Product Description

Customer Reviews (14)

Ayn Rand walks into a gallery, the abstract horse says, "...
...Who is she... some sort of joke?"

2 amateurs attempt to re-write art history to honor their chosen savior.
This grand embarrassment of a book is not humanist in the least. It closes off opportunities and possibilities, attempts to squelch the unstoppable creativity of art in the last 75 years, and proposes a recipe limiting that which by nature is unlimited. Its claims against art are as delusional and grandiose as the illusion of expertise by its authors.
The tremendous lack of understanding and misreading of modern and contemporary art it pukes forth is as laughable as its complete ignorance about postmodernism.
Read it for a laugh if you have time to waste, but in the end you'll know the verdict on this bile loud and clear.
"Nay." (plop, plop. plop.)

Ayn or Mine?
That Russian-born novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-82) had some profound insights into esthetics I do not doubt, based on my evaluation of her other writings and especially the depths of her published insights into current "artistic" practices -- which have only become more pronounced since her death. That Mr. Torres and Ms. Kamhi would be highly qualified to comment on Ms. Rand's esthetic ideas I also have little reason to doubt, primarily based on their (sporadic and all-too-infrequent) publication of the art journal Aristos. But I found `What Are Is' -- nominally Torres' and Kamhi's magnum opus on Rand's definition of art and philosophy of esthetics -- curiously wanting in several areas and read more like a series of (albeit interesting) articles rather than a comprehensive work. Given Ms. Rand's rigidly integrated view of this subject matter I found this disorganization curious and ironic.

Not that the authors don't score some serious points, if nothing else for tackling Rand's still-highly-relevant definition of art, not to mention how the willful ignorance of definitions and concepts have turned the current artworld (the authors gleefully use this fabricated compound word) into a chamber of absurd horrors. The first third of this book plunges headlong into Rand's published works and statements on esthetics, covering concepts familiar to readers of her philosophy including psycho-epistemology, sense of life, and art and cognition. Herein lies the meat of the book: the authors clearly show both Rand's strongest strengths (e.g., the role of concepts and values in esthetic appreciation, why photography can't be defined as art) and weaknesses (e.g., the inclusion of architecture as art against her own definition) on the subject and -- unlike many of Rand's followers -- pull no punches when they find her self-contradictory, flippant, or even needlessly extreme. Reasoned, calm and objective critiques of Rand -- on any subject -- are painfully infrequent and Torres and Kamhi deserve high praise for giving her ideas the critical respect and attention they deserve.

When they turn to applying Rand's ideas and their own critiques to the current state of the arts, however, the authors lose their momentum. The clarity evident when discussing Rand's ideas flags noticeably throughout the balance of the book (vaguely titled "Extension and Application of Rand's Theory") when they turn their attention to the modern artworld in all its absurdities: from the roots of abstract "art" in the early 20th century to the current pastiche of "art is what any artist says it is." While their attack here should be painfully easy, the authors are handicapped by indecision--applying Rand's ideas where applicable but also throwing in their own (often unsupported) notions as well. I was often left wondering whose voice was taking a stand; this ambiguity was doubly frustrating when the authors propose a brilliant concept of their own (e.g., dubbing the aforementioned art definition by fiat the "authoritarian theory of art"). Simply put, I couldn't tell if they were "extending" Rand's ideas or "applying" them. I would assume both, but too often they came across with neither.

Nevertheless, `What Art Is' provides a strong riposte to the current comical state of the fine arts. The search for clear, consistent definitions is more than welcome and the authors go to no small trouble to show how Rand's theories provide an excellent guide. If they had had the gumption to form their *own* ideas based on the solid foundation Rand built -- rather than selectively and confusingly applying the two - their work would have been a more reliable guide.

This book should be called "What Art ISN'T"
I never agreed with the theory of Ayn Rand to begin with-- I thought she was just a mean, selfish, self-centered person to begin with. This book just proves my point even further. The book seems to focus more on what Rand believes is NOT art than what art actually IS. I find the writing style to be quite boring and drawn out, as well. I'm not any established art scholar (as I'm sure Torres and Kamhi are), but this book is just downright boring and offensive to those in the world (including myself) who consider themselves to be artists in fields that Rand doesn't consider to be art.

WOW!
My response to this work is captured in the title of my review. Torres and Khamy have achieved a level of scholarship in What Art Is that no other writer on the aesthetic theory of Rand has accomplished in the twenty years since the author's death. I would rank it along with Sciabarra's monumental Ayn Rand the Russian Radical. It's enormous accomplishment will keep Rand studies alive and bring her fame. Like Oscar Wilde she set out on her literary career either to be a writer or to become notorious. Notorious is mostly what she has become. Despite anyone's personal views on Rand's aesthetic theory whether completely sound or not, these authors have demonstrated that what they are going to be known for is EXCELLENT scholarship. This book has enough reference and bibliographical material to baffle any academic, and their grasp of the areas that are relevent to Rand scholarship is enormous! I recommend this book to anyone who wants to know what the work of a genuine scholar is. Jacques Barzun got it right, if these authors are students of his, they deserve the highest marks.

Surprisingly good, despite some flaws
I did not expect to like this book. Rand's esthetics are the part of her philosophy I find most deplorable.And although Torres and Kamhi are not slavish admirers of Rand who follow her every word, I can't say I cared much for their dreary essentialism.Rand was part of the Aristotlean tradition in philosophy.Her philosophy is more telogically centered than the naturalism of the pre-Socratics or modern science.It also embraces a form of "methdological essentialism," as the philosopher Karl Popper dubbed it, which I find hard to take, especially in strong doses.Methodological essentialists stress the importance of "What is" questions and the definitions of words.Torres and Kamhi, like Rand herself, are uncompromising definition mongers and "what is" analyzers. But I don't think esthetic questions can be solved by answering such questions as "What is art?" or "What is literature?" or by claiming that the bad, non-representational art of modernism and post-modernism is not really art at all, but a kind of fraudulent non-art pretending to be art.Torres and Kamhi stress the importance of defining art, but I have little use for this mode of analysis.Emphasis on definitions simply leads to hopeless arguments about words.I would much rather know why some works of art are successful and some not than know how art should be defined.Art is far too complicated to be summed up in essence of some definition.What I want to know is how does this or that piece of art function aesthetically, and if it functions well or poorly, than why?Science and naturalism emphasize "why" and "how" questions.This is what I would have liked to see from Torres and Kamhi.But being from the Socratic/Aristotlean tradition in philosophy, they have a different methodological point of view on this matter, one I find hopelessly inferior to the methodological nominalism of the sciences.

Nevertheless, despite these criticisms, I urge all those who are interested in art to read the book, regardless of what they think of Rand.The book is written on a much higher level than most pro-Rand books that are published nowadays.Torres and Kamhi, unlike Rand's orthodox disciples, at least are sound scholars with an appreciation for empirical evidence and close logical analysis.They are fair to opposing viewpoints (unlike Rand herself, who treated opponents as if they were sub-human), and they provide an excellent overview of the excesses of modern and post-modern art.Merely as a phillipic against bad art (or, as the authors would insist, "non-art"), I would give this book a five star rating.But because of the methodological essentialism, I have to drop it down to four.The emphasis on definitions really can get annoying. ... Read more

Product Description
The Fountainhead, which became one of the most influential and widely read philosophical novels of the twentieth century, made Ayn Rand famous. An impassioned proponent of rational self-interest, individualism, and laissez-faire capitalism, she expressed her unique views in numerous works of fiction and non-fiction that have been brought together for the first time in this one-of-a-kind volume.Containing excerpts from all her novels--including Atlas Shrugged, Anthem, and We The Living--The Ayn Rand Reader is a perfect introduction for those who have never read Rand, and provides teachers with an excellent guide to the basics of her viewpoint. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (10)

Reading Ayn Rand
I am an objective Ayn Rand reader. All her books inspire thought. Even when my newly acquired 'English' was so meager I still enjoyed Fountainhead (my first encounter with her works). She has remarkable insights to the workings of society however her emotional side lacked substance. Still, 70% of her teachings are completely valuable and can only enrich your existence. Her teachings are in the form of story telling which keeps you interested in her philosophies. Give her a try with her Ayn Rand reader, you will be impressed.

This book should be read by ALL.
A truly great condensation of Ayn Rand's work. It should be read by EVERY AMERICAN. Then go on to read other Rand books. The best way to understand what is going on with our government, most of which makes no rational sense.

Wanted to read more
I agree that some of Ayn Rand books are lengthy and it's overwhelming to think about reading 1000 pages.However, I found that in reading the fewchapters of the selected books that I wanted to read more of each individual book.Reading only a few chapters of several books wasn't satisfying.It's better to buy the whole book from the start.

Must Read clarifies Barry Obama,s strategy
The rebirth of our economy is JOB ONE and the principles enumerated in this compilation is food for the RIGHT and a good recipe for Barry

Excellent Synopsis of the Wisdom of Ayn Rand.
Pseudo-sophisticated philosophers beware!"Edited by Gary Hull and Leonard Peikoff, here is a rare and illuminating glimpse into the legendary writer's (Rand's) evolution as an artist and philosopher."With that bold statement from the back cover of the text dangling as a morsel of hubris so as to hook the buyer; The Ayn Rand Reader certainly does make good on the promise.

Whether you are seasoned reader or a neophyte into Rand's writings this text delivers the main points of her Objectivist Philosophy in a survey style covering her observations, feelings, and convcitions regarding Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, and Esthetics.Ayn Rand was an impassioned proponent of reason, individualism, and laissez-faire capitalism; as such she deserves to be called the greatest philosopher of the Twentieth Century and arguably of all time.

Persons genuinely interested in Rand or simply curious about her doctrines will not be disappointed with this text.I rate it at five stars with no reservation.



... Read more

Customer Reviews (4)

A sadly mistitled book
For a better title, how about "Garbage Day: My Years of Self-Delusion and Rationalization"? That does better justice to its contents. A pathetic, trashy, bitchy book that epitomizes the predicament of the "unreliable narrator." Even Branden admits its unreliability: that's why he had to re-write it with a new, embarrassingly non-confrontational title. The hope, apparently, was to correct the more transparent errors in the first edition, and desperately to pretend that "judgment" was no longer at issue. But, alas, it is. It's hard to read this book with one's critical faculties "on" and not see that Nathaniel's critical faculties are "off" and have been since the 1960s. Best bet for the book: put it in the trash can, and leave it at the curb in the hopes that they'll haul it away. (Don't bother recycling it. The author has already done that.)

Not a Gentleman
While I knew of the "affair"(s) and figured it was their own business, obviously AR and NB (and BB) decided otherwise, and let the world in on it.As far As NB's book goes, I decidely disliked the way in which he described and disparaged Barbara Branden, which, even if true, was no excuse for what he did.If Barbara did not find Nathan sexually attractive (understandably), it does not indicate a lack of character on her part.She found him intellectually appealing and unfortunately for her, went along with AR's and NB's b-s that he should represent her deepest values and therefore she should find him sexually irresistable.As for Nathan, if he can claim that about BB, then what does that say about him when he threw over AR for Patrecia?He knows better and he needs to be just a 'little' more honest about the taglines he throws about. And as for the references to the "Crosby's" helping them start the taped series of the lectures, the Crosby's also made it possible for him to re-establish himself in Los Angeles; if it had not been for them, and their support of him in a very difficult time (AR had banished him), he would not have found it so easy to begin another career.As the Los Angeles reps for NBI (Nathanel Branden Institute --- running lectures on tapes in the Los Angeles area), the Crosby's had a high visability in the Objectivist circle in L.A., and by refusing to cast stones at either AR or NB, allowed Nathan the freedom to address the students in the L.A. area and to provide them with his own version of what took place, without interference from AR or any of the New York group.The whole thing was pathetic --- and still is.Of the three of them, I believe Barbara Branden is the only one who came out of it with any semblance of dignity.As for AR, I will always be grateful to her for helping me find my way as a young woman (18 when I read The Fountainhead and had my breath taken away by the logic of everything --- 20 when I read Atlas and knew I could handle my life in the world).I always though Nathan was vain and full of himself --- and this book really showed it.

