guess they pretty much agreed.

Very good - and NOT about Rand's "life"
I'm bewildered by the suggestion that this book takes a derisive tone toward Ayn Rand or tries to tear apart her entire life. In fact it treats her far more respectfully than she probably deserves, and its sole focus is on her philosophy - and only on a part of that (epistemology and, to a lesser extent, ethics).

Author Scott Ryan specifically states at several points that he likes some of Rand's fiction and is himself politically libertarian. He repeatedly acknowledges that some of her *personal* opinions reflected genuine insight. But he doesn't think her *philosophy* is sufficient to carry the weight of those insights; following her philosophy by itself is therefore a recipe for trouble.

This all seems perfectly straightforward to me, and the vast majority of Ryan's criticisms hit their philosophical marks. (I don't agree with all of them but they're carefully thought out - generally much more so than Rand's own views were. Ryan is also a very good writer.) I cannot imagine how someone who actually *read* the book could come away with the impression that Ryan devotes much attention to Rand's personal life. This book is not in any way about Rand the person.

Nor can I understand how anyone who *read* the book could think Ryan sees no need for a philosophical foundation for a free society. In fact Ryan says right up front that he thinks absolute idealism *is* the proper philosophical foundation for a free society. As Ryan himself states repeatedly (and I agree), the reader need not accept his views in order to find his criticisms useful. But I don't see how he could have insisted any more clearly that the free society *does* need a philosophical foundation (and that Objectivism isn't it).

Of course, if those comments are just part of an Objectivist attempt to taint the book's reputation, they become much more understandable. But in that case, they're really arguments for *reading* the book, aren't they?

Ryan's Corruption of Objectivity
I bought this book with the hope of descovering an interesting and innovative view of Ayn Rand. But after reading it, and researching Ryan on the web, I can find no reason to recommend this book to anyone, novice or advanced practioner.

Rather than a critical analysis of the work of a great author and philosopher, Ryan seems intent on anihilating every aspect of her life, or as a previous writer coments, deconstructing Ayn Rand. Even more, I found his mocking, disrespectful tone toward Ayn Rand to be unnecessary and childish, and his use of the omniscient voice--in replication of Rand--to be without the requisite talent, ability, and great experience she had in the world.

Further more, he attempts to defeat Rand by use of the negative, which I find very revealing in a psychological sense--one choosing to spend so much time trying to expose negatives rather than creating a positive vision of one's own. Also, by not identifying with her fight against the prevailing culture, he doesn't seem to understand what she was trying to do in the world, and doesn't understand the entirely hostile culture she had to fight against and the enormity of the battle, something that would effect anyone at anytime.

Yes, Ayn Rand made mistakes, and when you accept that, one can appreciate the world-moving vision she gave the world, and her unrelenting defense of the individual's right to live his or her life by their own rational vision. Like many libertarians, Ryan refuses to accept the need for a philosophical foundation for a free society, and his attempted defense of altruism by defining it, as helping others, shows a reluctance to understand what Ayn Rand was saying in regards to altruism as the foundation for communism, fascism, and religious fanaticism, as we see with Al Queda.

One of the big problems with this book, is that Ryan is very hard to understand. Unlike Ayn Rand, who writes clearly and distinctly, Ryan lacks a concrete and graphic style, andtends to use abstract terms that are open to different interpretations so as to leave the reader, many times, not sure of what he is referring to.

Then, too, ironically like many orthodox Objectivists to whom he refers to contemptuously, he tends to conceptualize, not from the facts of reality, but from his own need to prove Ayn Rand or wrong, and thus misinterprets much of what she says. This comes to light with his treatment of Ayn Rand's essay, "The Metaphysical Versus The Man Made." Here, Ryan misinterprets what she says, offers his own version of her words, and then goes on to argue his point, using his misinterpretation rather than what Ayn Rand was saying.

Along with this Ryan states that Ayn Rand often reified her views of the world, meaning she transformed abstracts into concretes--one's conceptualizations of events into metaphysical concretes. I find no problem with this assessment, but then so what?--Ryan repeatedly does the exact same thing in his writings, especially with Ayn Rand, going as far as to refer to her as a "looter and a speed freek" in one of his comments on Amazon, as well as to make undeserved and contemptuous comments about people associated with the traditional school of Objectivism.

Furthermore, I have to be skeptical of anyone who leaves out the benevolent and very positive aspects of Ayn Rand's life and philosophy. She was a giant of a women who achieved great things in the world, and blazed a frontier path for all those who want to live in the world. To Ryan, it is all negativity, and he oftens falls into the trap of comparing the philosophy of Objectivism with some of the less than positive behavior of people who practice the philosophy of Objectivism, two very different concepts. As with all great social movements that challenge the world, people make mistakes, and people are wounded and damaged, and Objectivism is no exception. Yet, in Ryan's view there is no room for acclaim and respect, nor does he give space to the great amount of independent people, who live their own lives in the way they see fit, but yet have enormous respect and admiration for Ayn Rand.

Excellent philosophical critique
What bizarre reviews appear on this page! If they are genuine reviews at all, they have surely been submitted by disgruntled Objectivists who don't want this book to be read.

No wonder, either. Mr Ryan has delivered a powerhouse philosophical critqique of Objectivism in this work. I'm not at all surprised that Rand's followers are having trouble refuting it (in part because it's written well over their heads; Ryan is considerably more expert in real philosophy than Rand was, let alone her acolytes).

Ryan demonstrates consistently, time after time, that Rand's explicit philosophy depended implicitly on unacknowledged premises that were at odds with it. In summary, and with an irony not at all lost on Ryan, Objectivism itself is a huge "stolen concept."

Ryan is not Rand's enemy; on the contrary, he expressly states that he enjoys much of her fiction and agrees broadly with her political philosophy. He just doesn't think she was much of an epistemologist. Any unbiased reader of this book will come to agree, after watching Ryan deconstruct and decimate her theories on page after page of careful exposition and analysis.

There aren't very many competent philosophical critiques of Objectivism in print. This is one of the best. Its detractors either don't know what they're talking about, or just don't want you to read it, or (most likely) both. Don't let them turn you away.

Scott Ryan Cuts Rand Down to Size with Style to Spare
(...) Scott Ryan, previously best known for his work "In Refutation of Newton, A Mathematician's Assault on Calculus," steps into the world of philosophy swinging full on. His critiques are incisive but vitriolic, and in the end I got the feeling that Scott Ryan holds a bitter grudge against Ayn Rand, or maybe just Russians in general (maybe still a bit mad about Stalingrad perhaps?)? Who knows? Overall it's a good book if you like to speak ill of the dead.

-Ray ... Read more

Product Description
Classic by the great Ayn Rand.If you have "When Atlas Shrugged" you need to add this to your collection

Anthem is Ayn Rand’s classic tale of a dark future age of the great "We"—a world that deprives individuals of name, independence, and values. Written a full decade before George Orwell's "1984," this dystopian novel depicts a man who seeks escape from a society in which individuality has been utterly destroyed. Rand expertly shows how collectivism (including social programs in the United States) destroys freedom and individuality. Her philosophy is simple: "planning" is a synonym for "collectivism," and "collectivism" is a metaphor for communism and tyranny. This important book should be read by all who are concerned about the role of government in modern life. This publication from Boomer Books is specially designed and typeset for comfortable reading. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

We Are Lemmings Being Led By the Least of Us
I read this book for a graduate class in political philosophy.

