Customer Reviews

For the New Intellectual: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (50th Anniversary Edition)

5 star:		(24)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(17)

 

 

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.

Given the absurdly slanted reviews I've seen here, I thought I'd try to give a bit more of an, er, objective account. And since the book is sort of a sampler of all Rand's work, a bit of broad background is in order.

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.

This is definitely the best book I read in a long time. Ayn Rand's Objectivism philosophy is fascinating to anyone that loves freedom, capitalism, and reason. This is not a book that any closed-minded socialist-like thinker should read (i.e. people that believe in increased federal government control over our lives). This book rightfully criticizes the intellectuals of the 20th century that promoted socialist programs and even socialism itself. Ayn Rand was a real thinker that reminded me of how great this country was and still could be if we return to what we were when this country was created by our democratic, capitalist, and intellectual founding fathers. I am looking forward to the Atlas Shrugged movie that is in the making.

This book helped put things in perspective. We get further acquainted with Rand's brilliant philosophy of "objectivism."
Rand's perception of human nature were far ahead of her time.

Thanks to my friend Chris Artig in college for introducing me to Ms. Rand.

Jeffrey McAndrew
author of "Our Brown-Eyed Boy"

The first half of For the New Intellectual is a detailed non-fiction essay explaining past and current ideologies in terms of "mystics of muscle", aka "Attilas", and "mystics of the mind", aka "witch doctors". These basically translate into those who want to control what people *do* such as dictators, and those who want to control what people *believe* such as religious leaders. The essay goes into detail explaining their dependency on both each other and their victims. Perhaps most importantly it explains how not to be a victim.

The second half of the book illustrates many of the principles described in the first half through excerpts from Ayn Rand's fictional works We The Living, Anthem, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged. WARNING: There are plot spoilers in the excerpts.

Everything ayn rand says is thoroughly scientific and rational. I hate nature, higher powers, religions,altruism, and I love myself more than you. I'm tired of helping the poor- they should starve and die. Disabled people are weaklings who should be left behind and I would never submit to any group of humans certainly not my family. I hate taxes, we should privatize roads, libraries, parks, etc.. I'm going to buy it all. Thanks Ayn Rand for giving me an excuse.

When reading this book I was reminded of some of the works of the philosopher/poet Friedrich Nietzsche, who never attempted to pull the punches and whose dialog was interesting and fun, and not ever in the mainstream. However, he did not usually address the philosophical issues at stake because of this.

The author of this book is very harsh in her criticism of philosophy, indeed of most of the schools of philosophy throughout history. Her criticism though is not detailed enough, and too vituperative to be of much use to the understanding of the trends in the history of philosophy, especially ethical and moral philosophy. The author mentions Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas, Hegel, Kant, Compte, Marx, Nietzsche, Spencer, Bentham, Hume, and Descartes. To be fair to any one of these philosophers would take perhaps an entire lifetime of careful analysis and research, and thousands of pages of written material, but the author spends only a few paragraphs on each, classifying them according as to their status as being "Witchdoctor" philosophy or not. Of all these philosophers, the author is sympathetic with only two of them: Aristotle, who she labels as "the intellect's Declaration of Independence", and Aquinas, who she labels as "the prelude to the Renaissance", and responsible for the return of Aristotle to Europe. That Aquinas was influenced by Aristotle there is no doubt, but it was the efforts of Islamic scholars who translated the works of Aristotle, and thus they should be viewed as the progenitors of the Renaissance, not Aquinas. And even though Aristotle's philosophy is highly interesting and of course greatly influenced the history of Western philosophy, the author does not give sufficient justification for her enthusiasm for it. Having read much of Aristotle's philosophy, I have yet to run into passages from his texts where he states that there is only "one" reality, as the author imputes to him in this book. She gives no textual quotation for this view, even though it indeed might be correct.

The remaining philosophers are classified as being "Witchdoctors": these individuals are spoken of as those who are frightened by physical reality, never practical, emotional, and embrace mysticism as their essential worldview. The author however gives no examples from the works of these philosophers to support this strange classification. In addition, she evidently believes she has full understanding of the mind and how it works, reducing it to sensations and perceptions, followed by conceptions, the latter of which is uniquely human. If only it were this easy, as they current efforts in neuroscience will illustrate. The author makes no attempt to justify her view of the mind from a scientific viewpoint, and gives no references to the scientific literature. In addition, the author seems that consciousness is needed for an entity to be able to form concepts. That this is not really true is proven by current developments in artificial intelligence: concept formation can indeed be done by certain software programs, which can prove (original) mathematical results and arrive at new scientific knowledge. These programs are not conscious in the way the author describes however (and albeit then only superficially).