Finally, someone with guts
I loved this book. I have always seen Rand as an unbearable narcissist and here is someone finally willing to see through the garbage and call it like it is. Very readable, thought provoking and an interesting peice of history. Ayn Rand cult followers will hate it.

Stinks!
So thoroughly refuted by scholars like James Valliant, it should be listed among works of fiction. Poorly written fiction, but still fiction. Even the author had to do this over, but it got no better. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (7)

Excellent book
If you understand how words are defined, this book is excellent.If you don't, you'll be lost.

the hobo philosopher
I read this book as a young man. I've since reviewed it. As a young man I was also reading Bertrand Russell, J.S. Mill, Albert Einstein, Eric Fromm, and Sigmund Freud. Ayn Rand is a modestly entertaining novelist. Her attempts at philosophy are that of an emotional novelist. Her partner Brandon is equally poor. Their explanation of their philosophy in their Objectivist tome is a joke. To find a specific non self-contradicting principle anywhere in that mess is an impossibility. The definition of "capitalism" for example is so vague, idealistic and lacking in specificity it is useless. To call it a book of philosophy or a dictionary of philosophic terms is ridiculous.

Pursuing one's self interest was not the philosophy of Adam Smith nor would he have recognized selfishness as a virtue. Ayn Rand is an elitist and she preaches a Republican style egoism. Much to the chagrin of her followers her "philosophy" is often compared to Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf. She is basically Adolf without the Jews, they say. Well, I wouldn't go quite that far but many legitimate comparisons can be made.

Ayn Rand, I interpret to be a political propagandist for the extreme right. She was interested in philosophy and included the ideas of some philosophers in her fiction - but she was not a philosopher in my view.

I have read certain of Nietzsche's works and summaries of his ideas. I find that there are obvious similarities in style, temperament, presentation and overall superiorist attitudes between him and Rand. Nietzsche had his superman and Rand had her super-capitalist. Both writers are belligerent and hateful of organized religion and the common man. Rand refers to religious thinkers as "witch doctors." Nietzsche eventually went mad and was institutionalized. I think he was mad long before he was actually declared mad and locked away. Rand was never declared officially mad and was not institutionalized. She was clearly suffering from delusions of grandeur and was not able to distinguish between success and intelligence. There is often very little connection between the two.

I have read Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf. His belief and confidence in the superiority and righteousness of the individual and the capitalist rings through Rand's written works. He has his Arians and Krupps; once again, she has her glorified wealthy capitalists and entrepreneurs. Adolf's flamboyant braggadocio with regards to the superior few and their right to rule is also a theme running constantly through the rantings of Rand. And
the same disrespect for the "common herd" and the principles of democracy are prevalent in Rand and Mein Kampf.

Her family's wealth was wiped out by the Russian Revolution. It is quite obvious that this event affected her psychological development. She actively joined on the bandwagon of the disgruntled exiles and pursued an anti-Russia philosophy. She found much support among Russia haters and the rabid ranks of the Cold Warriors. Although I sympathize with her position, I must take her political writing and opinions with a grain of salt and a lot of dubiousness.

She wrote political and economic fantasies that appealed to the selfish and the egotistical. Her goal was clearly to make the better-off feel comfortable with their wealth and their prejudices. She was another of the many champions of the comfortable and powerful who ran off gallantly to defend the rights and privileges of the rich and famous. There has never been a shortage in this group of comfortable "revolutionaries." Her biggest mistake was the same made by the communist in her mother Russia - she attacked God and religion. This was the most daring of her positions.


Books written by Richard Noble:
"Hobo-ing America: A Workingman's Tour of the U.S.A.."
"A Summer with Charlie"
"A Little Something: Poetry and Prose"
"Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother"
"Noble Notes on Famous Folks"

Sense of self.
Paragraphs packed with cogent analysis and potent prescriptions, it's tough to write something that encapsulates it all. Ayn Rand summarizes her views better than I ever could in "The Objectivist Ethics." If you only read one of the essays in "The Virtue of Selfishness," make it that one. The piece expands upon ideas found in "Atlas Shrugged."
Whether you accept Rand's strict rationalist philosophy or not, your worldview will never be the same after reading her. At the beginning of "The Objectivist Ethics," I reckoned she was cribbing John Stuart Mill's "Utilitarianism" without giving the great Englishman credit. But, almost on cue, Rand criticizes Mill and other utilitarians, holding herself apart from them -- "The philosophers who attempted to devise an allegedly rational code of ethics gave mankind nothing but a choice of whims...'selfless' service to the whims of others (such as the ethics of Bentham, Mill, Comte, and of all social hedonists...)."
Rand further rounds on the rationalists, whose father was Aristotle, saying they were no different from the "irrationalists" (the religious), simply substituting "society" for "G-d." This set the stage for statist tyranny of the majority that is everywhere around us today.
A staunch advocate of capitalism because its rationality best accords with man's nature, Rand writes that government and the economy should be separate for the same reasons church and state are separate. Good one! Never heard it put in quite those terms before.
Rand adds that capitalism (which she calls the system of the future) has never been tried before, not even in America, always hamstrung by some government interference. This may give us a clue as to why government has so easily discredited the market while elected leaders swear up and down that they believe in "freedom."
Altruism is Rand's great foe and mankind's great foe (according to Rand). It's ironic that Rand's theory about the destructiveness of self-sacrifice may be proved by one of the most dramatic incidents in the Bible -- Abraham's near-sacrifice of his son Isaac. Rand rejected religion and other "supernaturalism" yet isn't G-d telling mankind by telling Abraham, in essence, that "even though you (Abraham) thought I wanted you to sacrifice yourself (your loving nature, all your hopes for the future as represented by Isaac) and other people (Isaac himself) that's not what I want or require."? And did Christianity come along and reverse this via the dramatic execution of Jesus amid his supposed ethos of dying for the sins of others?
Rand is careful to section off her "selfishness" from mere license. Clearly, personal responsibility is mandated by Rand.
Our author holds that life should be lived for its own sake (Rand's Jewishness pops out again in that this concept sounds a lot like "Torah Lishma," learning Torah -- the Hebrew religious canon -- for its own sake, simply to be imbued with its wisdom (this concept was expertly expounded by Rabbi Chaim Volozhiner and his disciples).
But does Rand's philosophy take proper account of man's spiritual nature and desire for community? In other words, do humans need a little "irrationality" in their lives?
F.A. Hayek, whose teachings converged with Rand's on several matters including the superiority of market economics over socialism, held that the strict rationalist tends to become a barbarian. Do most people need the fear of sin to keep from becoming degenerates?
Every man's way is right in his own eyes, King Solomon wrote in "Proverbs." Perhaps Rand's rationalism should be used exclusively in law, government, and the economy (yeah, but just try keeping them separate). Yet Rabbi Mayer (Craig) Schiller blames the current low state of American/European culture on the fact that the G-d-centeredness of all things including law and government has been stripped away and/or forgotten. So is Rand right or is Schiller? Like many arguments between Jews, the dispute will likely go on until the end of time.
Since I'm reviewing Rand's book, I'll let her have the last word. It is a somewhat hopeful statement for those who despair at what appears to be humanity's intractable corruption --
"It is not men's immorality that is responsible for the collapse now threatening to destroy the civilized world, but the kind of moralities men have been asked to practice. The responsibility belongs to the philosophers of altruism...It is philosophy that sets men's goals and determines their course; it is only philosophy that can save them now."

The Virtue of Selfishness
This book is on the cutting edge of thought and therefore will not be appropriate reading for the majority.The other review on this book by the "oakshaman" indicates that he really had no concept of what this book is about. The fact that he gave a Harry Potter book 5 stars and this book 1 shows me that he would better relate to a fantasy world. Unfortunatly, we live in a society where the government pretends to be an altruistic "democracy" but in reality is becoming more of a dynasty where the appointed officials and elite gain most of the money and power. " An irrational society is a society of moral cowards - of men paralyzed by the loss of moral standards, principles, and goals " p.75 In a world where evil seems to have the upper hand, it is time that people make better choices by their own accord and not just go along with the masses. It is easy to not want to take responsibilty for you actions when you can say " it wasn't my idea" or I'm just doing what everybody else is doing. This book is about being true to yourself, making better choices, and talking responsibility for your choices.

A fantastic collection of essays about the human condition
This book is awesome - but I don't recommend it as the first of Ayn Rand's work for one to read. I suggest starting with "The Fountain Head" and then "Atlas Shrugged". After reading those two, if you want some practical / real life applications and views on the philosophy elucidated in those two novels, pick this book up. It is a great collection of essays and speaches written by Rand and others. A fast read, great for short trips on the subway or bus. ... Read more

Product Description
Author of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand (1905-1982) is one of the most widely read philosophers of the twentieth century. Yet, despite the sale of nearly thirty million copies of her works, there have been few extended scholarly examinations of her thought. Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical provides the first comprehensive analysis of the intellectual roots and philosophy of this controversial thinker.Chris Sciabarra views Rand's 'Objectivism' as a rejection--and affirmation--of key elements in the Russian tradition. Born in Russia during the Silver Age, Rand was educated at Leningrad University and studied with N. O. Lossky. She absorbed a dialectical method of inquiry that profoundly influenced her literary and philosophic project. Her distinctive libertarian synthesis is presented as a major contribution to radical social theory. Ultimately, Sciabarra challenges Rand's followers and critics to reassess her thought and its place in intellectual history.In writing this book, the author conducted original historical research, using materials from the Leningrad archives, interviews with Lossky's descendants and other Russian contemporaries of Rand, and an astounding diversity of sources within the vast written and oral tradition of Objectivism. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (19)

A much needed book
It is refreshing to see at last a critical review of the philosophical thought of Ayn Rand, since her philosophy is sometimes described as "naive", and, perhaps just as troubling, as the greatest philosophy ever to appear in print. The author of this book has given the reader an honest and in-depth analysis of one of the most controversial figures in twentieth-century philosophical thought. Rand was not an academic philosopher, and this, coupled with her frequent vitriolic attacks against many philosophical schools of thought, induced many to speak out against her, and they typically did so with a degree of vituperation unmatched as yet in public debate. Fortunately the shouting and name-calling typically accompanying discussion of Randian philosophy is not included in this book. Also not included is any blind, uncritical allegiance to Randian philosophy, for this can also accompany discussions of it. Rand has made some interesting contributions to philosophical thought, and her theory of ethics is I believe unequaled, and one can find a very thorough discussion of just how she arrived at this theory throughout this book. However Rand, like every other philosopher, cannot remove herself from history and cultural influences, and view the world from a detached, apodictic point of view, for that is the nature of human learning. One builds on what has been done before, and with careful thought and unique insight, some original ideas can then be developed, which will hopefully extend what has been done before, and nontrivially. The author of this book clearly shows the historical origins of Randian thought, those origins have their place in the Russian university that Rand attended.

The author sees the problem for Randian scholarship as predominantly arising from her public persona, and thus scholars need to differentiate Rand's personality from her philosophy. Her intransigence, intolerance, and general mean-spiritedness must be ignored if one is not to collapse into psychologism, argues the author. Scholars must also he argues, attempt to find out what actually defines her philosophy and makes it distinctive. This has been a source of contention in recent years, with different "schools of thought" established, each claiming to represent exclusively her philosophy.

Another virtue of this book is the author's insistence on using a hermeneutical approach when analyzing Randian philosophy.The information content of an idea, he argues, includes myriads of unforeseeable non-trivial statements, this being similar to what happens in mathematics. It is well known to those who practice mathematics that a large number of problems and concepts can be generated from a particular area of it. These problems can go way beyond the intent of the mathematicians who created this particular area. Many advocates of Randian philosophy, as the author points out, like to think of her philosophy as a "closed system". Without actually defining it, one can only make educated guesses as to what this really means. If it means a deductive system where each statement can be derived from others within the system, and no further development is necessary, then this is problematic. The example of mathematics again shows that a deductive system can be extended greatly depending on the ingenuity of the researcher.

Rand herself was a poor scholar, only infrequently quoting works of philosophy that she deemed worthy of inclusion. Considering her confidence in the originality of her ideas this is not surprising. However every claim about another scholar's ideas should be given textual support. Indeed, Rand's criticism of Immanuel Kant is unrelenting, but her analysis of his philosophy lacks the depth needed to judge his philosophy from her vantage point. Luckily the author assists the reader in the understanding of just why Rand objected to Kant so vociferously.