Ayn Rand (1905-1982), in this book written in 1937, expertly refutes collectivists schemes; such as, Communism and Fascism and shows the utter peril that collectivism poses to individual freedom.One of my favorite historians, Lord Acton, warned us in the 19th century "that socialism is slavery."

This is a short novel about a man who escapes a society from which all individuality has been squeezed.Written a full decade before Orwell's "1984" Rand expertly shows how collectivism is destroying individuality and is being practiced throughout the world including the "New Deal" programs in the United States.During this time in world, history people are becoming serfs to the state as F. A. Hayek, the noted libertarian economist would put it.Rand's philosophy is really quite simple; planning is a synonym for "collectivism" and "collectivism" is a metaphor for Communism.Rand's literary style is easy to read and understand, I love how she uses the third person plural in the book until the hero finds his "ego" at which time she switches over to first person singular.This is a book that should be read by all who wonder what role the government should have in our lives.

I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in political philosophy.
... Read more

Product Description
Mary Ann and Charles Sures were longtime personal friends of Ayn Rand--Mary Ann for twenty-eight years, Charles for almost twenty. Their recollections in this delightful memoir make vividly real the Ayn Rand they knew so well. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (9)

Diamond In The Rough
Charles and Mary Ann Sures were associates of Ayn Rand from the 1950s until her death in 1982.Mr. Sures was one of Rand's attorneys and Mrs. Sures was a lecturer for the Nathaniel Branden Institute.(Mrs. Sures was one of four people who denounced the Brandens along with Rand in 1968.)This is the first (and thus far only) volume in a projected oral history of Ayn Rand by the archivists at the ARI.

Notwithstanding Rand's iconic role in American life, there have been relatively few accounts and biographical studies of her.Thus the memoirs of those who knew her well for many years are certainly of benefit.

The Sures state that they are giving their accounts, in part, as a corrective to more negative memoirs of Rand (the reference is to the Brandens, although unstated). Rand doesn't come across as perfect; however her personal flaws (most notably her anger) are downplayed or ignored.Like Leonard Peikoff's account of Rand's anger, the problem is with those who can't see that when Ayn Rand blew her top, it was different from you or me blowing our top.

"Yes, but certainly not at every question period. And it's important to understand that she was not angry at anyone personally. She did not know the people involved; she was speaking to strangers. And many of the questions she answered were written questions--neither she nor the audience knew who had asked the questions; only the questioners knew. What's relevant here is that she expressed anger and indignation, not so much at the person asking a question but at the ideas expressed, or ideas she thought were implicit in the question asked. That was the focus of her anger."

As they say, "whatever."

I'd also like a little more discussion of the Objectivist movement in the 50s and 60s.Even some Objectivists admit that there was a "cult" that grew up around Rand (although they generally put the blame on Nathaniel Branden). The Sures are notably silent on this.The continued airbrushing of the Brandens, and the elevation of Leonard Peikoff at Nathaniel Branden's expense, is also present.

As with anything produced by the ARI, this book should be used with caution.It appears that it was rather heavily edited.From 48 hours of interview Scott McConnelledited the interviews, then the Sures added another layer of revisions.

In spite of its flaws and its tendency toward hagiography, FACETS OF AYN RAND contains many interesting anecdotes and helps the reader appreciate something of the magnetism of Ayn Rand.

Extremely disappointing
I was going to write a review to warn readers (listeners) away from this book, but, after reading the review of Mr. A entitled "THEY PLUMP WHEN YOU COOK THEM", I decided that he had expressed my thoughts exactly, and probably better than I could have put them. I agree with Mr. A's review completely.

I listened to this as an audiobook, and I would add that I did not enjoy the reading of the book, either. It would certainly have benefited by a male and female voice to read the parts of Ms. Rand and Mr. O'Connor, so that the narrator would not have to endlessly repeat their names, which was extremely annoying.

Overall, don't waste your time reading or listening to this book.

Bright and sincere but very cautiously edited
Judged against most oral histories or memoirs by friends of the famous, this is an above-average work.Mary Ann Sures wrote about art for Ayn Rand's publication, The Objectivist, back in the 1960s.In between anecdotes about stamp collecting or watching "The African Queen" in Ms. Rand's living room, both Charles and Mary Ann Sures discuss the reasons for their lifelong intellectual engagement with Rand and her philosophy.

Where the book disappoints is in its excessively careful avoidance of controversy and negatives.

The Sures both refer to insightful remarks Ms. Rand made about their individual values or character, that had an enormous positive personal impact on them.I see this as the main theme of the book, in fact: it is a personal memoir of how she enriched their lives.I know many readers of Ayn Rand who have had a similar experience just from reading her, myself included.To read Ayn Rand is, for many people, to feel engaged and understood on a very deep level.That is why when surveys ask, "What book has most influenced your life?", Atlas Shrugged routinely ranks second only to the Bible.(For example, when the Library of Congress did such a survey in 1991, about two percent of all respondents picked Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead -- while about 20 percent chose the Bible. Atlas Shrugged outpolled its nearest competitor by about 3 to 1, suggesting it has a unique place in American culture.)

However, throughout the book and particularly in the chapter entitled "On Negatives" -- discussing Ayn Rand's tendency to public fits of temper, in which she sometimes responded harshly to questions from students -- the Sures seem to engage in special pleading.In effect, if Ms. Rand boosted their confidence with an insightful bit of praise, that was a measure of her genius.But if she denounced some student she had just met as evasive, irrational, or anti-life, based on the way a question was put, all the same she was "not angry at anyone personally," she was just being polemical.This distinction was lost on the people being shouted at, some of whom were devastated to be denounced in front of friends and family by their hero.The Objectivist movement went through years of denunciations and purges, and remains divided even today between orthodox loyalists and more tolerant dissidents.Where the movement wound up was at least in part a consequence of Rand's own harshly confrontational public persona.

The Sures say early in the book that their goal is to preserve Ms. Rand's "larger than life" reputation.The problem is that by failing to acknowledge the more difficult and less praiseworthy facets of Ayn Rand when they come up, the book hurts its own credibility.Too much of her life and the movement she inspired necessarily goes unmentioned as a result.

Perhaps this is inevitable in such a memoir, by friends who loved her. She was a genius, and the positive side of her story is admittedly far more interesting and important than the negatives. However, it would have been much better if the Sures or their editor could have acknowledged a little more ungrudgingly, as other writers have done, that personal involvement with Ayn Rand occasionally led to pain.A memoir that managed to capture the impact of her brilliance on the Sures, AND deal honestly with life in her circle in the 1960s, would deserve five stars.This book, though well-intentioned, does not.

Note: I previously reviewed this book for The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, Volume 5, Number 1.

"Must" reading for her many admirers
Facets Of Ayn Rand is an impressive and informative memoir that collects 48 hours of interviews from two people who remember Ayn Rand as their friend and as a person who was totally unafraid to voice her convictions, no matter how unpopular or controversial they were at the time. Facets Of Ayn Rand offers moving testimony filled with personal touches, rendering a closer and more intimate understanding of the life and thought of a truly great and influential woman. Facets Of Ayn Rand is "must" reading for her many admirers and students of her work.

