For The New Intellectual [Mass Market Paperback]

What Ayn Rand's critics say about her personally is mostly on the mark. She was a hypocritical megalomaniac, tolerated independent thought only insofar as it agreed with her, was far too quick to levy personal attacks rather than substantive rebuttals to opponent's arguments, and often engaged in scholarship that was less than, um, scholarly, for the sake of expediency.

Unfortunately none of this excuses Rand's critics for making the same mistake with regard to her. Too often her arguments are ignored in lieu of her personal peccadilloes, and while Rand's claim to perfection (more or less) might excuse a bit more enthusiasm in pointing out her errors, it doesn't excuse writing her off entirely. This is classic ad hominem argumentation, the sort of thing that would have us write off "In Principia" because Newton wasted forests of paper writing about alchemy and believed in biblical inerrancy.

As a result, much of what Rand's critics say about her philosophy, and those who view it with some value, is NOT on the mark. While it is true that some of Rand's followers act as if every body expulsion of hers carries philosophical significance, the vast majority of people simply see some value in Rand's writings while recognizing that she makes mistakes like everyone else. Her writings on sex are best used for kindling, but her unique and insightful views on the symbolism in the Garden of Eden myth, and the purpose and value of money (all included in FTNI), alone make her a benefactor to the history of human thought.

The claim that Rand mostly appeals to high school students is so baseless and preposterous it is difficult to take seriously. One would be hard pressed to find one high school student in a thousand that even knows who Rand is, much less having read and understood what she had to say. No, Rand appeals mostly to people who are fed up with the gooey postmodern movement in society that has us being asked to promote feelings over facts (see any liberal response to anti-gun control arguments), and pretending that changing the name of a condition changes the condition (see any PC verbiage).

The problem with most of the criticism that actually bothers to deal with Rand's arguments is that her arguments are often misunderstood, and this is partially Rand's fault. She used language very precisely and somewhat idiosyncratically, at least when viewed from the knee-jerk view of the layman. From my POV she used words as they should be used, and that such semantic battles are crucial to promoting a change in the way people think. But when one uses words in a minority way, one must expect to be misunderstood unless one is willing to put forth considerable effort to contextualize what one says, and Rand too often failed to do this. Thus when she said something like "man cannot exist sans rationality", a previous reviewer can be forgiven for thinking that she meant no person can remain alive via faith, and therefore she has been refuted. However this isn't at all what she meant. What she was getting at is that rationality is the tool via which mankind acquires what it needs to function as human beings should, a far more complex proposition, and one that requires much background to understand. But without that background, one could easily erroneously, but understandably, conclude that Rand's writings are "pseudointellectual".

The bottom line is that Rand promotes some highly intriguing ideas backed by quite a bit of thought. Where else will one see the producer placed on a higher rung than the giver? Who can totally blow off the motivation of socialism in those who simply want to gain at the loss of those they consider "rich"? Anyone who reads this or any Rand writing for the first time and claims to be unmoved intellectually is kidding himself. A prime example would be those who are religious and see no similarity between them, and their leaders, to Rand's "witch doctor" persona. They simply haven't forced themselves to think past the pious-babble that accompanies most religious thought, for it rarely takes me more than 5 minutes of questioning a believer to get them to practically quote Rand's "witch doctor" persona. It's tough to read about Attila and the Witch Doctor and NOT think of the Roman empire and the history of the papacy.

Which brings me to Rand's historical errors. Most of those I've seen fall into the true-but-irrelevant category a la Bluto's famous "Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor" quote in animal house - her fact was a bit off, but the point made still holds. Some Gore fans might be able to relate to this. Just because the fact you present as evidence for your view is false doesn't make your view false. It only makes it unsupported, but too often Rand's critics stop there and dismiss her.

So, all in all, 3 stars. It is after all, only a sampler, but it is guaranteed to get you to think about issues in a way you never have. For the real meat, read Atlas Shrugged, which along with 1984 and Brave New World, will pretty much give you a complete understanding of everything that goes on in modern society and politics.