Hopefully this book will be the first in many that will put Rand in the historical context of twentieth century philosophy. Rand is a fairly good example of what can be produced outside the academy if one has the cognitive discipline and the large amounts of time needed to develop systematic philosophical systems. The information age has brought publishing strategies that Rand did not have when she was alive. The doors are thus open for most anyone to express their ideas and have them accessible to a world-wide audience. Critical works of philosophy can thus be produced both inside and outside the academy.

A useful and serious interpretation
I found this book a very pleasant surprise, a serious and largely successful attempt to separate the philosophical system of Ayn Rand from her personality and from the cultishness often accurately attributed to many of her proponents.Sciabarra finds some depth to Objectivism as a serious defense of "libertarian" ideals, worthy of more consideration than has typically been afforded the popular novellist and political theorist.

Sciabarra has to work hard to accomplish this task, and in the process resorts self-consciously to describing Rand's work in terms very different than she or most of her proponents would use.The author clearly recognizes that this will quite predictably alienate Rand fans.The book isn't neccessarily written, or most useful, for them.

By opening up the terminology a bit, and finding reasonably hypothesized general influences on Rand's life and thought, Sciabarra is able to reveal aspects of Objectivist reasoning and assumptions that those more familiar with other philosophers can now appreciate.This is not a small matter, because the ideas are potentially very profound.

With Sciabarra's efforts, Objectivist ideas may begin to be placed more realistically in an intellectual and historical context, rather than being treated as an isolated phenomenon that began and ended with Ayn Rand.Her work can be appreciated for its good ideas, as well as criticized for its potential mistakes.

This book is most fascinating for its unique and accessible description of the currents of often difficult Russian philosophy, its exposition of dialectic method, and its potential to translate Rand's own idiom into a form that can be compared with other philosophers in a clarifying way.It is also, as far as I can tell, quite true to what I have always felt was the "spirit" of Objectivist thinking, the passionate and broadly inclusive defense of the individual mind.

At the same time, Sciabarra almost manages the extraordinarily difficult task of separating out Objectivism from the foundationalist tendency it instills in its most passionate adherents to certify itself as infallibly true.Without that aura of insufferably dogmatic adherence, the ideas take on a new life.

One of the things that has traditionally left Rand scholarship out in the cold has been its isolationism from academic philosophy, an attitude that seems to be mutual.Sciabarra makes a serious effort to bring Rand scholarship into academic respectability, and to me he does a very credible job.

This book has three sections dealing with (1) historical context in Russian and European philosophy showing what aspects of her Russian heritage she absorbed and what she vehemently rejected and giving some possible insight into why, (2) the structure and content of Objectivism in terms of realism, individualism, and libertarianism combined with a radical dialectical method, and (3) Rand's approach to social criticism, Rand as a "Russian radical for capitalism."

I think it could easily be argued by both Rand critics and Rand proponents that this book is reading far more into Objectivism than it actually contains, but to me that is what made it so interesting.It deals with the implications of the ideas themselves rather than the individuals involved and their own personal interpretations, and that is what makes for lasting philosophical significance.

I'd characterize this book as a thorough non-critical analysis by someone not specifically part of Objectivist thinking but interested in its potential value.It serves as a very good translation guide to understanding Rand's ideas and their implications, but in many places it does not examine them quite as critically as I personally would have preferred.

This book is Meta-Rand. It is applied Objectivism.
First let me say that this book is a difficult read. Having said that, it is a must read for any serious student of Ayn Rand's "project."

Chris Sciabarra makes a strong case for the dialectical nature of Rand's philosophy. He looks at how her work might have been informed by her Russian roots and the early experiences of her life and how she developed a philosophy that attempted to integrate all aspects of Objective Reality. Objective Reality as Rand saw it is not inherently fragmented. A philosophy based on Objective Reality would of necessity integrate all aspects into a cohesive whole.

Apparently, some who regard Rand as a mystical goddess, take offense at the sharp focus that Sciabarra puts on her work. This seems odd, given that this book demonstrates a profound respect for her intellectual accomplishments.

Rand often said in her own writing that each person had a right to act in his own rational self-interest, and with that right came a moral obligation to actively seek the truth (Objective Reality) as a prerequisite of rational choice. In essense, Sciabarra has used Rand's most fundamental principles to attempt an objective analysis of her analysis. This makes his effort a moral one. Yet to some he has committed the original sin by eating from the tree of knowledge and must be cast out of the Garden of Eden for it.

My only criticism was that this book does not critique her failures or attempt to explain her tyranny toward those closest to her. But that subject has been covered in other books by those who knew her personally and is well beyond the scope of this book.

Sciabarra's thoroughly researched RUSSIAN RADICAL will remain an important contribution to Rand scholarship for many years to come.

Major Virtue Overlooked
In my opinion, the other reviewers have neglected to mention the chief virtue of this work: its recontextualization of Rand's thought. I use this word, "recontextualization," not as a synonym for any of the species of vicious post-structuralist truth-twisting, but in its literal sense. Sciabarra shows that Rand should not be understood - historically, at least - as the woman who came to fix the systems of Locke and Bacon, the woman who came to answer Hume and Kant. Instead, she should be understood as a thinker at the intersection of two traditions: Russian literary-philosophy as practiced in the 'kruzhoks' of the late 19th Century, and American (emigre) libertarian thought of the early 20th Century. The method and content of Rand's philosophical work has much more in common with Tolstoy and Chernychevskij, Nock and Paterson, than it does with the various Greek and enlightenment thinkers who she so admired. I recommend this book to anyone interested in cultural history, Russian Studies, or the formal features of Rand's own system of philosophical analysis.

"Along Came a Spider..."'
"Little Ms. Rand

Took a bold stand,

By defining her morals andways..."

For decades, philosophers have tried to dismiss thephilosophy of Ayn Rand as being superficial and unworthy of attention. Andfor decades, philosophy professors have been continually consternated bystudents who insist that Rand's philosophy of Objectivism is unique andmeaningful. Try as they might, "professional" philosophers justcannot convince the "common man philosopher" that Ayn Rand shouldbe excluded from the pantheon of "serious" philosophers...

"But along came a spider..., (Oops, I meant Sciabarra!)

Who satdown beside her...

To trick her young fledglings away!"

Thespider said, "Since we cannot extinguish Ms. Rand as a philosopher whostands OUT from the crowd, we will embrace and smother her as a philosopherwho cannot be distinguished FROM the crowd."

And thusSciabarra's book was born.

On the bad side, Sciabarra's book takesseveral hundred pages to "prove" nothing. This is several hundredpages of TEDIOUS details, side-issues, tangents, and irrelevancies...

On the good side, he uncovers some specific details about her life inRussia before she came to the United States. But these details are merelysmall curiosities, and do nothing to diminish the originality and value ofher work.

Bottom line: this ponderous tome can be mind-numbing inits pretentious (and vain) complexity, but it does not succeed indiminishing the stature of Rand's works, except for those who disliked heralready. If you have digested Objectivist philosophy for a few years, youmight read this book to sharpen your critical reading "teeth."But unless you're a devoted "hater" of Rand, or a seriousObjectivist with the time and money to wade through gratuitous andpretentious philosophical "muck," you shouldn't waste your moneyon "Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical." If your reading comprehensionskills (and your emotional discipline) are above average, then by allmeans, take the time to sit down in a bookstore and spend a couple hoursskimming through it.

But that's all it's worth. A good skim. Nothingmore. ... Read more

Product Description
An essential guide to the life and works of Ayn Rand, the book chronicles and summarizes her writings, presents information about her national and global impact--and the response to it--and provides the most comprehensive bibliography published to date. Written by an independent scholar who is not part of either the Ayn Rand establishment or the Ayn Rand detractor camp, The New Ayn Rand Companion builds on the foundation of the original. New materials about Rand's poshumous publications, the latest biographical information, and summaries of books and articles about Rand, published since her death, have been added. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

SCHOLARLY?I THINK NOT
Scholarly?I think not.I looked up a reference to myself on page 19: and this alleged "scholar" did not trouble to ask herself how a French-Canadian politician born in the 1930s, Maurice Champagne-Gilbert, could have authored a French children's adventure story first published in 1914 ("La vallee mysterieuse," which I translated).(In fact the story was written by Maurice Champagne, 1868-1951.) If she makes a careless mistake like that (which could have been avoided by simply reading the front cover, or opening the book and glancing at the front matter), what other mistakes has she made?

That she relied on the "assistance" of either Nathaniel or Barbara Branden hardly inspires confidence.The Brandens are about as objective about Ayn Rand as Hitler was about the Jews; though fortunately their unscholarly pseudo-histories have been fully exposed in James Valiant's "The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics."

There may be some value in compiling a list of absolutely everything that's been written about an author.But I doubt it ... especially in this case, given that most of Ayn Rand's critics either have an ax to grind, or don't think there's an objective reality.

A "must" for all serious Ayn Rand fans and scholars.
Now in a completely revised, updated, and expanded edition, Mimi Gladstein's The New Ayn Rand Companion continues to be a critically important, essential guide to the life and works of author/philosopher AynRand. Gladstein chronicles and summarizes Rand's writings, presentsinformation about her national and global impact (and the response to it)and provides the most comprehensive bibliography published to date.Gladstein is neither an Ayn Rand enthusiast or detractor and thereforetakes a scrupulous, scholarly, methodical, and emotionally neutral approachto her meticulous research as she covers the complete Rand corpus. Newmaterials about Rand's posthumous publications, the latest biographicalinformation, and summaries of books and articles about Rand published sinceher death have been added to make The New Ayn Rand Companion a"must" for all serious students of her writings.

The Definitive Guide to Things Randian and Objectivist
The first edition of this book was published within a couple years of Rand's death, so there is much updating to be done (although that earlier edition did benefit from a preview of Barbara Branden's biography of Rand,then still in progress). In addition to The Passion of Ayn Rand, many ofRand's private journals and letters have now been published, and a numberof important secondary sources as well, such as Chris Matthew Sciabarra'sfull-throttle philosophical and historical study Ayn Rand: The RussianRadical. Almost every work of significance pertaining to Rand is describedor at least mentioned, making this volume a reference of first resort forRand studies.

What's covered here? Let Gladstein answer: "Theorganization of this Companion follows a logical heuristic: Who? What? andSo what? 'Who is Ayn Rand?' is the question answered partly by the briefbiographical chapter. The main body of this book, however, responds to thequestion, 'What has she written?' That is covered in the chapters on herfiction, her nonfiction, and in the compendium of characters. 'So what?' isthe question that calls for critical reaction and that is provided in thechapter on criticism."

The author also provides a comprehensivebibliography of works by and about Rand. Even such obscure pieces as DavidM. Brown's hitherto unheralded survey of "The Critics of BarbaraBranden" (published in the May 1988 issue of Liberty magazine) areincluded.

Gladstein has much that is both positive and on-point to sayabout Rand's character, her fiction, her nonfiction, and the variouscritical assessments of her work. She doesn't shy away from negativejudgments when such are appropriate, either.

On Rand Herself:"Regardless of what pressures were brought to bear, regardless of howmany of those in power told her that she must change her style, regardlessof what obstacles she found to 'doing it her way,' Rand remained true toher purposes in writing." "Intellectually, she could best anyonein argument.... Bennett Cerf concurred, 'You can't argue with Ayn Rand.She's so clever at it, she makes a fool out of you.' " Rand's personalshortcomings are mentioned, as well as the troubling circumstances thatsurrounded the Objectivist Crackup in 1968; but Gladstein does not dwell onsuch matters. Of course the works cited, the most important of which is ThePassion of Ayn Rand, tell the whole story of Ayn Rand's often triumphant,sometimes tragic life.