See what Ayn Rand was really like
Facets of Ayn Rand is an enjoyable behind-the-scenes look at Ayn Rand, the person.For those familiar with Ayn Rand's philosophy (which holds integrity as one of seven virtues), it will come as no surprise that her personal life was consistent with her philosophy.Reading this book is probably as close as one can get to actually spending time with Ayn Rand these days. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (8)

Strange Brew
In 1974, John Robbins came out with Answer to Ayn Rand, a work that criticized Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy from a Calvinist perspective based on the philosophy of Gordon Clark.Clark was a rationalist who denied that there could be any proofs for God's existence.His philosophy was also excessively anti-empiricist.

Robbins updated and expanded that work in 1997 under the new name ,Without a Prayer.This book is certainly worth reading, but -- while it was one of the better discussions of Objectivism at the time -- it has been superseded by other works.

I must first object to the macabre cover.On the front of the work is Rand's tombstone and the back, that of her husband Frank O'Connor.What's the point?

In any event, the substance of this work isn't quite that bad.There are a couple of excellent chapters -- those dealing with her theory of concept formation and also the religious nature of Objectivism.Robbins has an eye for showing the contradictions and false assumptions of Objectivism, but at times he gives the least charitable interpretation of something Rand said to then contrast it with something else she said, in order to make Rand look silly or muddleheaded.Of course, Rand was these things at times, but not even she deserves to be unnecessarily held up to ridicule.

Some of the work is mediocre and at times borders on the scurrilous.For example, Robbins tells us that "Their [Christians] continued existence under Objectivist government has already been the subject of debate in Objectivist circles . . . ." [p. 210.]Of course, there is no citation to such a "debate." A society based on Objectivism certainly wouldn't be hospitable to the senile, the retarded, and anyone who doesn't agree with Rand.But to imply that Objectivists advocate the murder of Christians is to out-Rand Rand at her worst.While Mr. Robbins rightly protests that Leonard Peikoff wrongly equates the rise of Nazism with Christianity, he no has qualms of stooping to Peikoff's level (or worse) when he attacks Objectivism.

Robbins even gets silly when describing David Kelley as a "radio receiver channeling omnipresent energy." [p. 37 n. 25.] Rand said some foolish things in her day, but I don't recall reading anything so silly as that.

This book is to be commended on one ground, however.Mr. Robbins has no doubt introduced a great many people to the thought of Gordon Clark, one of the most influential apologists in recent history.

An emarassment to _thinking_ Christians everywhere.
This books claims to engage Rand "where she wished to be engaged--at the level of philosophical argument." As a Christian who is also an admirer of Ayn Rand, I found Mr. Robbins' arguments to be grossly inadequate. I actually found this very disappointing, since I profoundly disagree with Rand on several issues and was hoping to fid a book that would provide ammunition for engaging Objectivists in a reasoned debate. I will have to keep looking.
In the foreword, Mr. Robbins wastes no time in calling Rand's philosophy "deadly poison," then he attempts to "prove" his point using out-of-context quotes and word twisting. Let's look at one glaring example from the second chapter:
Mr. Robbins quotes Rand as saying that "reason" is "the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses." He then claims that she equivocated on the meaning of "reason" when she said that "reason is the only objective means of communication and understanding among men." This claim is absolutely ridiculous. The former quote is the definition of reason; the latter is a description of one of its many uses--there is no equivocation here.
Mr. Robbins makes the claim that "Christianity and Objectivism have no presuppositions or propositions in common. They have no common ground." Thank goodness that is not the case; for if it were, then Christianity would have no foundation. Is not the most basic presupposition of Objectivism that existence exists?
By inference one might conclude that Mr. Robbins does not believe in existence. But as president of the Trinity Foundation, he believes that one God exists in three Persons. If he really believes that Christianity and Objectivism have no common ground, then he is guilty of the fallacy of the stolen concept, for the concept of existence is necessary in order to believe that God exists.
That error in itself may be a simple oversight. Unfortunately, it is only the tip of the iceberg. In the final chapter of this book, Mr. Robbins introduces us to the philosophy of Gordon H. Clark, which he calls Scripturalism. Unfortunately, Scripturalism's epistemology is only workable if you first accept Objectivism's entire epistemology as a presupposition! Mr. Robbins makes the incredible claim that the Bible is the source of all knowledge. How are we to read and understand the Bible in the first place if we cannot engage in the very process of concept formation that is central to Objectivist epistemology?
While Mr. Robbins rightly pointed out some serious errors in the conclusions Rand came to, he failed in his chief aim, which was to destroy the foundation of Objectivism. I hope that anyone, and especially any Objectivists, who are unfortunate enough to read this book will also take a look at the works of Norman Geisler before drawing any conclusions about true Christianity.

A Calvinist's attempt to bury Objectivism
"The desirability of the conclusion is no substitute for argument, and those who allow themselves to be deceived by arguments because they like the conclusions are poor philosophers." - John W. Robbins

John W. Robbins is an intellectual UFO. A Christian, he discovered Ayn Rand while in college and, admiring her "uncompromising vision... of how the world might be and ought to be" and her "portrayals of rational, creative, and intransigeant individuals", he "read all that Rand published". Even today, he agrees with many of her positions, such as "her praise of purpose and productive work, her condemnation of lazinesss, her enthusiasm for private property, her advocacy of laissez-faire capitalism and limited government, her attacks on altruism, her support of egoism and her vigorous defense of logic."

However, Robbins is not an Objectivist, but a follower of evangelical Protestant philosopher Gordon H. Clark, some of whose shorter pieces are included in the appendices. Robbins defines Clark's philosophy as "scripturalism", a doctrine according to which "all our thoughts- there are no exceptions- are to be brought into conformity to Scripture, for all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are contained in Scripture." Among the corollaries of this position are the idea that evolution is "the greatest superstition of the twentieth century", and an extremely negative (Popperian) view of science, according to which "all the laws of science are false, and all have the same probability: zero" because they are "conclusions of logically fallacious arguments".

In Objectivist terms, he is a pure intrinsicist: he believes that we have access to infallible propositional truths, which are delivered to us directly from the mind of God via Scripture, and that all our knowledge either comes directly from Revelation or from logical deductions from it. A pure rationalist, too, he totally rejects empirical evidence as a possible basis for knowledge, and reduces logic to deduction, denying even the possibility of induction ("Truth cannot be derived from something non-propositional, such as 'observations'. Unless one starts with propositions, one cannot end with propositions.")

Most people - and especially most Objectivists - would be tempted to dismiss him as a wacky fundamentalist, but I personally respect Christians and even admire some Catholics, and I even share some of Robbins' ethics and politics, so I was willing to listen.

Actually, *Ayn Rand and the Close of her System* contains excellent points against Objectivism, some of which I had already arrived at by my own thinking. I particularly liked, for instance, Robbins's argument that what the "primacy of existence" actually means is "the primacy of unconsciousness"; his identification of the bias inherent in the "indestructible robot" example used to justify the concept of life as the root of value (the robot is assumed to be impassible and unchangeable); or the argument that Rand's ethics would "seem to permit, if not require, murderers to fight against their just punishment" and is "completely compatible with a pro-death, pro-suicide point of view" - among many other highly interesting points.

