Customer Reviews: Read 32 more reviews...
 A meaningful and righteous philosophy, but weak minds beware February 18, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
This book clearly shows that the irrational is that which contradicts the facts of reality and that irrational values are those which go against human survival.
From this premise Rand makes clear that some moral systems are self-destructive and destructive to society. Since man exists as an end in itself, not as a means to the ends of others, then he must construct a heirarchy of values for himself to follow in order to achieve happiness.
These values must be rational in that they promote man's survival and make him feel that he has control over reality. The achievement of his values will lead to happiness, but that depends on how rational his values are- hence RATIONAL self interest.
Now a note to critics, readers and admirers of objectivism like myself: Ayn Rand's philosophy should not be taken as a refutation of ever helping others or as a license to act in an anti-social or even abusive manner. Helping and being good to others is a good thing, but only if it is not a sacrifice. If you consider that the people in question are rational and productive and have something to give then you help them: you give value for value (trade), or if you love them and therefore they have a high position in your heirarchy of values, then you SHOULD be benevolent: it is in your interest to do so. Therefore helping others is bad if the help provided is a sacrifice of a higher value to a lesser value. Another human, because he is of the same species, has the capacity to hold the same values and the ultimate value is life. Therefore taking the life of another is NOT in your rational self interest because it is going against your own values and against RATIONAL values in general. Objectivism is not a license to act upon any of your IRRATIONAL WHIMS, but a philosophy for productive, independent, rational, voluntarily cooperative human beings who value LIFE and will be respectable (i.e no hatin'!) to any human being, but will obviously gravitate to those who hold the same values.
 A mix of legitimate points and very flawed rethorics. July 27, 2006
7 out of 8 found this review helpful
This, like many of Ayn Rand's works, seems to be one of those "love it or hate it" books that has a very loyal following as well as many opponents. I don't think it's that easy because this is a very mixed collection of essays.
Much of the ideas presented in the first few essays are good and should be truly thought provoking for most readers. I have come to regard selfishness (though I prefer the term "egosim") in a new light, which has been good for me.
But here are also many flaws. Most of these are due to the utopian ideas in the essays. There seems to be no place for sick and unable people in Rand's perfect society. Based on my own self interest, I want a society that takes care of their sick and poor, because I would like to be helped if I got in that situation.
Rand's worldview is an oversimplified version of reality. She seems to believe in the libertairian myth that all men have equal chances in life to pursue their ambitions. She writes that one can only achieve one's goals through one's own effort. Never mind that some people (such as the heroes Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden in her novel "Atlas Shrugged") are born wealthy while some people have to work full time just to feed themselves, not leaving much spare time to pursue their true ambitions.
Rand is so rabidly opposed to all forms of altruism she goes to the extremes to demonize it. This is another proof of her oversimplified worldview which leads me to the next point, how proudly she declares that she's an extremist. This is the essay titled "The Cult of Moral Grayness", in which she explains that it is evil to combine ideas from different philosophies and that the world must only be viewed in black and white, in terms of absolute good and absolute evil, with no shades of gray. My only interpretation of this is that Rand - Objectivism being the only rational philosophy - is always right about everything and if you disagree with her on any issue you are morally corrupt and evil. Thus, you must accept all of her teachings without questioning. In reality this means you are not allowed to think for yourself and evaluate them critically. This blind obedience is not compatible with rationalism and individualism. On the contrary, this demands you to stop think for yourself, out of fear that you may reach some "incorrect" conclusion that only a corrupt and evil person could do, which is exactly the sort of rethorics she opposes in the essay titled "The Argument from Intimidation".
It is quite sad that some of the essays express a very old fashioned and uninformed attitude towards homosexuality.
Although I found much of the rethorics flawed, I am glad I read the book, first of all because I did find good ideas in the first three essays, and secondly for the simple reason that it gave me a good insight of Rand's way of thinking, and it's always valuable to get exposed to different ideas in order to keep an open mind. Only after you've read something can you decide whether you agree with it or not. For these reasons I recommend this book. If you read it with a critical mind, it has some good ideas to offer, but don't automatically swallow the whole package just becase you agree with some of it. Be rational.
About the only true philosopher since Aristotle July 1, 2003
20 out of 26 found this review helpful
Ayn Rand at her brilliant best. If you have n't read her novels or essays this is a good place to start. And whatever you do, don't be put off by comical, cretinous pipsqueaks who have continually lambasted her for 60 years and more, usually with ad hominem attacks: because you will find that in her writings Ayn Rand is pure logic, pure rationality and pure honesty. The chapter on racism is the most powerful and beautifully written indictment of it that I have ever read. She also makes clear in her writings that happiness is the ultimate goal of life, and happiness is defined as a state of non-contradictory joy. How therefore can someone, for example, murder somebody "for their own selfish ends" and feel happy about it? Would n't their conscience bother them?
Miss Rand, unlike her many detractors obviously, had a booming, positive, pro-man sense of life. The one thing she was absolutely against in her writings was the initiation of any form of force against any person, business or organisation. Yes, she wrote often bitterly. When you see naked evil all around you being blithely accepted and even applauded, it tends to make you angry and bitter. The point is she had a brilliant mind, an unusual mind. She did n't like most of us have a thought and then dismiss it with the usual cliches, or "bromides", and go on to the next. Einstein-like, she would probe and examine, going into all the possible outcomes and avenues until she was satisfied either that it was exhausted or that it held promise for further exploration.
An old English teacher once said to a class I was in that when you opened a book you entered a mind. And Ayn Rand had a great mind, one of the best.
 ONE interesting idea, drowned in COUNTLESS clutter February 22, 2003
13 out of 28 found this review helpful
There is no arguing with those who already like Ayn Rand and enjoy her linguistic dramatics.
But that is precisely what makes everyone else not take her seriously--she is more DRAMATIC than BRILLIANT or INCISIVE.
The very idea of not carrying altruism to the extreme, by not meaninglessly sacrificing oneself because of expectations imposed upon us, indeed stands up to scrutiny.
But this particular book is more than anything else about taking an idea, or even a word definition, to an extreme which not too many sensible people do anyway, and verbosely ranting against it in --yet again-- dramatic ways. A few valid ideas are no licence to engage, too, in tirades that open us to suspicions of paranoia or hidden "issues".
Ayn Rand needs to acquire greater faith in the persuasive powers of SUBSTANCE, and less on FLOWERY or RADICAL WORDS.
A perfect book for fans of hers. For the rest of us, it's a struggle to get through the first ten pages.
Rand's selfishness isn't wrong July 21, 2001
9 out of 12 found this review helpful
By all accounts Ayn Rand was a weird and rather mean person, and her theories about knowledge were complete rubbish, but this book makes some good points.Rand's point in this book is that you should do things that you want to do, and not what other people try to force you to do for their own selfish reasons. This does not preclude doing nice things for people if you want to. Nor does it mean that you don't have an obligation to do right by people with whom you choose to develop a relationship, but if you really like them you shouldn't find it too much of a chore to find ways for you both to be happy, rather than using self-sacrifice. For all those who think that it is good to do things you hate because someone else tells you to I have a question: if everyone does self-sacrifice and is miserable as a result, how does this make for a better society?
|