On Rand's Fiction: "Rand's major literaryworks follow similar plot patterns. In each, an exceptionally able andindividualistic protagonist battles the forces of collectivism andmediocrity that are threatening or have destroyed the nation or theworld." "Rand's heroes are tall, straight and strong. As withtheir feminine counterparts, defiance is a keystone to theircharacters." "The major theme of Rand's fiction is the primacy ofthe individual. The unique and precious individual human life is thestandard by which good is judged." Mention is also made of suchleitmotifs as "recurring whip imagery" and "romanticizedrapes" that are "symbolic of the head-on clash of two strongpersonalities." (Gladstein is quick to add that readers of"raised consciousness about the nature of rape might find thissymbolism unpalatable," but neglects to state clearly that thevigorous sexual encounters in Rand's fiction cannot be taken as actualrape-not if the text itself is to be admitted in evidence.) Gladstein'ssummaries of Rand's stories are uniformly excellent.

On Rand'sNonfiction: "Montaigne, author of the book Essais which created thegenre of the essay, defined the essay as 'an attempt,' a brief discussionas opposed to a thesis or dissertation. [The essays of The Virtue ofSelfishness] are just that-compressed discussions, forays into theirsubjects. As such, they are appealing to interested nonacademic ornonspecialist readers as well as to the more serious student ofObjectivism." "Rand says capitalism is the only moralpolitico-economic system in history, a system that has been a great boon tohumankind [TDO thinks Gladstein means "mankind" here].... Herpurpose [in Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal] is to clearly identify thebenefits of capitalism while also exposing the nature of its arch enemy,altruism." "One of Rand's greatest gifts is her ability to cut tothe heart of a contemporary event or issue and analyze its philosophicalimplications." "The specific referencts of [The ObjectivistNewsletter] were events of the early sixties. What makes themintellectually satisfying today is that the basic premises Rand uses tocriticize government, education, or literature apply now as they didthen."

The chapter on "Criticism of Rand's Works"includes a summary of every work about Rand that has been published, andmentions a great many of the critical articles. As you can imagine, thecriticism is a very mixed bag, as assessments of Rand run the gamut in toneand objectivity. To her great credit, Gladstein's sensibility incriticizing the criticism is almost infallible. Any palpable blunders inThe New Ayn Rand Companion? One or two.In the introduction the authorstates that Rand "presented herself as representative of her fictionalideal: rational, objective, uncompromising, unswerving. Her followers canfind no imperfections. This tends to create a situation in which all whoare not fully in accord with Rand are seen as part of the opposition."The gist of the observation is correct, but some qualification should havebeen made. Elsewhere in the book Gladstein herself documents the growth ofmore tolerant wings of the Objectivist movement, including the birth of TheInstitute for Objectivist Studies (now The Objectivist Center) and thepublication of David Kelley's Truth and Toleration. (Alas, the Companionwent to press just around the time The Daily Objectivist was being founded,so TDO's rapid ascendancy as the premier arbiter of non-orthodoxObjectivist thought, displacing Kelley's organization, is not mentioned atall. Hopefully this omission will be rectified in the thirdedition.)

Another little glitch we could mention appears in thedescription of Hank Rearden. "Although [Rearden's] feelings forFrancisco d'Anconia are strained by Francisco's superficial public image,their friendship grows until Rearden finds out that Francisco had beenDagny's lover." But in fact the great breach in the friendship occursearlier in the novel, when Rearden realizes that Francisco had had themeans to prevent a disaster from befalling Rearden Steel but chose not toprevent it. The discovery of Francisco and Dagny's past romance onlyincreases but does not inaugurate the tension between the two men when theyfinally next encounter each other in Dagny's apartment. Anyone who has readAtlas Shrugged a million times cover to cover would be familiar with thissequence of events.

However, these points are trivia. Ninety nine pointnine nine percent of the time Gladstein is completely accurate, not tomention astonishingly concise given the wealth of information she presents.She acknowledges the assistance of a number of major figures in theObjectivist movement, including Chris Matthew Sciabarra, Nathaniel Brandenand Barbara Branden, Peter Saint Andre, Michelle Marder Kamhi and LouTorres. Anyone with any serious interest in the work of Ayn Rand and itsgrowing influence on our culture should own a copy of The New Ayn RandCompanion.--David M. Brown, Editor, The Daily Objectivist(www.dailyobjectivist.com) ... Read more

Product Description
Machan's book explores all the major themes of Ayn Rand'sphilosophical thought. He shows the frequent strengths and occasionalweaknesses of Rand's mature philosophy of Objectivism, drawing on hisown, and many others', discussion of this challenging and iconoclasticthinker's ideas. Machan's treatment of Rand is a welcome addition tothe growing literature of serious scholarship on Rand's philosophicalwork. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

Not very informative
I gave it such a low score not because the book is badly written, or one cannot understand it, but rather because it is not very informative and I'm not sure to whom is it addressed.

If you are already have an interest for Objectivism or Ayn Rand, and might want to learn somewhat deeper into the subject, this book won't help you much. It is an introduction, but since it rarely explains where the claims of Objectivism comes from that it is not a very useful introduction. In this case one might do better going directly to another book.

If you are like me, and you only want to read one book on Objectivism because it was brought up in a conversation or something similar, this book will probably not satisfy you, since again, it makes claims that are not even remotely backed up.

The author spends most of the book saying that Rand gives way to an objective moral and ethical system. To me that sounded like the most interesting part of Objectivism, and yet the author never stops to explain how this is so. I wouldnt have expected the full outline of such a system in an introductory text, but it would have helped if even a little of the path was shown, or even delineated. Instead we are asked to believe (with no reason for it) that this is so, and we are kept this way through the whole book.

All in all, I found the book disapointing, and it was unable to answer my passing curiosity on the subject. If you are more interested on the subject, I would also recomend that you go for another book where a more indepth analysis is shown.

Hastily put together but rather friendly and interesting
"Rand's Objectivism, of all the schools of contemporary philosophy, may well be the one that holds out the best, most ..........." Tibor R. Machan

Unlike most independent Ayn Rand scholars, who tend to consider themselves as superiorprofessionals correcting the childish blunders of an incompetent amateur,Tibor Machan, as the above quote suggests, is a respectful commentator whocorrectly recognizes that Ayn Rand was a major philosopher and that most ofwhat Randian scholars today can hope to accomplish is to polish up someaspects of her philosophical system, develop new applications of it andconfront the latest batch of criticisms from academia. As far as hispersonal philosophy is concerned, he seems to have accepted most of thefundamentals of Objectivism, and in most contemporary philosophicalbattles, he is generally on the right side, defending free-will againstdeterminism, ethical cognitivism vs. non-cognitivism, the free society vs.welfare statism and marxism, and the morality of business against leftistand conservative smears. I would therefore consider him an estranged friendof Objectivism, to be distinguished from the self-styled "sympatheticobservers" of the philosophy who in the next breath call Rand apseudo-philosopher.

Unfortunately, Machan tends to suffer from a lack ofsystem and hierarchy in his writings, and nowhere is this clearer than inthe present book. Compared to Peikoff's *Objectivism: The Philosophy of AynRand* or even Gotthelf's *On Ayn Rand*, which are beautifully structuredand clearly distinguish fundamentals from derivatives, Machan's *Ayn Rand*is much less integrated and systematic.

This lack of system of courseneed not be a reflection of Machan's own mental functioning, even though hedoes have a penchant for pluralism and eclecticism, but is probably due tothe way the book was put together: *Ayn Rand* is essentially a disjointedcollection of articles previously published in various reviews, newslettersand books. Chapter 4, "Rand's Rational Individualism", forinstance, is a slightly edited copy of chapter 10 of *The PhilosophicalThought of Ayn Rand*.

Machan's lack of enthusiasm for philosophicalhierarchy does sometimes affect his conclusions, though. For instance, whenhe states that "in some parts of his moral philosophy and in politics,Kant was closer to [Rand's] own ideas than are most otherphilosophers" (p117), he clearly shows his rejection of theObjectivist tenet that one cannot understand a statement out of the wholehierarchy of a man's philosophical ideas. This may also explain why hefeels sympathetic to the libertarians and leans to the "moraltolerationist" wing of Objectivism.

Anyway, I do recommend this bookas a good overview of Objectivism, and perhaps as a better *introduction*to this philosophy than Gotthelf's very compact volume (though the latteris a more reliable statement of the content of the philosophy). Machan makes interesting comments on the distinction between derivation anddeduction and he identifies a few contemporary philosophers whose views arevery similar to Objectivism. His more haphazard reflections on"Problems Left for Objectivism" however suffer from a lack offamiliarity with the more recent taped material and simplemisinterpretations of Objectivist tenets. (For instance, though he has read*We The Living*, he asks: "Cannot a work of art be quite excellent,yet... sad? Tragic?", perpetuating a common caricature of theObjectivist esthetics.) Finally, I must say I found some of the statementsin the book cryptic or highly dubious: "Rand's foundationalism can becharacterized as post-epistemological" or "Rand's approach isalso consistent with... an (almost) anything-goes, (almost) Feyerabendianlaissez-faire attitude towards the methods of factual investigation".

Best Book on Rand
This is the best introduction to Ayn Rand available.Because Prof. Machan was never a member of Rand's inner circle, he can write freely on her philosophy and discuss its strengths as well as weaknesses.Nonetheless, Prof. Machan clearly admires Rand and considers her an importantphilosopher.

There are a number of merits to this book: (1) Prof.Machan provides a clear overview of Rand's position on most philosophicalquestions, placing prominence on Rand's axiomatic concepts; (2) the bookcontains a solid discussion of Rand's works; and (3) chapter 7 - on variousquestions that Rand failed to consider - is excellent.

There are someweaknesses to the work as well. First, Prof. Machan doesn't spend enoughtime on Rand's theory of concept formation, which her followers consider hegreatest contribution to philosophy.Second, he is too kind to Rand whenit comes to her often unfair and inaccurate attacks on other philosophers. While he says that Rand caricatures other thinkers, the fact is that Randhad little knowledge of the history of philosophy and her discussion ofother philosophers is simply pathetic.Anyone who doubts this should readher essay, "For the New Intellectual." Third, like many of Rand'sadmirers, Prof. Machan overestimates Rand's originality.The fact is thatmost of Rand's ideas can be found in other writers.

In spite of itsflaws, this is generally an outstanding book.I recommend it highly. ... Read more

Product Description
Ayn Rand's famous 1957 classic, Atlas Shrugged, has become more widely read and influential with each passing year, thanks in part to its brilliant dramatization of Rand's Objectivist philosophy and its celebration of self-reliance, integrity, rationality, and productive effort. Like any great work of literature, however, Atlas Shrugged can be intimidating. Even those who have read and re-read it may feel they have not fully appreciated its vision of life. For the neophyte and the longtime admirer alike, The World of Atlas Shrugged provides essential context, brilliant commentary and authoritative insight into the novel's literary purpose and structure. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (7)

Changed my life.
This Woman's insight to the human condition put into words feeling I've had for many years. For example; I've never could understand how otherwise rational people could tell me in all honesty that Bill Clinton was a good man. Ayn Rand says in Atlas Shrugged, " People do not believe in the irrational, but they do believe in the unjust." Even if you can't read the book, try this CD for the next long trip in your car.

Great Addition to book
This was a great addition to the known great works of Ayn Rand! A must have for all Rand fans.

Uncritical companion
I bought this to supplement the novel which I was rereading after 30 years for my book club. This is a good way to tie together what at times is a heavy text--although as I say in my review of the book itself the plot is a real potboiler. I found the tape helpful in understanding Rand's literary technique--in setting up larger than life heroes and impossibly obnoxious villians---a good refresher too if your recollection of the book is hazy. But for a critical analysis of the novel as a work of literature or philosophy, look elsewhere.

Refresher of principles of Atlas Shrugged
Although this CD is not a substitute for the book, it serves as an excellent reminder of Rand's principles - in particular her ethics.

This CD would be useful for the Objectivist that can not reread Rand's book but wants to be able to discuss it in detail again.

Outstanding Supplement to "Atlas Shrugged"
I enjoyed "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead", and given their message, wouldn't be so bold as to review either.It had been some years since I first read "Atlas Shrugged" so I purchased this audio disc as a refresher.It couldn't have been a better decision.The two discs walked quickly, but with ample detail, through the plot and major characters, drawing connections I hadn't noticed the first time I read the book, and giving some background as to Ms. Rand's thoughts when originally composing the text.I do not know if I would call it the "Essential" companion, but it is quite good.This Audio Disc makes a great companion to the book, providing just enough to make it worth reading, while not completely reciting the entire text.I would suggest reading the book before listening to the disk as there are some areas of the plot that would be spoiled.However, I do think if you wanted to gauge your interest before tackling the full text, this might not be a bad way to do so.

