Book Description
Read Rand's own never-before-scene journal entries about the Brandons. Author Valliant shines light on the truth hidden by the Brandens' biographies and sets the record straight. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (37)

The Weird Obsession With Ayn Rand
Damn, this is a weird book!If I weren't sure the author would never do drugs, I would strongly suspect he clearly was doing meth, big time!

A non-Objectivist, or more specifically, a person not thoroughly familiar with Objectivism and much of its lousy history, will definitely not find this book understandable, enjoyable (or even readable).

Even as a former self-proclaimed Objectivist, I only found what was fascinating about the book was simply watching the author strain and stress through the permutations of his own huge obsessions, driven

(1) to show tediously and technically what a valiant (pun intended) and demonstrably "good Objectivist" he is before the eyes of Leonard Peikoff (Rand's intellectual heir, so to speak) and the rest of the official Objectivist administration, but as well

(2) to calibrate every turn and twist (minor and major, but mostly minor) of circumstance after circumstance, piece of evidence after piece of evidence, and hearsay here and hearsay there of the larger story that is really known only between the Brandens and Ayn Rand (if she were alive today) into a kind of -- (to him) -- logic machine, but one with a unique structure immediately cognizable to all formal Objectivists, and

(3) to thus "prove -- rachet by rachet -- and once and for all, how utterly fair, utterly lovely, and wholly innocent Ayn Rand was in her affair with Nathaniel Branden while simultaneously "proving" how totally evil were Barbara and Nathaniel Branden in their relationship to Rand, reaffirming once more the choral-like, black-and-white moral "tradition" that is known as Objectivism.

Reading this book was like reading a technician's heavy and thick service and maintenance manual -- on ethics and love, if such a simile is at all comprehensible.

Do you like counting different types of screws, washers, and nails, measuring each one according to quarters of inches, and then storing them into a box that certifies the actual number and actual size?That was this approach on this book and the metallic taste the book conjures up with its dull prose as you read.

God! You have to have been a fanatic to write a book like this, and you do sure need some of the energy of a fanatic just to finish the book cover to cover!

As a side note, I've read Barbara Branden's "Passion of Ayn Rand," and I've read both of Nathaniel Branden's autobiographies (shades of Anais Nin's "House of Incest"), all when they first appeared in print.Mr. Valiant, in turn, sure can turn on the "proof" machine and make a case for the Brandens being total liars, especially Barbara in her biography of Rand.Nathaniel, well, Nathaniel really didn't need all that much "proving" to reveal he was a two-timing Romeo! Valiant gives it to him good, but a lot of the evidence against him was excessive!

(But how can you really measure what's "excessive" in the middle of a full-blown obsession?)

Nonetheless, I can tell you I can still love Barbara's well-written biography of Rand just as she can still love Thomas Wolfe's romantic novels even though Ayn Rand disapproved of him as a novelist for her to appreciate.It's easy because -- Valiant's prose never even comes near the status of art.

After all that Mr. Valiant wrote, Ayn Rand, in the end, sure does seem "proven" to have been sincere, fair, and "objective" in trying to understand her lying, two-timing, worthless boyfriend.No doubt about that!But for 14 years!???!!!

It took Rand 14 years (!) to confirm her lover was an effin liar??????Does this make sense to anyone?Hello?

I felt so very sad for Ayn Rand once I reached this chapter in Valiant's book.

I once myself felt bad for having wasted my love-life-- twice, six years with one man (a self-proclaimed Objectivist) and six years with another (a cynical opportunist), both of whom were equally manipulative and lying unloving men, but Rand, with all her intellect and so-called (philosophical) knowledge of human nature-- (see Greg Nyquist's book on Rand's conception of human nature ("Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature") -- went a full two years more (than me) still clinging to an illusion of the right man for the right reasons!

It pretty nearly broke my heart to have all this "proof" of Rand's earnestness before me with such sad consequences!

Nonetheless, Rand's (often not extolled) ethereal sweetness is in full evidence in this section.

All of Rand's brilliance couldn't stop her from wasting so much of her energies, affections, and precious attention on a project to be loved (by the right man for the right reasons)!Fourteen (wasted) years is way too long, folks!(No wonder Rand went into a huge depression afterwards! No wonder her rage at being so disappointed!)

Have any of you gals out there ever sat that long with a honey-tongued two-timer with half of Rand's brain-power?No, I didn't think so.

By book's end, I felt the book unintentionally but powerfully ironically demonstrated what pathetic limitations there are in emphasizing intellect over matters of the heart, both for Rand as well as for Mr. Valiant.A dull service and maintenance manual has been written by Mr. Valiant on the subject of love and ethics with an (unintentional) edifying moral tale or theme to tell and relate:Love is Blind.

That's the book, and it's just plain weird.

I still ask myself this unanswered question:Frank Sinatra sang "All The Way," but Rand -- did she really listen?

About time
Like many supporters of Objectivism, who for various reasons are too busy leading their normal lives to delve into the background and politics, I had often wondered about the Branden issue. I just assumed that the current "custodians" of the philosophy probably had good reason to just ignore it - in all probability, that it wasn't worthy of response. But that curiosity remained.