I am not saying that Robbins has refuted Objectivism, only that some of his points corroborated or even refined my own understanding of the problems of the philosophy and raised objections I am currently unable to answer. Of course, not every argument is of a high caliber. Robbins occasionally resorts to ad hominem, sarcasm or straw man arguments. Moreover, even though he does understand many of the points he discusses, he is prey to a certain number of false alternatives, assuming for instance that the non-intrinsicist is necessarily a Kantian subjectivist or that a volitional theory of consciousness must necessarily exclude the possibility of automatic processes at all levels, including the sub-conscious.

In fact, if true, Robbins' critique would be devastating not only for Objectivism, but for modern science (including psychology and psychiatry, which he rejects as "pseudo-science" and "witchdoctory") andthe whole empiricist tradition in philosophy. He is particularly virulent against Aristotle, whom, contrary to Rand who saw in him "the first of our Founding Fathers", he calls an "explicit totalitarian" and a "fascist". But Rand's interpretation is vindicated in such Objectivist works as Robert Mayhew's *Aristotle's Criticism of Plato's Republic* or F. D. Miller's *Nature, Justice and Rights in Aristotle's Politics*. As for Robbins' attacks on the Objectivist politics, it seems to focus on rather careless statements of the theory, and might not be as effective against the more scholarly derivation of the Objectivist position in Tara Smith's *Moral Rights and Political Freedom*.

Even though Robbins' own point of view is untenable and he is not always a very nice person, I think his book is worthy of close scrutiny and deserves a systematic Objectivist answer.

Empiricism Demolished
Whiny complaints notwithstanding, this is a Christian book par excellence.Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal, Jesus skewered the Pharisees, and Robbins slays the dragon of Randianism.

Robbins follows his mentor, Dr. Gordon Clark, into an extreme rationalism.But his critique of empiricism is so valid that one can hardly blame him.

We live in an irrational age.Anti-christians claim to be both empirical (getting truth only from the sences) and rational (holding logical propositions).Materialism and reason, however, are not compatable.One cannot smell an idea or tase a syllogism.Truth, by definition, is non-empirical.

For the Christian, true truth is an attribute of God, an infinite, incorporeal Spirit.If knowledge came only through eyes and ears, God would be ignorant.Conversely, a pig should grasp ideas.Materialism is absurd, and Robbins answers the fools according to their folly.The humanistic egoism of Ayn Rand is, at base, untenable atheism - a dogma closely related to the Communism she so much claimed to reject.

This book is comprehensive, logical, and fitting for our day.The same could be said for most of the books by Drs. Robbins and Gordon H. Clark.One need not embrace their absolute rationalism to profit from their work.

Putting Rand under cross examination
This brilliantly written book is as frustrating as it is insightful. Robbins' critique of Rand is nothing short of withering. Rand is made to look like a philosophical imbecile clealry out of her depth. Unfortunately, in making Rand look so bad, Robbins is not being entirely fair. His critique is, in many important respects, deeply flawed. He is, to begin with, an extreme rationalist who rejects both fact and empiricism. (Robbins says there are no facts, but only propositions, theories: but is this a fact, or just a theory?) Everything to him is a question of logic, which in practice means: a question of words. Rand is subjected by Robbins to endless verbal scrutiny. He goes after her like a prosecuting attorney subjecting a hostile witness to cross-examination. Wherever Rand misstates her position, he seizes on the misstatement with triumph, as if he were actually accomplishing something beyond showing that Rand was not a very accurate writer. Robbins does, it is only fair to add, have many cogent things to say against Rand's theories of human nature, concept-formation, and individual rights, but a great deal of the rest of her system, including her theories of history and aesthetics, escapes critical scrutiny. He is even guilty of two gross misinterpretations. He accuses Rand (inaccurately of course) of empiricism and materialism, both of which Robbins, coming from the viewpoint of Calvinistic Christianity, regards as reprehensible. Now while Rand might have given lip service to certain empirical doctrines, she was no empiricist. The method she actually uses in defending her philosophical ideas is largely rationalistic, like Robbins own (though, admittedly, Robbins is a lot better at it than she is). The charge that Rand is a materialist is even more off target. How can someone who believed in the "efficacy of consciousness" and "free will" (let alone the notion that history is "determined" by ideas!) be regarded as a materialist? While it is true that Rand's belief in the so-called "primacy of existence" (i.e., her metaphysical realism) logically entails materialism, Rand refused to accept this logical inference, since it contradicted her theories of human nature and history. Now Robbins has no business trying to force a logical inference upon Rand that she herself rejected. She may be guilty of contradiction, but she is certainly not guilty of materialism. ... Read more

Product Description
Part Two Of Two Parts

Ayn Rand was larger than life. She lived life on an epic scale. She was intellectual and emotional, exalted but tragic, a passionate lover who could burn with hatred.

She was extremely admired and yet savagely attacked. No one was neutral about her. Yet despite her furor, her life remained private. Her public and professional activities took place on a lighted stage, her personal life was the background. Her personal life, revealed here for the first time, was the stuff of legend.

"A superb biography...has the sweep, drama and narrative momentum of the great works of Ayn Rand herself." (Washington Post) ... Read more

Customer Reviews (7)

Modest Collection of Essays
Published in 1984 `The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand' edited by Uyl and Rasmussen is a collection of essays discussing the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Rand is a well known twentieth century American novelist and political commentator.The following thoughts are offered for potential purchasers.

The text is divided into three sections,; metaphysics and epistemology, ethics and politics.Each section has an introductory essay by the editors.With only two contributions the segment discussing metaphysics and epistemology is the shortest and least interesting part of the book. While there is a rich philosophical tradition in these areas , Rand appears to have a limited interest in these subjects aside from the role they play in underwriting her ethical and political views.Consequently, there is not a lot of source material to use. Rand seems to advocate naïve/common sense realism, positing the existence of an agent-independent world and our ability to access and understand it via our senses and cognitive abilities.While helpful in highlighting some of Rand Aristotelian views the essays in this section are rather weak.

Rand's writings in the areas of ethics and politics are much more extensive and, as a consequence the related essays are accordingly more interesting.Hollinger's essay discussing Rand's connection to Aristotle and the virtue ethics tradition is well written and insightful.The notion of human flourishing evident in the virtue tradition is helpful in understanding Rand's view of value.From my perspective, the best essay in the collection is from Charles King, Many readers approaching Rand for the first type find her work difficult as a result of her emotive language and rather esoteric use of terminology.King is helpful in clarify Rand's terminology and identifying her underlying contentions.Flew's essay on Rand's politics is also worth a look, in particular, his thoughts with regard to strengthening her argument for capitalism are interesting.

Despite its limitations I enjoyed the book - Rand's work has been largely overlooked by the philosophical world and this small anthology provides some rare and critical insight into her thought.That said, it is a modest collection of essays from minor philosophers (with the exception of Flew). I would, however,not want to sound overly critical of the contributors.While Rand is a colorful character with some interesting thoughts she is a `philosopher' only in the broadest sense of the term. As noted by several of the commentators, Rand seems to have limited awareness and interest in the broader philosophical world - this is unfortunate as it limits her effectiveness.Rand is an accomplished writer of romantic fiction and many of her ideas (for good or bad) are not presented in a clear and systematic way that lends itself to easy analysis.