This is a good audio CD that accomplishes its task very efficiently.It is a great summary of "Atlas Shrugged" with just the right amount of additional detail. ... Read more

Product Description
In this wide-ranging collection of articles, essays, and speeches, George H Smith analyses atheism and its relevance to society today. The featured essay in this volume provides a full analysis of Ayn Rand's unique contribution to atheism, explaining how her objectivist metaphysics and laissez-faire economic principles rested on a purely godless worldview. Several chapters address the evolution of atheism; arguments in favour of religious toleration; the efforts of early Church fathers to discredit Roman polytheism and how these arguments can be used with equal force against later Christian descriptions of God; and, a survey of the contributions to free-thought made by the deists of the 18th and 19th centuries. With incisive logic and considerable wit, Smith ties atheism to reason and argues that reason itself can be a moral virtue. In one penetrating chapter, Smith salutes three Christian theorists who he believes embody the spirit of reason: Thomas Aquinas, Desiderius Erasmus, and John Locke. This is followed by a philosophical drubbing of his 'least favourite Christians' - St Paul, St Augustine, and John Calvin.In subsequent chapters, Smith examines religion and education; addresses the 20th century fundamentalist revival; offers suggestions on how to debate atheism with religious believers; critiques 'new religions', including pop therapy, EST, and transactional analysis; and, provides a comprehensive bibliographic essay on the literature of free-thought. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (8)

The Precuror of God's Delusions by Atheists Today.
God is not a delusion, but he can and should be a personal God. Today, you find churches set up in storefronts or out in the country in hovels by untrained "preachers" instead of the denominations of days gone by. There were the Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Church of God, Church of Christ, etc. Now, it is non-denominational, which means "anything goes." Thus, this scientist has decided that the world would be better off without religious intervention. The churches do help their members in crisis, but otherwise they are in the business of money.

With the advent of telelevangists, we saw their public downfalls usually because of sex, though others were making a killing by using the money for personal luxuries. When Jeff went to Chicago to attend the U of C, he encountered his first atheist. Coming from a small Tennessee town, growing up Methodist, it was a bad discovery to find that his Physics and Astronomy professors did not believe in God. Everyone knows that the University of Chicago is a radical school. The Big Bang theory was that we were put here randomly and there are other aliens out there somewhere more intelligent than we. No intervention, no creation by God, no Jesus, (apparently he was a false prophet); my long-ago favorite prophet, Jeremiah (the prophet of doom) would have fit in as their advisor as he saw only the bad happening in his surroundings and was not inspired by the premonitions of Isiah and the Old Testament leaders who prophysized the coming of the Son of God. Atheists believe in the devil, so the rest of us can find comfort in God in his many varieties. The Catholics believe in communicating by calling on the Virgin Mary. I'm not an atheist, but no virgin could have a child, even a miracle child. Old women can, but not young virgins, so I believe that the Catholics have false beliefs for some reason all their own.

John Wesley taught us that Protestants of all persuasions can find life easier and we can get along with our neighbors if we have some kind of faith in a higher being. E. T. where are you?

In Pittsburg, PA, there is a large statue of Mary (mother of Jesus) looking down as she hold the babe. I saw a similar statue at a Methodist church in Nashville of Christ; when you kneel and look up (as I did) you look right into his eyes. It was eerie and moving all at the same time. At Sewanee, we had Church Women United sessions with the marvelous peacocks honking at you, but no Jesus statue in existence. That is near Bell Buckle where the original Webb School is located.

Atheists are not simply deluded, but are instruments of the devil.Today I see those young men and women all dressed in black with tatoos and black eye makeup, which are the modern version of cult members who have run amok.They could lose control at any moment, as it is clear that they are on drugs and the bad influence of something or someone not of this earth.They are definitely a danger to today's society.

Lucid, thoughtful, sometimes way off.
Most anthologies of essays are like a loose pile of sand, but thematically, I thought this one hung together fairly well. The style varied from popular to almost bibliographical.

The Ayn Rand essays were informative, though I thought Smith bent over backwards a bit too far to shield Rand herself from the charge of fanaticism.(As is so often done with Marx.) The essays I liked the best were "My Path to Atheism," "Atheism and the Virtue of Reasonableness," (good advice for theists as well), and "Frantz Fanon and John Locke at Stanford," which I read as a stirring defense of free thought against the PC mind control so prevalent in our academic establishments.If everyone (including Smith himself)would follow his rules for debate in that second essay, we might be in for a lot of good, healthy debate!

As a Christian, I was perturbed, but not surprised (having seen it so often), to find someone as apparently well-informed as Smith badly misunderstand what orthodox Christians mean by faith.He repeated the old canard that "Faith conflicts with reason," and a great deal of his discussion was saddled with this profound and oft-repudiated error.Faith, he argued,
"cannot give you knowledge."It is "intellectually
dishonest, and should be rejected by every person of integrity."He backed up his mangled argument with the writings of some obscure theologian.But when understood as orthodox Christians understand it (as I argue in my book Jesus and the Religions of Man), it is truer to say that nothing besides faith can give knowledge."Never, never doubt the efficacy of your mind," Smith advised.Yes, and that is (in the Christian sense) an act of faith.Beyond a reasonable and tested faith in reason, memory, the fives senses, and other people, faith in God is the highest form not of blind faith (an un-Christian concept), but of the clear-headed act of reason by which rational beings perceive what is real in their environment.If you think faith is a wild and uneccessary leap in the dark, you misunderstand the Christian religion, and the nature of knowledge in general.

Suffering from this misunderstanding, Smith blames Augustine for the Dark Ages; which I think is radically unfair.(Especially considering that Augustine, one of the greatest thinkers in world history, died in a city under siege of the invaders who really did usher in the Dark Ages.)

Smith also tries halfheartedly to argue that Jesus fit the "profile" of an abusive cult leader.This is nonsense.In fact, compare the more detailed list of traits common to cult leaders compiled by such skeptical psychologists as Marcia Fabin and Anthony Storr with the Gospels, and it appears that Jesus was at the opposite end of the spectrum from that sort of person.I have been studying world religion, gurus, Messiahs, and "Living Buddhas" for many years, and I have not found any who resembled Jesus.

Despite these criticisms, I enjoyed this book and found a lot of value in it.Smith is extremely well-read, and writes with a style that is usually clear andreasonable.I look forward to reading his general defense of atheism.

Interesting collection of essays
Heresy, Smith defines in his preface, is the rejection of the orthodox, and heresies are considered a threat to the established social order once the dogma of the institution (be it religious or otherwise) has become aligned with the power of the state or political force. The state, holding the reins of power, uses force, instead of persuasion, to enforce the orthodoxy.The Founding Fathers, most practicing Deists, itself a form of heretical thought, understood this and insisted on the separation of church and state, thus preventing the establishment of an official religion, preventing, they hoped, official heresies as well.Orthodoxy itself is not dangerous, only its alliance with political power.The central theme of Smith's book is the "crucial difference between the voluntary orthodoxy of organizations and the politicized orthodoxy of governments. "A free society, complete with orthodoxies and prejudices, is the best of all worlds for the heretic.Liberty permits the heretic to pit his beliefs against those of the orthodox majority."The paradox for the heretic is whether if and when his view becomes the dominant - to politicize the new orthodoxy or to permit liberty, which enabled the heretic to conquer ideologically, to possibly undermine the new orthodoxy?

Smith is unapologetically atheist; belief in God for Smith is simply unreasonable and irrational. Asked to prove the nonexistence of God, Smith's answer is simply that one cannot prove a negative and that the person who asserts the existence of something bears the burden of proof. He asserts that to believe in faith or to rely on faith is to "defy and abandon the judgment of one's mind. Faith conflicts with reason.It cannot give you knowledge; it can only delude you into believing that you know more than you really do.Faith is intellectually dishonest, and it should be rejected by every person of integrity.

The book is a loosely connected series of essays that discuss a variety of Christian and social heresies. He begins with his own philosophic journey to atheism.He is certainly a libertarian, and the essays on public education and the War on Drugs reflect that philosophy. But the reason I began this book was to discover his writing about Ayn Rand. He devotes two substantial chapters to her and the Objectivist philosophy.

Rand evokes fierce passions, both pro and con."Accounts of Objectivism written by Rand's admirers are frequently eulogistic and uncritical, whereas accounts written by her antagonists are often hostile and what is worse, embarrassingly inaccurate." The situation has been made worse by her appointed heir to the throne, Leonard Peikoff, who has declared Objectivism to be a "closed" philosophy, i.e., no critical analysis will be tolerated;one must accept it as he says it is and that's that. Whether Objectivism will survive such narrow-mindedness remains to be seen.It's a classic case of the true believer "unwilling to criticize the deity.Thinking for oneself is hard work so true believers recite catechisms and denounce heretics instead."Typically, this was contrary to Rand's philosophy of individualism and critical, rational thinking where "truth or falsehood must be one's sole concern and the sole criterion ofjudgment -- not anyone's approval or disapproval."

A dissenter's mind
This loosely connected series of essays expands his earlier work,extending beyond Atheismto embrace various Christian and social'heresies'.Beginning with his personal Path toAtheism, he provides theskeptic with methods of argument and several readings.He givesaccountsof those Christian philosophers who wrote against atheists and heretics. Heretics, ofcourse, have been subjected to the severest punishments inthe Christian churches, for a soullost is more serious than anunconverted heathen.

Smith's discussion of Deism is the highlight of thisbook.As a philosophy accepting a godwithout a structured religiousorganization, Deism was a major theme among critics ofChristianity. Abolishment of church hierarchies, with their inevitable moral and monetary corruption, led many thinkers to leave Christianity in favour of apersonal relationship with adeity.Many of the Founding Fathers of theUnited States adhered to this view, a product ofthe EuropeanEnlightenment of the 18th Century.Arising coincidentally with many philosophies of personal freedom, it was almost inevitable that a nationexperimenting withdemocratic ideals would espouse it.Smith's essay onthe writings of Deists is enlightening.

Smith's discussion of Ayn Rand'sideas came as a bit of a shock.It's difficult to find anyone,apart froma few feminists, in this era who knows who she was.Smith's account of herlifeincludes a smattering of choice quotations, but the brevity of theentries demonstrates thepaucity of adherents.There is an Ayn RandInstitute site on the 'Net, but seems hardly worththe bother.

The twoessays on public education and the War on Drugs are heartfelt expressionsof a truelibertarian.Neither will add to Smith's popularity in a nationwhere 'Christian virtues' reignwith such strength, but they're requiredreading for anyone who wishes to understand viewsother than the accepted'norm'.Smith appears to forget that public education in the United States, even given its Puritan foundation, was furthered by a desire tofree education from thethrall of an Established Church.The strugglingeconomy of a growing nation would have ledmore children into hazardousand fatiguing work situations from which they would neverrecovered. Extending the years of compulsory education freed many children and openedjobopportunities.The result put more women into the work force,ultimately leading toimproving their role in society.

Smith confesseshis lack of a formal education, but he's certainly managed a wealth of research to produce this book.Not a deep study of the challenges toestablished thinking, thisbook is a valid starting point for thoseseeking further knowledge of libertarian thinking.

Worthy follow-up to "Atheism: The Case Against God"
This is a loose collection of essays by Smith. They cover a variety of topics, like Smith's personal atheism, heresies over the years, and Objectivism. His critiques of Objectivism are well-written and, IMHO,spot-on.