Should we label the intellectuals today, or even at the time of publication of this book as "frightened zombies", as the author does early in the book? Does this serve any scholarly purpose that will further our understanding of modern culture and its philosophical overtones? Such individuals she says have abdicated the realm of the intellect and have embraced Buddhism and Existentialism in some instances. But what of these last two schools of thought? What makes them an abdication of the intellect? The author does not give textual support for her reasons for her labeling, making her claims unsubstantiated in this regard. I know a few brilliant scholars and productive scientists who practice Buddhism, and some who are sympathetic with Existentialism. These individuals have certainly not abdicated their minds and their goals, and show no sign of doing so in the future. They are confident, rational individuals, not frightened zombies.

The author would have made the book much more palatable if she would engage in more rigorous scholarship. One can agree with many of the ideas in the book, such as the notion of morality as being a code of values to guide human choices and actions. Interestingly, this view can be justified scientifically, even given a mathematical formulation, and further formulated in the context of rational intelligent agents in the field of artificial intelligence. In addition, she recommends that anyone interested in living in a free and rational society should follow the advice of the old Western sheriff and "leave your guns outside". She is certainly right about this, and her belief that no one has the right to force his ideas on others.

The current rate of technological development is perhaps the biggest counterexample against the stance of the author on political and economic issues. The rate is unprecedented, and is itself increasing, and despite the "decadent" philosophies that currently exist (as seen through the author's eyes), shows no sign of abatement. This might prove that folly and reason can exists in the same person(s); but it is also proof that humans are the best example of lifeforms that have ever evolved yet on this planet. Confident of the future, with a firm grasp of reality, unashamed of themselves, and always yearning for understanding and adventure, they are indeed true intellectuals.

Back in 1982, when I first read this tome, I was enamoured with a Devo album called "Freedom of Choice," the spudboys' anthem to radical libertarianism in a one-size-fits-all world. Thus, were some of my fellow petrochemical rocker friends and I also susceptible to the lilting iconoclastic strains of one Ayn Rand, who with her book "The Fountainhead," carved out her own Nietzsche (pun intended) among uebermensch, one Howard Roark, a prototypical punker before his time.

So, put on your thinking caps, energy domes or plastic pompadours and your anti human-element suits and delve into this pussaint tome by Miss Rand.

You will be doing neck salutes as you read her introductory essay of the same title as the book. After writing four major novels of varying philosophical degrees, Miss Rand finally sticks her toe into the swimming pool of profundity with this essay, and tries to stake out her territory vis-a-vis the writers of the great books (according to the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, at least). Voila! By her own objective analysis, she kicks the pants off of them, and conveniently categorises them into either one of two columns: "Attilas" or "Witch Doctors."

The Attilas (big daddy zeros, in Devo-speak) are the proverbial gang of thugs who stifle thought and proscribe against actions resulting from independent agents. They carry around clubs and grunt like high school football jocks and generally make life miserable for artistic coffee house types who affect an air of bored sophistication.

The Witch Doctors (Mystics of the Mind, the corporate media types of pesudo-intellectuals who pander to the masses in order to control them, sort of like Rod Rooter of Big Entertainment) are basically your monolithic hucksters who lure in otherwise smart people to carry out their evil deeds. Think Josef Goebbels, Jim Jones, Herf Applewhite, the Unibomber and Jerry Falwell here. They mouth slogans like "Duty Now For the Future," and reduce humanity to the level of mental mutants.

The rest of the book is Rand's greatest hits, philosophically-bent speeches from her novels. The best are from "Atlas Shrugged," because the neo-industrialists delivering them always leave their opponents in the dust.

Whip It. Whip it Good!

This book was my first formal introduction to the philosophy of Objectivism. The first essay a moving and thought-provoking introduction to the thinking of Ayn Rand, and provides a brief overview of her views on the history of philosophy, politics, and religion. For years after reading it, I would notice a detail of something I saw or read in my daily life and would suddenly find myself remembering and comprehending ideas and examples presented in the book with such clarity that it seemed that I knew them all along, and only now was able to put them into words. The rest of the book is excerpts from her fiction novels, and my recommendation would be to read the fiction books in their entirety instead, and then go over the excerpts. However if you are pressed for time or urgently wish to get into the philosophy first, this book makes a great introduction to Ayn Rand's philosophy.

Encountering Ayn Rand's work when I was fifteen was a stuuning moment, an epiphany. It forced me to question everything I'd ever believed and been taught. More than a decade later, I am still deeply impressed by the scope and force of this book's indictment modern philosophy and culture, even while there are aspects of Rand's philosophy with which I fundamentally disagree.

I recommend this book, and all of Ayn Rand's work, as a means for young people to stop living with unquestioned assumptions about life and value and forcing themselves to define what they truly believe. In the first few pages of "For the New Intellectual", you will discover that many of the beliefs and values you may have taken for granted are far from obvious.