Overall, the text is largely a period piece and is likely of interest to a limited audience.

A book for critical thinkers
This book, despite its occasional faults and shortcomings, nevertheless represented, at the time of its publication, a considerable leap forward in Randian criticism.While some of the essays (most notably, those by the editors and Tibor Machan) add little if anything to our understanding of Rand, most of the rest contain at least several important insights, and some contain scores of them.Wallace Matson, despite his odd desire to replace concepts with words and his fallacious remarks about the problem of induction, nevertheless has some apt things to say about the Objectivist axioms."The subjectivists are not so obliging as to deny existence outright," he rightly points out.And his remarks about Rand's abuse of the "fallacy of the 'stolen concept'" are on the mark as well.Hollinger's essay, which, as far as I know, is the only critical examination of Rand's theory of history, is one of the best in the book.Wheeler's ensuing essay on Aristotle is helpful in pointing out various instances when Rand misunderstood or misinterprets the old pedant of Athens.The best essay in the book, however, is J. Charles King's masterful refutation of Rand's ethical theory.King shows that life cannot possibly be the ultimate standard of value because life is a means to an end, not an end in itself.Next we have Eric Mack's refutation of Rand's theory of rights.While it is true that Mack just skims the surface of the problem, Mack's treatment is still the best to date.

Reviewers have been nearly universal in condemning Antony Flew's excellent essay on Randian selfishness, for reasons that I don't quite understand.(I suspect they were more interested in refuting Flew than in understanding him.)Flew, a distinguished British philosopher, contributes an essay of remarkable insight and good sense.He points out that Rand's moral ideas "could have been much better illustrated with the help of detailed accounts of paradigm lives, both good and bad."He aptly describes Rand's view that there can never be a conflict of interest between rational men as an "embarrassment of all concerned, reminiscent of the revelation in the Communist Manifesto that, in the upcoming utopia, 'the free development of each will be the condition of the free development of all.'"Flew proceeds to demolish the Randian view by pointing out that Rand's whole discussion of the matter involves "a constricted and factitious interpretation of the term interests."(Many of the problems in Rand's philosophy stem from "a constricted and factitious interpretation" of terms.)He ends the essay by showing how Rand's case for competitive capitalism can be bolstered by introducing ideas first developed by Adam Smith.In all, a very fine collection of essays; but worth reading only for those capable of understanding philosophical argumentation.Dogmatic, uncritical Objectivists had best stick with works recommended by Peikoff.

A very mixed collection of essays
*The Philosophical Thought of Ayn Rand* is a collection of ten essays on Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, more or less hierarchically organized into three parts: Metaphysics and Epistemology, Ethics and Politics.

Theessays included fall into two very distinct categories: those written byindependent Ayn Rand scholars, like Den Uyl, Rasmussen, Machan or Mack, whoshow a real familiarity with Rand's published works (or, to be moreprecise, those works published prior to the publication of the book in1984); and essays written by generally unsympathetic philosophers whomerely took the trouble of reading a few Objectivist essays before refutingwhat are mostly misunderstandings of Rand's statements or arguments.

Oneexample is Anthony Flew, whose pompously titled essay "Selfishness andthe Unintended Consequences of Intended Action" combines a very cogentdefense of the free market with a completely inept treatment of Rand'srational egoism. Flew takes the following statement from *TheFountainhead*: "No man can live for another... It is impossible inconcept"; interprets it as meaning that no action can be unselfish andself-sacrificing; easily refutes the latter; and then blames Rand for her"false conclusion", her "lapse" and the"mess" she got herself into. Unfortunately for him, Rand was notsaying that it is impossible ever to *act* in a self-sacrificial way, butthat it was impossible consistently to *live* for another, which is totallydifferent, and which I do not think Flew would be able to refute. As forhis comment that "Rand is... mistaking it that all human relationshipsare or should be trading transactions", I surmise it is based on tooliteral an interpretation of the "trader principle", which is theObjectivist alternative to predatory egoism and altruism. Finally, therefutation of the Objectivist principle that there is no conflict ofinterest among rational men is based on an unjustified reading of"interest" as synonymous with "desire".

But the nadirof this collection is probably Wallace Matson's "Rand onConcepts" which claims to reformulate the Objectivist theory ofconcept-formation in a way that "preserves what is of value in Rand'streatment" and then proceeds to get rid of concepts altogether,claiming they are a dispensable "mysterious and subjective... thirdentity between word and thing"!

Of the ten essays included here, Iwould say that the five written by the better-informed Ayn Rand scholarsare worth reading and often contain interesting observations and criticisms(though none that are so earth-shattering as to really threaten thestructure of Objectivism), while the other five, when they are notoff-topic, are generally lame.

Still Valuable Collection of Essays
This collection of essays came out in 1984 and is a little bit dated in light of more recent work on Rand.While the collection contains a couple of clunkers, it contains at least one real gem: J. Charles King's"Life and the Theory of Value," the best refutation of Rand'sethics I'm aware of.

Range of opinion
This is an excellent compendium of articles on Rand by a range of philosophers. The close reader of Rand will note how Wheeler and Flew display the academic mindset of Anglo-american philosophy which readsnothing of what happens in other countries, particularly their hangups onhow Rand ignores prepositional conventions typical to English in discussingepistemology.

Yet these are the questions and issues brought up byintelligent persons who have trouble leavingtheir local judeo-christianmindset. Precisely this sort of discussion is required for her ideas to beabsorbed by many. One hopes that as Rand's ideas are discussed in othercountries, a follow- up volume with a more cosmopolitan range ofphilosophers will follow from the authors. ... Read more

Product Description
This brief text assists students in understanding Ayn Rand's philosophy and thinking so that they can more fully engage in useful, intelligent class dialogue and improve their understanding of course content. Part of the "Wadsworth Philosophers Series," (which will eventually consist of approximately 100 titles, each focusing on a single "thinker" from ancient times to the present), ON AYN RAND is written by a philosopher deeply versed in the philosophy of this key thinker. Like other books in the series, this concise book offers sufficient insight into the thinking of a notable philosopher better enabling students to engage the reading and to discuss the material in class and on paper. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (19)

An excellent introduction and explanation to the meat of Ayn Rand's philosophy.
John V. Karavitis wishes to encourage everyone who wants to learn more about how Ayn Rand came up with Objectivism to read this excellent entry in the Wadsworth Philosophers Series.To quote from the beginning of Chapter 10, 'Virtue, Self and Others':"The fundamental values required for man's survival are constants.Reason.Purpose.Self-esteem.These are values which one must develop and achieve throughout one's life."Just incredible.I myself John V. Karavitis think that it is absolutely amazing how Ayn Rand begins with Aristotle's "Law of Identity", then immediately leads to the "Law of Causality", and from there creates the most liberating philosophical edifice ever created.John V. Karavitis having read "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" now more fully appreciates what Ayn Rand was driving at, and why.Many people feel that Ayn Rand is a "philosophical hack", a "poseur", if you will.John V. Karavitis says READ THIS BOOK.Five stars for yet another entry in the Wadsworth Philosophers Series.John Karavitis.