I wish I could give the book five stars, but there doesn't seemto be much of an underlying theme, as the title suggests. I would've likedto have seen something where the chapters lead to an inevitable conclusion,as in A:TCAG. ... Read more

Product Description
Written with all the power and conviction that made THE FOUNTAINHEAD and ATLAS SHRUGGED classics of American letters, Ayn Rand's ANTHEM is a hymn to man's independent spirit and to the highest word in the human language -- the word "Ego." ANTHEM tells the story of a man who rediscovers individualism and his own "I" It is a world of absolute collectivization, a world where sightless, joyless, selfless men exist for the sake of serving the State; where their work, their food, and their mating are prescribed to them by order of the Collective's rulers in the name of society's welfare. It is a world which lost all the achievements of science and civilization when it lost its root, the independent mind, and reverted to primitive savagery a world where language contains no singular pronouns, where the "We" has replaced the "I," and where men are put to death for the crime of discovering and speaking the "unspeakable word." ANTHEM presents not merely a frightening projection of existing trends, but, more importantly, a positive answer to those trends and a weapon against them, a key to the world's moral crisis and to a new morality of individualism -- a morality that, if accepted today, will save us from a future such as the one presented in this story. ... 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

Customer Reviews (44)

near collectable quality
Although this was a birthday purchase for my son, he reports the quality of this item far exceeded his expectations. This vendor can be trusted to deliver a superior product. I was not supplied a tracking number by Amazon, but by the time I got around to checking into that, the books had been delivered to the third party address. Overall a satisfactory shopping experience.

Awesome Book, a must for any business person!
Atlas Shrugged is one of the most important books that one could read to better understand how capitalism works, why it works and why it is so important for our success.It is amazing that this book was written two generations back, however, when you read it you will feel it was written yesterday!Ayn Rand certainly captures the true essence of capitalism, the true meaning of it, and why we so much embrace it!

Not the conservative anthem it appears
Read deeper and you will find that Atlas Shrugged has NOTHING to do with conservative politics.Ms. Rand would despise the current climate and I beleive would applaud President Obama as a man of rational thought and intelligence.The current thugs who rant against the President prove my point.The moochers and leeches all seem to gravitate to the pundits and lash out with "feelings" and what they "want".The President uses logic and does what is right, not easy, not popular, he is rational.Ask who is John Galt?I say President Obama is closer than any conservative.Read without the bias.Read with rational thought and logic.This is an anthem to the individual.To always exhalting our highest, best self and to trusting our own judgement over anyone elses.Who asks us to do that?President Obama.Who tells you what to think, how to live and what to believe?Limbaugh, Palin, Beck, O'Rielly...they are the ones who are ruining American, and undermining rational thought.

A literary and philosophic masterpiece
I just re-read Atlas Shrugged, which gets better each time, and can say with certainty that it is the greatest achievement in history, in part because it provides the fullest identification of what makes all the others possible. It is a hymn to unfettered human intelligence.

It is also the most spiritually rich work of literature I have ever read. A lot of people are turning to it now because of its prescience, but its description of political control and economic collapse are not what's most important (Rand herself, far from aiming at being a prophetess, regarded as one of the novel's strengths the fact that it wasn't even particularly realistic but rather her most fully Romantic work). In an interview with the author of one of the recent biographies of Ayn Rand, Jon Stewart winkingly referred to her novels being filled with lots of "dirty, dirty sex." Those are, in fact, the best scenes. Francisco and Dagny learning together about the wonderful pleasure their bodies can give them the summer after she begins her first job on the railroad as night operator of the Rockdale station; her affair with Rearden beginning at Ellis Wyatt's house after their first run on the John Galt line; and, of course, the encounter in the underground tunnels of the Taggart terminal...it simply doesn't get any better than that. Sure, Rand was prescient---because she identified clearly what certain principles would mean in practice, principles which are now being implemented. But she was much more concerned with what might be and ought to be.

Objectivism at its finest
First of all, I would like to say that this is my favorite novel as it brings such simple explanations and themes so something as dumbfounded as 50's America.
The novel has characters that personify class and cultures as Rearden personifies a hard working individual with many people leeching off his hard work and riding the gravy train so to say.
I could sit here and write pages of review to this book and the way Objectiveness helps justify economic issues as well as social ones. But I consider this book a powerful tool to understanding human nature. Weak people may do things for selfish reasons and out of fear - we can see this in everyday life. If someone took away all your fall backs and your supports could you stand up on your own? ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

El Manantial
Para mi, haber leido El Manantial, fue observar en accion el tipo de caracter y los valores esenciales que un individuo debe adquirir para alcanzar sus metas.El observar como el principal protagonista(Howard Roark)lucha en su batalla por defender sus valores mas altos... Supo activar en mi neuronas, que provocaron un desplazamiento de ideas y emociones tan intensas... como nunca antes habia experimentado... Esta novela le abrio la puerta a mi mente al hacerme comprender el valor del individuo como un ser heroico.Que el Grito Sagrado tomara la accion de traducer 2 de las novelas de Ayn Rand es prueba de que en un futuro la filosofia objetivista ocupara el primer lugar en la vida de cada ser humano, como tal se lo merece.

Gabriela Vasquez ... Read more

Customer Reviews (6)

Dated
In 1971, professor of philosophy William O'Neill published the first book-length critique of Ayn Rand's philosophy, known as Objectivism.(Albert Ellis's 1968, IS OBJECTIVISM A RELIGION?, was a discussion of Rand and psychology, from what I recall.)This book isn't bad, but it has been superseded as a critique of Objectivism by Robbins's work (ANSWER TO AYN RAND, which has been updated as WITHOUT A PRAYER) and Scott Ryan's recently released OBJECTIVISM AND THE CORRUPTION OF RATIONALITY.

O'Neill's discussion of Rand's thought is informative and more or less accurate.On the other hand, he doesn't make enough of an effort to integrate Rand's thought into a coherent whole (granted, this isn't easy to do).So I don't think that someone new to Ayn Rand would understand why Rand has influenced so many people.Yet O'Neill does do a good job at bringing to light of some of the contradictions in Rand's work.For example, Rand preached that compromise was evil; yet she supported candidates for president who were anything but Objectivists.However, some of the alleged contradictions Prof. O'Neill finds would disappear if he had used a bit more "charity" in interpreting Rand.

If you want to read a sympathetic integration of Rand's thought, I recommend Chris Sciabarra's AYN RAND: THE RUSSIAN RADICAL.

A balanced, well-researched, well-organized analysis
O'Neill delivered a concise academic and philosophical critique of Objectivism and Ayn Rand's work.

His work was informed by an exhaustive survey of objectivist literature. He left no stone unturned either in giving Rand the benefit of the doubt or in pinning down the definitions Rand herself or other Objectivists gave to the terms they used.

He makes no extreme claims about objectivism. The book is an analysis, not a polemic.

Albert Ellis' book, _Is Objectivism a Religion?_ is a good companion to this book. Both books have ramifications for libertarianism and even for the somewhat reified and theological capitalism that dominates America politically. This is because the same inconsistencies and factual errors that the objectivists are guilty of permeate libertarianism and the debunked but still influential economic theories like supply-side or Austrian economics that have political power long after working economists despaired of finding any practical use for them.

Sigh...
I am beginning to wonder of ANY of these people have read a single Objectivist book. I cannot vouch for Rand as the most sane person (I would think she was most likely a mild schizophreniac), but her philosophy is farfrom mad. Another thing, there is no such thing as selfishness harmingothers--harming people is not good for anyone, even you people know what,and is most certainly not selfish.

Well-meaning, but dull, critique of Rand's philosophistry
Professor O'Neill's book was the first philosophical critique of Rand's doctrines ever published (Ellis' "Is Objectivism a Religion" is not really a philosophical critique). As such, it can be regarded as a sort of pioneering effort. When it was originally published in 1970, the very idea of taking Rand seriously enough to criticize her was something of a novelty. In those days, almost all respectable people regarded Rand as a crazy person. Some even thought she was dangerous. Today, we know better. Rand was not a crazy person; she was simply ignorant and confused. Nor was she dangerous. The utopia her books offered will never appeal to a wide audience. Most human beings need either belief in God or belief in society to get by. By rejecting both these beliefs, Rand divided herself forever from the hearts and minds of the overwhelming majority of the human race.

O'Neill's critique suffers from the usual flaws of a pioneering effort. He is unable to grasp precisely what Rand is all about, and consequently ends up critiquing distortions of her philosophy rather than the actual doctrines Rand propagated. This defect is not helped by Mr. O'Neill's dryasdust style, which makes "Charity Toward None" a very difficult read. Dullness is the number one defect of academic philosophy. If philosophy is to make any difference in the world, it cannot be written as if it were meant to be a soporific.

During Rand's life, her admirers could boast that no one had yet been able to refute the philosophy of their idol. The publication of Professor O'Neill's book did little to change this state of affairs. While he makes a few good points along the way, O'Neill's inability to understand the terms Rand uses to express her ideas renders his critique largely verbal and semantic. Unable, for instance, to fathom what Rand means by the term "objective," our intrepid Professor ends up going off on all kinds of irrelevant tangents, demolishing in systematic effusion a number of arguments which Rand herself would never have been caught dead advocating. Those who wish to refute Rand should avoid trying to get at her through verbal analysis. No one cares whether Rand's use of philosophical terms corresponds to the way academic philosophers use those same terms. What is important is whether Rand's views correspond to empirical reality. It is on the empirical side that Rand is most vulnerable. If you want to demolish Rand's system, simply compare her philosophy to the facts. It will not compare favorably.

Minor corrections
William O'Neill's _With Charity Toward None_ was published in 1971; John Robbins's _Answer To Ayn Rand_ was published in 1974. This fine volume by O'Neill was indeed the first full-blown critique of Objectivism from an academic-philosophical point of view, but it wasn't alone for all _that_"many" years. Nor was it the first "critical and broadreview of Rand's work by someone who disagreed with her ideas to a greatextent." That honor goes to Albert Ellis's _Is Objectivism AReligion?_, published in 1968 -- admittedly not a _philosophical_ critique, but a critical review all the same. ... Read more

Product Description
The controversial classic work of one individual's will versus the subjugation of society-now available as a compelling graphic novel.

In all that was left of humanity there was only one man who dared to think, seek, and love. He, Equality 7-2521, would place his life in jeopardy. For his knowledge was regarded as a treacherous blasphemy. He had rediscovered the lost and holy word..."I". ... Read more

Product Description
Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand Interviewed provides sharp insights on a vast range of cultural issues that are totally unique and original, yet instantly recognizable as Ayn Rand. The collection is philosophical and intellectual, yet accessible to the general public. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (4)

Ayn Rand's Answers to Today's Problems
If you are like me and would like to know how the greatest defender of reason and rights of our time, Ayn Rand, would have responded to much of what is going on today, then you are in luck.In this collection of interviews Ayn Rand did over a span of approximately 45 years she answers questions on virtually any philosophically substantive topic you can imagine.In so doing, you find out what she would have thought about the on-going trends in esthetics, politics, ethics and epistemology that are causing such misery in the world today.But better still, as she always did in every question ever posed to her, she provides alternative solutions that will make sense to anyone interested in pursuing truth.

This Is Ayn Rand Speaking
OBJECTIVELY SPEAKING is a non-exhaustive collection of interviews given by Ayn Rand from 1932 to 1981 (she died in 1982).Your opinion of this book will largely depend on what you think of Rand, but those interested in Rand (as friends or critics) will appreciate the fact that in these interviews Rand discusses some things that aren't mentioned in her published works and fills in a few gaps in her biography.

The book ends with an interview of Leonard Peikoff, Rand's self-proclaimed intellectual heir.Peikoff is unbelievably sycophantic and the interview helps explain how he ended up her heir when more independent followers either left her or were kicked out.

As with everything produced by the Ayn Rand Institute, one has to be cautious about relying on the transcriptions.Minor quibbles: there is no list of all of Rand's interviews and a few of the interviews are undated.

Intellectual tour de force
I'm half way through this fascinating new book edited by Marlene Podritske and Peter Schwartz. It is a collection of interviews covering the time period from the 1940s through 1981. This intellectual tour de force covers a wide range of subjects. AR's laser focus and lighting quick logic are revealed in a manner that makes me marvel at her ability and appreciate her from a new vantage point. Buy it!

A fine Introduction to Rand's thought
This book, published some 26 years after Ayn Rand's death, was not intended to be an introduction to her philosophical thought, but it turns out to be just that.
After the publication of her inspiring novel Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand, novelist and philosopher, was invited many times to be interviewed on television, at universities, and on radio.The audio and video versions of those interviews have long been available from scattered sources. Here they are gathered togerher and edited by the excellent hands of Marlene Podritske and Peter Schwartz (former Chairman of the Ayn Rand Institute, www.aynrand.org).
The editors include 3 interviews of Ayn Rand in her early days in America, while in the movie industry, which have not been available before.The "On Campus" interviews are organized by subject, covering Rand's Objectivist philosophy vx. Conservatism, the topid of "extremism", anti-capitalist myths, Rand's view on the American Constitution and the political structure of a free society.She speaks on a quiet subject that is coming to make all the difference in this country, objective law. She speaks on what should be America's free press, education, her views on Romantic literature vs. Naturalism, the visual arts, her favorite play and paintings (some surprises here!).She advances a theory of humor, then gets into the heavier areas of ethics, its foundations, its sabotage by altruism, individual rights as the bridge to politics.The last section of the book, offering interviews from 1959 up to 1981, just a few months before her death, includes interviews with Mike Wallace, Professonr James McConell at University of Michigan, two on the Johnny Carson show, in which he shows himself to be a gentleman and much more than a comedian, Edwin Newman of Speaking Freely, James Day, Raymond Newman and Louis Rukeyser, the financial advisor.The book finishes with an interview of Ayn Rand's intellectual heir, Leonard Peikoff, not only a teacher of philosophy but a philosopher himself (see his work on the foundation of induction) by his wife, Amy Peikoff.
Not included are Rand's famous Playboy interview and a few others published elsewhere.One does not get anything in this book on Rand's metaphysics or epistemology, but those are technical issues that would not come up in such a venue.
We can be thankful for this look into Rand's self-confident speaking style, her thoughtful and alert response to unscripted questions.For an introduction to Rand's views on art, politics and her presentation of her revolutionary ethics, this book can serve as a way to get someone who has only heard of her started in an exploration of the philosophical mind of this amazing woman.For those who are quite familiar with her published writings, I have to tell you that you will find some unexpected nuggets of her thought that you don't find elsewhere.A good addition to The Ayn Rand Library. ... Read more

Product Description
Ayn Rand is well known for advocating egoism, but the substance of that egoism�s instruction is rarely understood. Far from representing the rejection of morality, selfishness, in Rand�s view, actually demands the practice of a systematic code of ethics.This book explains the fundamental virtues that Rand considers vital for a person to achieve his objective well-being:rationality, honesty, independence, justice, integrity, productiveness, and pride. Tara Smith examines what each of these virtues consists in, why it is a virtue, and what it demands of a person in practice. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

Definitive Work on Clarifying Rational Egoism
This book should be next on your reading list if you want an in-depth and rigorous study of Ayn Rand's ethics of Rational Egoism beyond what you can glean from reading Ayn Rand's novels and non-fiction essays. First of all, although this book is philosophically rigorous, it is highly readable. Personally speaking, I thought reading this book was a pleasure.

This book offers a detailed understanding of the Objectivist principles of *how* one should be moral. The first chapter is a useful introduction to what virtues are and what one can expect to gain from reading this book. The second chapter is a brief overview of Ayn Rand's answer to *why* one should be moral and hence, is a summary of Tara Smith's book "Viable Values". The third chapter goes into great detail on rationality, which is the primary virtue according to Objectivist ethics. The next six chapters are each devoted to one of the six secondary virtues of Objectivist ethics, which are: Honesty, Independence, Integrity, Justice,Pride and Productivity.

The last chapter should also be of great value to those who enjoy reading beyond the lines. In this chapter, Dr. Smith evaluates four other qualities which are commonly held to be virtues: Charity, Generosity, Kindness and Temperance, according to Objectivist principles. Although Dr. Smith indicates that these qualities are not inherently bad according to Objectivist principles, she nevertheless correctly concludes that since Objectivism holds one's own life as the standard of value, these qualities cannot properly be considered virtues according to Objectivist principles.

Overall, this is an excellent book for anyone seeking a more thorough understanding of the philosophy of Ayn Rand!

an important work, well worth every penny and minute
Noting how recent scholarly work in ethics dances around the edges of seriously grappling with egoism, Dr. Smith offers the invitation: Why not judge ethical egoism by squarely confronting it in its most powerful and consistent form?Thus her comprehensive, systematic presentation of Ayn Rand's ethics.This book is particularly welcome because important elements of Rand's ethical thought are scattered among her novels and various essays, with further illumination sprinkled in her journals, her live Q&A, and reflected in works by her leading and longtime students (primarily Dr. Leonard Peikoff).Smith draws all of this together into a single, clear, carefully organized presentation, judiciously employing comparison and contrast with contemporary academic thought to clarify distinctions and to highlight the novel and powerful aspects of Rand's ideas.

Smith's presentation is masterful, executed with clarity, power, and finesse.Yet it is accessible, and she maintains a warm, reflective style throughout that is grounded in the realities of human life.While following along as Smith unwinds the major virtues Rand identified, what makes them virtues, and what they demand of us in action, you may find that you can't help but consider the implications regarding your own behavior -- the character you are shaping by your everyday choices and actions -- the course you are charting in your own life.This is a solid academic work, but it is also the deepest sort of practical self-help book, implicitly encouraging people to get real and seriously consider what it means to live as a human can and should.

-----

Regarding Steve Jackson's review: Smith was clear about her mission of presenting RAND'S ethical ideas, and doing so certainly doesn't entail a survey of all fully-, semi-, non-, and anti-Objectivist thought regarding Rand's ethics.That would be a different book, and Mr. Jackson denying Smith's achievement here by leading people to confuse her purpose with his own is unjust.Smith took on a worthy and substantive project, and she absolutely knocked the ball out of the park.

The Price of Virtue
Prof. Tara Smith follows up her defense of Ayn Rand's metaethics (VIABLE VALUES) with this work devoted to the normative ethics of Objectivism.

Smith starts with an excellent point. There have been versions of egoism throughout history.However, there have been few which are non-predatory and rights-respecting. The most prominent and influential version that kind of egoism is Ayn Rand's.Why not discuss the most consistent version of ethical egoism?

As an exposition of Rand's ethics, this book generally succeeds. Smith references Rand's letters and journals (which have in part been published) as well as her essays and novels.This is a large amount of material to integrate and Smith does it successfully.Her work is certainly of a much higher level than typical Objectivist writings.To give one example, unlike, say, Leonard Peikoff, Smith actually tries to understand what people mean by humility and then critiques the concept intelligently.Another example is honesty.Smith is aware of the standard arguments against Objectivism's instrumentalist opposition to dishonesty.I don't think she successfully answers them, but she doesn't duck problems.I was, however, a bit disappointed with Smith's discussion of charity, since she skirts around certain questions related to helping strangers.Smith doesn't give a clear answer to the question of whether it is morally appropriate to give to people who are victims of natural disasters.She states that optimally it would be best to know if those in need were moral.But if a tsunami struck an area where the victims were predominantly religious, would it be immoral to offer help?Smith's answer is presumably yes, but she doesn't say.

My major complaint with this book is Smith's use of sources.If Smith is of the opinion that Rand's journals and letters are relevant for understanding Rand's ethics, then what about Nathaniel Branden's essays?When Rand broke with Branden in 1968 she stated that Branden's pre-split writings were consistent with Objectivism.She obviously had a high opinion of them since she included several in her work THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS.Certainly these essays, written during the time of Rand's mature philosophy, are of much value in understanding Rand's ethics.Smith's discussion of certain psychological issues related to ethics (such as self esteem) would have been much improved if she had interacted Branden's articles including "The Psychology of Pleasure."Yet Smith doesn't even mention Branden, much less give a reason why she ignores him.Given that Rand did not excise Branden's essays from her books, why does Smith consign them to the Orwellian Memory Hole?

It's particularly disappointing that Smith decided to limit the secondary sources concerning Objectivism almost entirely to authors associated with Leonard Peikoff's Ayn Rand Institute (such as Peikoff, Harry Binswanger and even popularizer Craig Biddle).There are many scholars that Smith overlooks.For example, she doesn't mention Objectivist philosopher David Kelley, even though his book UNRUGGED INDIVIDUALISM is quite relevant to her discussion of benevolence. Likewise there is no mention of Chris Sciabarra, Roderick Long, and Eric Mack, all of whom have written valuable material concerning Rand's ethics.Since Smith considered it appropriate to discuss non-Objectivists such as Philippa Foot and Rosalind Hursthouse, her unwillingness to engage in non-ARI Objectivists and writers influenced by Rand is most curious.I suspect that Smith's decision with respect to sources was influenced by her association with the ARI.(If you do a search of the book you will find that "Peikoff" appears on 143 pages.)Since Kelley and Branden are no longer within the line of apostolic succession, any mention of them is ultra vires.

When Smith departs from her area of expertise, she makes a few mistakes.She asserts that Jesus opposed judging, citing the well-known injunction in Matt. 7:1 ("Judge not that ye be not judged.").She even argues that Catholics who looked the other way regarding pedophile priests were following Jesus' teaching.However, Jesus was likely only opposing self-righteous judgment.Later in Matt., Jesus discusses church discipline and advocates expelling members when appropriate.(Matt. 18:15-17.)The New Testament contains many example of judging, including the exclusion of sexually immoral people from the church.Smith later argues that Jesus urged his followers to sell everything and give to the poor.Jesus told one specific person to sell everything and there is no suggestion that it was a universal commandment.

AYN RAND'S NORMATIVE ETHICS is the most important work to date on Rand's ethics and certainly one of the best works by an Objectivist philosopher.Given its price, I'm disappointed by Smith's decision to exclude authors based not on the quality or relevance of their work, but on their standing with the ARI. ... Read more

Product Description
In October 1947, more than twenty years after leaving Russia, Ayn Rand testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), which was investigating communist infiltration of the motion picture industry. The focus of that testimony was Song of Russia, a 1944 pro-Soviet film that Rand decried for its unrealistic, absurdly flattering portrait of life in the communist country. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (4)

Communists in Hollywood? Yes.
I was interested in reading Ayn Rand and Song of Russia because I had previously heard about the House Un-American Committee (HUAC) of the late 1940s, but I had always heard about it in a negative light.It always seemed to be associated with witch hunting and blacklisting.When I learned that one of my favorite authors, Ayn Rand, testified as a friendly witness, I wanted to know more.This committee wanted to find out the extent of communist infiltration into the movie industry.As a Russian who lived through the Russian Revolution, and as a writer in Hollywood, Ayn Rand was in a unique position to comment on the extent of propaganda in some of the movies coming out of Hollywood at the time. Ayn Rand was asked to comment specifically on Song of Russia, a movie very sympathetic to Russia released in 1944. This book does a fine job of explaining what propaganda is and the subtle nature of propaganda.It also describes the movie in detail and how it distorts what life was like in Russia after the revolution.The second part of the book contains the actual transcript of Rand's testimony along with the author's analysis.This book is well worth reading because it helps one to understand how bad ideas did, and still can, seep into our culture.It also points out that it wasn't the people sympathetic to communism that got blacklisted; rather, it was those people who were considered friendly witnesses.Finally, it shows Ayn Rand eloquently fighting for her values:a United States that upholds individual rights.

One San Franciscan's Response
I enjoyed reading this book, my first by Robert Mayhew who teaches philosophy at SetonHall University.How I wish I attended that school, so I could perhaps pass by the man himself as he makes his way through the halls and common rooms towards the philosophy department.

It's great that the other reviewers of this book are other Ayn Rand scholars, including the man who edited her famous book, THE ART OF FICTION.He must know Dr. Mayhew, perhaps from conferences in which Objectivism, the philosophy she invented, is still being discussed many years after her own sad death.

They give the book five stars, but I cannot give it so many because, even though Mayhew is a skillful writer, he has fallen into the trap of taking something minor that Ayn Rand did, in this case, she presented her incomplete testimony to HUAC about a film called SONG OF RUSSIA, and although she did not know it, the organizers were just using her and would not permit her to expand on her ideas, they attempted to corral her into a little niche market, as a Russian woman herself, she could testify that the Russia presented in SONG OF RUSSIA was bogus.Afterwards, as she admitted later, she felt lied to and abused.Mayhew nevertheless takes her few pages of testimony and tries to blow up a whole book around this little donut hole of an anecdote.