Mediocre Introduction to Rand
Allan Gotthelf is a philosopher and a follower of the ideas of philosopher/novelist Ayn Rand. He is associated with the Ayn Rand Institute, which advocates the "Official Objectivism" of Leonard Peikoff.

Generally speaking, ON AYN RAND is reliable introduction to Rand's thought. On the other hand, it's of the strangest books I've read in terms of its "construction."The endnotes take up an unusually large percentage of the book.For example, chapter 4 is 5 pages long and the endnotes almost 3 full pages.In addition, much valuable information that is contained in the endnotes belongs in the text.The discussion of her first novel, WE THE LIVING, takes up one paragraph in the text, but there are three paragraph length endnotes that tell you much more about the novel.This is highly unusual for any book, particularly an introduction.It's almost as if the book was put together from two separate sources.And, although the book is 97 pages long, the section on Rand's politics is one page long!Simply put, this is not a book that will grab the attention of those new to Rand or those who know her mostly through her novels and politics.

What is most troubling about the book is its partisan tone, which at times approaches agitprop.There is not a single word of criticism of Rand, and Gotthelf's praise is overboard.We read about the "poignant and beautiful lines" of one of her books, how her theories are "remarkable" and "original," and how her theory of concept formation would change the world if only we would let it into our heart.There is also a deliberate attempt to downplay the influence of Nietzsche (or any other thinker) on her thought.But what I found most irritating is that 100% of the time she is referred to as "Ayn Rand."A huge flaw is the failure to mention any books on Ayn Rand not written by Official Objectivists.Indeed, when he mentions in a footnote that Barbara Branden wrote a memoir/biography of Rand, he doesn't even name the book (although he insists that it's riddled with errors).He claims that there is no evidence that Rand's philosophy professors in Russia influenced her - an obvious reference to Chris Sciabarra's book AYN RAND: THE RUSSIAN RADICAL - but he doesn't mention Sciabarra or the book's title.The bibliography mentions only books by Rand, with the exception of Peikoff's OBJECTIVISM: THE PHILOSOPHY OF AYN RAND.

Although Rand has been the subject of considerable interest of late, there is still no completely satisfactory introduction to her thought.The best introduction remains Tibor Machan's AYN RAND.

A good gloss-over of Rand
This book is good for someone who wants to understand Rand but does not yet want to dive into the endless books by and on Rand.It is a good overview of her philosophy and life, but certainly not complete.

Those liking this book will also like "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Leonard Piekoff

A good short summary of Rand's errors
Allan Gotthelf has written a decent little book here. Aside from a couple of annoying verbal habits (e.g. always writing out Ayn Rand's full name every time he refers to her) and a couple of unpleasantnesses (e.g. some nasty remarks about the Brandens and the existing secondary literature on Objectivism), this is actually a pretty well-written and well-organized brief overview of Rand's thought. (Of course -- heh heh! -- you shouldn't expect to understand it all _right away_. It takes _many, many years of serious study_ to learn that Rand was absolutely correct in every single particular.)

The presentation is orderly, if occasionally skimpy. Gotthelf devotes a couple of short, fawning chapters (well, all the chapters are short -- and fawning, too, come to think of it) to Rand's sinless life and then proceeds to take the reader on a guided tour through the main features of her thought in metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Political theory gets short shrift, but that's okay; while it was undoubtedly the strongest (or at any rate the least vulnerable) portion of Rand's philosophy, it was also by far the least original (which, actually, is _why_ it was the least vulnerable). Aesthetics doesn't get much attention either, which is sort of too bad, but maybe Gotthelf doesn't want to give away too many of Rand's propaganda techniques.

I especially enjoyed the tour; it's always a pleasure to encounter a book that one has completely refuted before it was even published. The reviewer from Austin is right: Rand _wasn't_ really a very good philosopher. And Gotthelf's accurate-but-uncritical summary of Rand has been a tremendous help to me in rewriting, for publication, my critique of Rand's epistemology (still available in an earlier draft form on my website); he confirms and recommits every error I pick on her for, and may even introduce one or two new ones of his own. (For example, at one point he seems to imply that the "primacy of existence" premise commits him to materialism.)

You may well imagine that critics of Objectivism (of whom I am obviously one) receive lots of silly e-mails telling them they've gotten this or that point entirely wrong (usually from people who don't seem to be able to read all that well themselves). So I'm happy to say that at numerous points I have been able to use Gotthelf's handy little text to confirm (yet again) that I was reading Rand correctly after all, and that she was just as wrong as I said she was. Now that I've taken account of his work in rewriting my own, the result is a much clearer critique. (Which just goes to show, I suppose, that Objectivists and libertarians _can_ cooperate in a good cause.)

And I'm not kidding about the quality of Gotthelf's work; this _is_ a fairly well-executed introduction, although it will probably be a bit hard to read for anyone completely unfamiliar with Rand's work. For the most part (but not entirely!) this little book reads like a precis of Leonard Peikoff's _Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand_ (which is, by the way, one of the few items of "secondary Objectivist literature" about which Gotthelf has anything good to say). As such it will make a helpful companion to that volume, whether Peikoff likes it or not. (And as I hinted, if you read carefully you'll find a few points at which Gotthelf disagrees with Peikoff and the ARI mainstream. For example, did Rand think her ethic was founded on an "axiom"? Compare Gotthelf's remarks with David Harriman's in the _Journals of Ayn Rand_.)

It will also be helpful to anyone -- Randie or otherwise -- who wants a quick and dirty summary of what Objectivism is all about. Love it or hate it, here it is.

All of Rand's Sins, None of Her Virtues
Gotthelf's book is probably the worst introduction to Rand yet written.

The book is clear to a reader only if that reader is already highly familiar with the idiosyncratic semi-technical vocabulary of Objectivism. Indeed, not only does Gotthelf express Rand's thoughts in Rand's rather obscure way of speaking, he typically lets her speak for herself - literally. Most of the main ideas are introduced by way of quoting Rand, at length. This might be okay were Gotthelf to then elucidate Rand's strange formulations, but he takes it for granted that the quotations are clear.But, when cut from context, the quotations lose most of their original flavor. This means that Gotthelf has managed to replicate all of the problems with Rand's unclear and inconsistent language without replicating any of her energy and lively style.

Gotthelf has a skewed approach to the question of how much of the book to use on a given subject. He devotes quite a bit of it to deeply a adoring account of Rand's biography, without citing the unauthorized memoir and biography by Rand's closest companions or even the authorized biography written by Barbara Branden in the early 1960's. He does cite Leonard Peikoff's biographical essay on Rand. It is appropriate that Gotthelf, who fails to display much concern with the truth about Rand's life, should cite Peikoff: Peikoff concludes that essay by explaining that our wishes determine what kind of a person Rand was.

One could tolerate hagiography if it at least included some relevant information about the development of Rand's philosophy. But this one does not. The well-articulated and strongly defended theory that Rand's philosophical development was much influenced by her immersion, in the Russia of her youth and education, in the dialectical methodology characteristic to the approach of virtually all academics in virtually all subjects on virtually all sides of virtually all questions. That is, Gotthelf manages to spend about a third of the book celebrating Rand, without mentioning the one and only fact about her personal history that is at all interesting from a philosophical point of view: that she may have taken elements of her philosophical methodology from the educational system in which she studied.

Gotthelf's skewed sense for what is worth including is displayed elsewhere, in his decision to spend about 40% of the book on Rand's metaphysics; primarily her theory of concepts. This leads him to shortchange Rand's politics, dealing with Rand's most well-known theory on a single page.

But, since Gotthelf spends so much of the book on Rand's metaphysics, and uses quotations from Rand to do most of his explaining, we must ask whether this book is a more efficient introduction to Rand's metaphysics than just reading Rand. Rand's work on metaphysics is about 100 pages long; more if you count the appendices, which help to elucidate but add little that's really essential. So now we're wading through 35 pages of hagiography and 40 pages of metaphysics to get not just the same old explanations but quotations that one could have found in Rand in a book that's only about 25 pages longer.

The discussion of ethics is similarly problematic. Rand's meta-ethical argument is deeply obscure. One cannot, by reading her essay on the subject, discover what are its premises, what are its conclusions, and how one infers the conclusions from the premises. All of the various interpretations of this argument that have been offered have been subjected to serious criticism. Gotthelf neither explains the argument (more quotations) nor even tries to show how it can deal with the criticisms that have been offered.

Rand was not a really very good philosopher; her programmatic, mostly methodological, insights require a total reworking from the bottom up. One wonders whether she'll ever acquire a scholarly following capable of doing this, or if the poor woman will be forever cursed with unconstructive, admiring sycophants on the scale of Gotthelf. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Passionate defence of freedom
This riveting compilation of 26 essays includes contributions by Alan Greenspan, Nathaniel Branden and Robert Hessen. It is primarily a treatise on the moral aspects of capitalism. The themes revolve around human nature and mankind's relationship to existence. Capitalism is advocated because it is the only system compatible with the life of a rational being.

Rand claims that the classical defenders and modern apologists of capitalism are by default responsible for undermining it. In her view, they are unwilling or unable to fight the battle on moral-philosophical grounds.

The essays provide a plethora of gripping insights and novel angles. Rand detests the idea of using altruism to defend capitalism. She proposes rationality instead, with a ruling principle of justice.

I do not necessarily agree with her on this but I enjoy Rand's scathing criticism of conservatism's perceived fallacies. Her vitriolic dissection of the 3 conservative strains is highly amusing! She identifies and attacks the Religious and the Traditionalists but really unleashes the sharp edge of her scorn on those who defend capitalism from the argument of mankind's depravity.

In the essay Requiem For Man, she savages the encyclical Populorum Progressio by Pope Paul VI, in which she also rips apart the reactions to it by publications like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Fortune magazine.

The book consists of two parts. The first is Theory And History, which includes essays on inter alia war, the persecution of big business, antitrust, gold and economic freedom, property status of the airwaves, and patents and copyrights.

Part two: Current State, includes essays on the anatomy of compromise, the art of smearing, rule by consensus as a form of fascism, and the student rebellion. The final two essays: Man's Rights and The Nature Of Government, appear in the appendix.

Whatever the flaws in Rand's Objectivist philosophy, this book remains a brilliant and unique defence of freedom and capitalism. Moreover, history has proved Rand a prescient thinker who was correct in many of her analyses.

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal ranks among the very best of her non-fiction works. It is highly engaging, thought-provoking and often quite amusing. The book concludes with an index and a bibliography listing titles by Henry Hazlitt, Isabel Paterson and Ludwig von Mises, amongst others.

In Defense of Global Capitalism

On The Wealth of Nations (Books That Changed the World)

Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement




... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

Good-By and Good Premises
The Ayn Rand Letter was published by Ayn Rand from 1971-1976.These were difficult times for Rand, both personally and professionally.

While Rand remained to a fair extent the forceful writer she had always been, it's not hard to detect a decline in her abilities.In addition, part of the problem might have been cultural rot which she saw enveloping society (and which was, by her own admission, a factor in her closing the Letter in 1976). The period covered by these issues was a depressing time in American history and these essays are suffused by the cultural pessimism of the era.Many of the essays concern the Vietnam War, the 1972 election and Watergate.(If that doesn't cheer you up, the Letter contains excerpts from Leonard Peikoff's THE OMINOUS PARALLELS, which wasn't published until 1982.)Rand is often provocative, but at times she becomes a caricature of her earlier self, endlessly quoting the New York Times and citing ATLAS SHRUGGED as if it were the Bible.

Few of the essays contained here are considered seminal by Rand scholars.The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made" is fairly important.There is also "The Missing Link," a rather strange rumination on human evolution.Yet it's hard to find any essays on the level of "The Objectivist Ethics" or "The Nature of Government."

Philosophical Analysis of Daily Events
Begun as her health deteriorated, Rand seeks to demonstrate in these intriguing letters how philosophy determines even minute seeming events--and how the apparently most unphilosophical matters soon reveal anunderlying philosophy after a hard look. Insightful, entertaining, sheproceeds as the philosopher on the mountain seeing lush valleys beyond, wholeads us to understand the ideological mechanics of the decadent worldabout her. Some essays, such as her classic "review of a review"of John Rawls 'Theory of Justice'(where she outlined how incestuousacademic cottage industries got started and soon acquired a life of thereown) actually demonstrate her method by appearing rather nutty too many atthe time--but sardonically prescient today. This is a very good educationon how to see and seekthe deeper truth of events critical to realintellectual analysis, whether you like Rand or not. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (11)

Dated Yet Relevant
Don't buy this.Buy The Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, an updated and more modern edition of this work, with additional content and social commentary.

This book examines how the educational system of America has slowly destroyed our culture by prioritizing socialization above the ability to think. How conformity has made the majority of Americans easy dupes of a class war in which the greedy loot the country, a violation of capitalism.Rand offers no plan on 'taking back our country' beyond utterly reforming the educational system to create thinkers rather than fearful insecure child-adults.

The 'dated' part is Rand didn't buy into the environmental movement (she also has an irrational dislike of hippies). At this point in time, the ice caps are melting, the ozone is holey, and the oceans are overfished.This was a mistake on Rand's part, as she never understood the concept of 'The Tragedy of the Commons.'

I did enjoy the digression on 'values vs. people, a false dichotomy,' but Rand's stances on environmental issues are obviously wrong with the science of the 21st century available.Thus only three stars.

Rand Thunders Against the New Left
[My review of The Return of the Primitive.The New Left is out of print, but available used.]

In 1971, Ayn Rand published a collection of her essays called "the New Left." She edited this collection herself based on a suggestion from a fan.

Peter Schwartz, a second-hander at the Ayn Rand Institute, came out with a new version of this work. He kept all of Rand's original essays, added one new Rand essay, and added three of his own. The most obvious question is: by what right does Mr. Schwartz re-edit someone else's work in order to get some of his stuff in print? Since Rand is in this case the victim, and I don't want to give the sanction of the victim (so to speak), I'll review this work solely in reference to the original Rand articles, ignoring Mr. Schwartz's "contributions" in my ranking and comments.