About the smiling thing, well, Mayhew must not have much of a sense of humor if he couldn't see that as soon as Rand starts talking about people in Russia not smiling, it sort of got funny, and she lost a large part of her audience, who used this as an excuse to call her a humorless kook.Mayhew just keeps arguing that, of course, people in Russia did not smile, citing a number of independent accounts of the period that agree with Rand's estimate.She hadn't been there since 1926.Mayhew argues that she had been in touch by letter with her family all the way until 1937; however, my bet is that, her family knew their little Ayn by now and I'm sure self-censored their letters so that none of them included the phrase, "I had a good laugh the other day when. . . "

Now I'm curious to see SONG OF RUSSIA!They should put it out on DVD and for commentary, they could have Ayn Rand's actual voice in her HUAC testimony going through the differentt scenes and commenting acidly how there really were no department stores of nightclubs in Moscow and how village people lived in shacks, not comfortable collective housing.

I feel kind of sorry for Robert Taylor, dragooned into playing in this movie, but Mayhew leaves out the real reason he could be so easily blackmailed into starring in a role he didn't personally care for.

And Susan Peters is always a treat, so c'mon, powers that be, unleash this quaint relic for a bygone day!

Ayn Rand on Communism in Hollywood
As the title "Ayn Rand and Song of Russia: Communism and Anti-Communism in 1940s Hollywood" suggests, this book by Robert Mayhew is an examination of Ayn Rand's testimony on the movie _Song of Russia_ before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1947.

Part I offers three chapters of helpful background information on the movie. Perhaps most importantly, Mayhew offers a detailed synopsis of _Song of Russia_.In addition to the synopsis, Mayhew includes a chapter on the making of the movie (with particular attention to the involved communists and the changes made in production) and a chapter on its reception in the press and elsewhere. (I was particularly surprised to learn of the nature and extent of the meddling in the production of movies by FDR's administration.)

In Part II, Mayhew turns to Ayn Rand's testimony before the HUAC. He begins with a chapter on her life up through the testimony, particularly focusing on her childhood in Russia, her work in Hollywood, and the publication of _We the Living_. He examines Ayn Rand's general view of the HUAC hearings, including a detailed and interesting discussion of the supposed moral crime of "naming names." In the next two chapters, Mayhew examines the accuracy of Ayn Rand's testimony about the utterly false picture of life in Soviet Russia in _Song of Russia_, as well as her rejection of the supposed need to lie about the true condition of our Russian ally during World War II. The final chapter considers the absurd responses of various leftists to Ayn Rand's testimony.

As I've come to expect from Robert Mayhew's work, _Ayn Rand and Song of Russia_ is a careful and thorough examination of the topic at hand. I particularly appreciated the clarity of Mayhew's writing, in both the structure and the prose. The analyses were methodical, but never dragged on.Although more can always be said about side topics in any writing, I finished the book with a good grasp of the core issues.

All in all, I highly recommend _Ayn Rand and Song of Russia_, particularly to those with an interest Ayn Rand's HUAC testimony or the communist influence in Hollywood.

Naming Facts - The Truth about Hollywood Communism
This is an excellent book on Ayn Rand's famous 1947 testimony, before the House Un-American Activities Committee, on MGM's 1944 movie Song of Russia.

Ayn Rand exposed the movie as pro-Soviet propaganda, a deliberate whitewash of the terrible reality of life under communism. Robert Mayhew discusses every point of her testimony in relation to the historical record of the Soviet Union, proving Ayn Rand right in every respect. His book is also an important work of original historical research. Dr. Mayhew interviewed the surviving co-writer of Song of Russia, ex-Communist Richard Collins, and dug deep in the historical archives. The result is a revealing picture of Communist influence in Hollywood - and Washington. One of many fascinating revelations is that the Roosevelt administration's Office of War Information - which claimed the right to "comment" on film scripts - had the Song-of-Russia script vetted by the Soviet Embassy!

Being a philosopher, Dr. Mayhew goes beyond the presentation of historical facts. He discusses the political and ethical implications of the HUAC investigations for such issues as free speech, blacklists, "naming names," honesty in relation to wartime propaganda, etc. In so doing, he gives us both Ayn Rand's views, drawing in part on previously unpublished material, and his own illuminating analysis.

Dr. Mayhew also reveals the hypocrisy and dishonesty of the Communists in Hollywood and of their leftist successors, refuting their smears of Ayn Rand's testimony, which continue to this day. Thus - in addition to being a fresh, first-hand investigation of a still controversial period of American history, and of Ayn Rand's part in it - Robert Mayhew's book is a sorely needed act of justice.

Thoroughly researched, richly textured with telling detail, clearly written and strongly argued, this new book should be on the must-read list of anyone interested in modern American history.

... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (6)

An excellent overview
While the discussions of the influence of Nietzsche on Rand and the analyses of her novels are interesting, the real strength of this book is the clarification and extension of Rand's ethics.The unification of oughts, operational ought and normative ought are the same, the replacement of Man's Life as ultimate end with Man's Life as ultimate means, and his clarification of the goals of ethics (as making yourself the kind of person you should be, rational, productive, and self-improving) are more than worth the price of the book.

He points out the weaknesses and problems with Rand's esthetic theories.

Unfortunately, he does not do the same for Rand's epistemology, which has always been the weakest part of her work.

The last part of the book deals with her attempts to make a practical difference through politics and the continuing disagreements Objectivists have with libertarianism.

The book is also extremely readable and well organized.

Comprehensive, But Not Deep
In recent years, we have witnessed what has aptly been called a "Renaissance" in Ayn Rand scholarship. In 1995, Chris Sciabarra came out with AYN RAND: THE RUSSIAN RADICAL which (although controversial) placed Ayn Rand in the context of the history of philosophy and filled in a few gaps in her biography as well. After that work, the Ayn Rand Institute published lengthy collections of her diaries and letters (although I'd like to see the originals). In 1999, the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies began publishing, which gives Rand's ideas serious attention. Finally, we recently saw the publication of Scott Ryan's critical OBJECTIVISM AND THE CORRUPTION OF RATIONALITY, which surpasses all previous criticism of Rand.

In light of this high quality work and the increase in primary sources available, one might expect that a scholar would come out with a concise 150-200 page book providing a solid and up-to-date overview of Rand's work, dealing with all the major areas of her thought. Unfortunately, such a book is lacking.

The above digression brings me to Ron Merrill's THE IDEAS OF AYN RAND, published in 1991 and therefore before the "Renaissance." There are some good things about this work. First, it is comprehensive. Mr. Merrill provides the reader with an overview of Rand's life, the plots of her novels, an introduction to her philosophy, and her place within the conservative and libertarian traditions. Second, there are a few interesting observations about the influence of Nietzsche on Rand and also some Jewish imagery in Rand's novels. Third, Mr. Merrill appreciates Rand and lets the reader understand why many people are so absorbed by her ideas. Fourth, the discussion of the novels is extensive. Fifth, the work includes a discussion of the Objectivist "movement."

On the other hand, as a guide to Rand's philosophy it leaves a lot to be desired. As an example, the discussion of axioms (so central to Rand) is given 4 lines. However, the "analytic-synthetic dichotomy" is given over a page. And it is presented exclusively in the context of Peikoff's misleading article of the same name. In any event, I don't see how Mr. Merrill's pointing out that W. V. O. ("I espouse a more thorough pragmatism") Quine also objected to the "analytic-synthetic dichotomy" helps his case that this concept is flawed [p. 170, n. 8]. (For a defense of how - contrary to Peikoff - a priori knowledge provides knowledge of "facts of experience," see Brand Blanshard, REASON & ANALYSIS, pp. 249-307, esp. pp. 303-04.)

This book should be read in conjunction with other books on Rand, including Tibor Machan's work, AYN RAND and Chris Sciabarra's AYN RAND: THE RUSSIAN RADICAL.

An excellent compact overview of Rand's views
Long before she died, Ayn Rand was praised as a goddess, and damned as a devil.In all the fuss, her actual ideas and views were generally shoved to one side, to the point where she said in her _Playboy_ interview that she could sympathize with Karl Marx(!) toward the end of his life, when he said that he was not a Marxist.The rather abrupt end of the organized Objectivist movement in 1968 was also the end of a great deal of her influence, and she became a figure more of legend than history long before her death.With this book, Merrill gives us a view of Ayn Rand's actual beliefs, as opposed to those attributed to her by the Usual Suspects, and some background as to how she came to the conclusions she did.It's disappointingly short, but Rand scholarship is evolving constantly.

Objective Book of Objectivism's founder
Free of the subjective rehashing that tainted the summations offered by Leonard Peikoff and the Brandens, this book is a fair, albeit much too brief, representation of Ayn Rand's history, ideas, and continuing legacy. Merril, a true student of Objectivism, is fair and balanced in his book. It is a mistake to rely solely on the admittedly worthy and remarkableworks of Peikoff and/or the Brandens without using this book to reconcilethe arguments put forth by the three of them in their own accounts.Readthis work and make up your own mind.

Nice book
This is a nice work in independent commentary and interpretation, something Peikovians cannot stand.And yes, the book has useful commentary. ... Read more

Product Description
He lived in the dark ages of the future. In a loveless world he dared to love the woman of his choice. In an age that had lost all trace of science and civilization he had the courage to seek and find knowledge. But these were not the crimes for which he would be hunted. He was marked for death because he had committed the unpardonable sin: he had stood forth from the mindless human herd. He was a man alone. Ayn Rand’s classic tale of a future dark age of the great “We,” in which individuals have no name, no independence, and no values, anticipates her later masterpieces, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

A for book, C+ for narration,B+ for addition of a forward
Ayn Rand is an icon - whose work's have continually become more and more prophetic. What more can be said about her then what already has been said?

Anthem is a very good short story that must of course pale next the massive Atlas Shrugs and the Fountainhead. But Anthem obviously has the markings of what would be to come.

Anthem starts like a very dark science fiction. The story takes place in the future society - where the word "I" and all it's meaning no longer exist. This is Rand's vision of the type of world where stifling altruist and collectivist philosophies might take us. - A world where everyone is equal (although some are more equal then others) and everyone must adhere to stifling laws and regulations enforced by powerful, dictatorial, closed minded bureaucrats. It's a society that only Ellsworth Toohey might dream of. This is world not unlike the one at end of Animal Farm or the world of 1984 - but Anthem's world might be even bleaker if that's at all possible.

In fact the futuristic society in Anthem is very similar to Orwell's 1984 only Anthem's final message is not ultimately so depressing and pessimistic. In fact Anthem's message is actually optimistic and hopeful.

As Rand has condemned certain philosophies and beliefs as evil she does not condemn man or mans soul or potential as evil. Those "evil" philosophies are defined and demonstrated clearly in her later novels and it must be assumed that they have come to fruition in the collectivist world of Anthem - but one would only know this by reading her latter works.

Anthem shows man's true nature (at least certain men) - that once free of the shackles of certain philosophies - is not base or evil. Anthem like Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhead is actually homage to mans greatest strengths. - His mind, soul, independence, romanticism, individualism and love.

Anthem predicts mans best qualities and greatest accomplishments have seen light in the past and will come to see the light again once. Anthem will not leave you bored or depressed but leave you asking questions with a sense of hope of what could be. Anthem is a story that that will most likely stay with you.

This book on tape has no where near as good a narration as on the other addtion of Anthem on CD. But there is a very good forward by Leonard Peikoff on this CD that is not on the other.

Great book - terrible narrator (go with the other Anthem audio)
Having listened to both unabridged audio versions of Anthem, the one read by Paul Meier is far superior.Christopher Lane is MONOTONE.It felt like a chore to listen to!Paul Meier has a bit of passion when he reads, and the characters feel more alive.Lane's version is like listening to a lecture that you know is interesting, but want to fall asleep to because it is poorly presented.

Save your money, and get the Anthem audiobook read by Paul Meier.

We Are Lemmings Being Led By the Least of Us
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.

As a retired Army officer and student of political philosophy, I recommend this book to anyone who is interested in political philosophy.
... Read more