I'm generally critical of Rand the philosopher. However, she was a reasonably intelligent person. Her greatest weakness was her tendency to speculate on historical and psychological matters which she knew little about. However, her "creativity" was something of a benefit when it came to cultural criticism. In fact, I would say that she had any number of interesting and insightful things to say about the state of culture. Her article on the "Free Speech Movement" in Berkeley is a gem. Her comments on Woodstock are good as well, although she is given to a bit of exaggeration (e.g., Kant is the "first hippy"). And in her article "Racism," she courageously came out against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which violated private property rights. (It has even been used by the federal courts to uphold regulations in the area of "sexual harassment" although the law on its face has nothing to due with sexual harassment.) The "Age of Envy" contains a withering critique of feminism, but I wonder how Rand could consistently oppose this movement based on her presuppositions.

Prophetic and accurate analyses
In these essays from the 1960s and early 1970s, Ayn Rand identifies the underlying nihilism of the Left and the student movement of the time. Already back then, she warned of the toxic influence of the left and pointed out that the intellectual battle does not consist of opposing, denouncing or evading, but of exposing and disproving evil ideas and proclaiming a consistent alternative to the left's bankrupt philosophy.

In the essay Apollo and Dionysus, she compares the 1 million people that converged on Cape Kennedy on July 16, 1969 to witness the launch of Apollo 11 with the 300 000 that gathered at Woodstock on August 15 that year. Rand explores these events in the light of Nietzsche's metaphysical principles of reason and emotion as observed in Greek theatre.

Whilst denying that reason and emotion are irreconcilable antagonists, she shows how the media virtually ignored the one event while blowing the significance of the other out of all proportion. On the one hand, decent people were sharing an event of great achievement and on the other, self-indulgent hedonists behaving like pigs. As she explains so eloquently, it is irrational emotions that drag people down into the mud, and it is reason that lifts us up to the stars.

In the essay The Left: Old And New, Rand predicted that the issue of the environment would be the next big crusade of the Leftists, after Vietnam. In this, as on so many other issues, she was correct and we still have the EnviroNuts with us and they are shriller than ever before with their self-serving tooth fairy tales of global warming.

The short essay "Political Crimes" looks at the dangerous notion that there could be a distinction between political and non-political criminals. Crime is a violation of the rights of others by force of fraud, thus there is no such thing as a political crime. The essay The Chicken's Homecoming discusses the results of promulgating doctrines like Pragmatism, Logical Positivism and Linguistic Analysis, and how these doctrines disarmed the best and unleashed the nihilists. In this regard, see The Anti-Chomsky Reader, edited by David Horowitz and Peter Collier.

The Age Of Envy is one of the very best in this collection. In it, Rand claims that the Age of Reason and the Age of Enlightenment had been followed by ours, the Age of Envy. She takes envy to mean: The hatred of the good for being the good. Here too, she nails down the left, old and new, with keen insight and prescience. She demonstrates how the appeasement of evil has been an undertow of mankind's cultural stream down the ages.

The Comprachicos is the disturbing essay that concludes the collection. It warns against the hijacking of the minds of children and students by the leftist, collectivist educational establishment. This even more true now than it was then: the modern seats of leftism are the universities and the Old Media which Rand exposes throughout the book.

To show how right Ayn Rand has been, I highly recommend the following books: The New Thought Police and The Death Of Right And Wrong by Tammy Bruce, Intellectual Impostures by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont, Unholy Alliance by David Horowitz, treason by Ann Coulter and Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild by Michelle Malkin.

A very insightful look at several aspects of our culture!
In this book Ayn Rand looks at numerous aspects of our culture from Woodstock and the Apollo moon missions to public education and relates them to various philosophic principles.She shows not only how irrational the current left-wing philosophy is, but also how it is now morally bankrupt, especially compared with "the old left".Despite the colossal failure of socialism time and time again, modern liberals- to this day- continue to idealize it, even the horrors of the former Soviet Union.Just look at the book "In Denial: Historians, Communism, & Espionage" by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr.

Please note that this title has been replaced by Ayn Rand's "Return of the Primitive" which contains all the material from this book, plus additional essays by both Ayn Rand and a contemporary Objectivist.

The art of vituperation: some early instruction.
The art of vituperation, i.e the practice of ad hominen and vitriolic attacks against contrary philosophical or poliltical persuasions, seems to be very popular, as a persual of the current top-selling books will reveal. This book, written over thirty years ago, has the tone of these best-sellers. The author is unrelenting in her smears against what she has labeled as "The New Left", and this makes the book difficult to get through, if the reader is one who believes that political and philosophical discussion should never include dialog that is so blatantly disrepectful.

The "New Left", the author asserts, began in 1964 with the rise of the Berkeley protests, and she briefly discusses its history in the first section of the book. This "Free Speech" movement of Berkeley is completely "anti-ideological" according to the author, being opposed to "labels" or theories. Their philosophical position could be classified as existentialism, but Immanuel Kant is to blame for their divorcing of reason from reality. In fact Kant is blamed for all of the "irrational" influences in the college curriculum, which she asserts, without any statistical evidence or scholarly analysis, has "seeped into every classroom, subject, and brain" in the universities of that time.

In another section Woodstock is described as a "Dionysian" project, the landing on the moon as "Apollonian". In spite of the Nietzschean overtones of this classification, Kant is again blamed for the Dionysian revelry of the New Left. Kant was the first "hippie" in history, she states. But the author does not seem to acknowledge that the Woodstock festival lasted only a few days; the Apollo project many years of preparation. There was a huge difference between the resources used for Apollo versus those for Woodstock. Certainly Apollo and the light of reason were the predominant philosophies, if one is to judge a culture using only these two.

In a later section, the woman's movement, or "Women's Lib", is described as composed of "sloppy, bedraggled, unfocused women" who are in no danger of being mistaken as "sex objects". Their opinions on sex are described as "hideous" and are in a "sisterhood with lesbians". The author though, ironically, does not want to give a more accurate commentary, since in her view that "would require a kind of language that I do not like to see in print". Apparently the author believes that a woman's phenotype should be taken into account when judging their philosophical and moral positions. Any common interests with homosexuals is also to be viewed with suspicion.

The longest section of the book, and the most troubling from a scientific standpoint is the last one entitled "The Comprachicos". The author makes claims that are totally unsupported scientifically, and no references are given that lend credence to her claims about the nature of the child psyche and the dynamics of child development. The "comprachicos" are a collection of people, not identified explicitly, that have, under the guise of progressive education, robbed the minds of American children. They have taken a normal brain she says, and made it mentally retarded. This is an extreme view if taken literally, and the reading of this section of the book gives one every indication that the author does mean it literally. But mental retardation is something that can be measured, those children who are victims of the comprachicos can be identified, and correlations with the progressive educators can then be found statistically. The author though has done none of this. Mental retardation is not quantified, no case studies are quoted, and therefore no empirical evidence is given that shows a connection between the techniques of progressive educators and mental retardation. Such a connection could perhaps be shown, but it will take painstaking research and data collection in order for this to happen. The section ends with more vituperation: the "Establishment" which is a "rotted structure of mindless hyprocrisy" and consists of big businessmen, conservatives, Washington politicians (who are "eagar dummies"), the communication media, as well as professors, the arch-villians in the author's eyes.

One can only wonder if some of the current practitioners of vitriole and ad hominen attacks perhaps read this book and gained helpful hints on how to carry them out. But such an approach to the debate on issues never serves any useful purpose to anyone. The art of vituperation is a useless expenditure of energy and time, and worthless as an explanatory tool for any type of discussion or inquiry. ... Read more