This book was a very worthwhile purchase. It is fresh and reaffirms the clear spirited view I have always had of Objectivism. It's heavy going though, and not something that will hold the attention of one not indignant, as I am and Ayn Rand was, at injustice.

I should add also that it will not convince any of the critics. This is not because it is in any way factually innaccurate, illogical, or lacking in substance. It's only becasue the author wears his righteuos indignation on his sleeve from page one, and as a *style*, that's not going to be as persuasive to a neutral observer as a more clinical writing style might.

A few good points, but mostly silly
After Ayn Rand died in 1982, her ex-followers Nathaniel and Barbara Branden wrote tell-all memoirs of their years with her.Their portrait of Rand - as an eccentric and authoritarian - has pretty much carried the day.Now, James Valliant tells us that Rand wasn't any of that.

Of course, the Brandens books are a bit self-serving and probably one-sided in their presentation of Rand.If Valliant had wanted to point out the various flaws in their accounts (which isn't that hard to do), he might have written an interesting article.Instead, The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics is an exercise in how to write a tendentious account of people you don't like.Did Barbara Branden tell us that Rand wasn't a very happy person?Well, she says that when Rand was younger, she was happy on a certain occasion.So a generalization has to take into account every waking moment in a person's life?This is pretty much Valliant's modus operandi.

Even the one thing that might have made this book interesting - the publication in Rand's diaries - turns into an exercise in hagiography.Valliant can't just quote what Rand says. No, he has to add pages and pages of commentary telling you how wonderful Rand was and what great insights she had into everything (except, interestingly enough, how Nathaniel Branden was running a cult).If you ever wondered if Objectivism was and is a cult, Valliant has now made, inadvertently, an iron-clad case.

At the end of the day, I don't see any reason to doubt the basic image of Rand described by the Brandens, a description which has been supported by almost everyone else who knew her.

Getting It Wrong
I received this book as a gift from a friend, and read it while I was a "captive audience" in my hospital room. What struck me most about this book is that it is the mirror image of the William F. Buckley, Jr. book, "Getting It Right."

Along with the venerable Mr. Buckley's tome, this book is an obsessive crusade to wage once again long-since stale vendettas over Ayn Rand's *personal* legacy.Whereas Buckley painted himself into a corner with his ridiculous theme that the conservative movement was "rescued" from "fringe lunatics" like Ayn Rand and the John Birch Society (Rand would have called this "package dealing"), Valliant puts forth a valiant effort to demonstrate, once and for all, that Ayn Rand was a saint beyond moral reproach, and implies throughout that Dr. Leonard Peikoff was objectivism's most important advocate during Rand's lifetime.

What a bunch of hooey!Even though both the Brandens' memoirs could at times be self-indulgent, Valliant's mischaraterizations of them could only be described as a smear job.

This is muckraking quackery of the worst sort.It is sad to watch grown adults sweat blood trying to convince the world that a woman dead now for 25 years was either an infallible saint or a wickedly manipulative devil. This book has the "feel" that Mr. Valliant was "put up" to this unenviable task of playing Grand Inquisitor to the Brandens. Although I haven't any proof, this book seems to have the fingerprints of one Dr. Leonard Peikoff --an incessant recycler and retreader of Ayn Rand's legacy, whose ability to squeeze every last penny from the ephemera bequeathed him by Rand would impress even Yoko Ono -- all over it.

If you live in the real world -- and not within the Ayn Rand or Buckley cults -- don't waste your time on this fanatical tract.

Essential Reading
Essential Reading for anyone who has been exposed to either, or both, of the Brandon's vicious Ayn Rand biographies. ... Read more

Book Description
No American philosopher has sold more books to the general public than Rand—over thirty million at last count, with over a half million being sold on a yearly basis.Rand’s legacy is widespread and enduring.But despite the extent of her influence, her ideas have not received much attention from scholars and critics.

Customer Reviews (14)

Devastating for Objectivism
If you are an Objectivist, you may want to read this and attempt to write a book refuting his arguments.I don't agree with all of Greg's arguments, but many of them are devastating, especially his scientific arguments.Just as bad for Rand's supporters, he shows that much of her reasoning is based on fallacies.He basically points out that she abandoned reason in the name of reason.Please don't comment on what I said, until you read the whole book. You can't fully understand his critique by just reading one chapter.

HUM DINGER!!!
I read this book when it first came out several years ago, and what a great, refreshing, head-spinner of a book this is, as I remember it. It's a tour de force, unique in the field of anti-Rand literature.It's not a rant; it's an exploration, a tour through a strange museum that was Rand's Objectivism and Greg Nyquist is our tour guide, a guide who is not without his humor and surprise!

Greg Nyquist isn't a professional philosopher trying to substitute Rand's philosophy for his own.Nor is he trying to make a better argument than Rand for Objectivism.He really just wants to show the reader that trust in Rand-worship and in Rand's philosophy is misplaced; both have lots of cracks, fissures, and implausibilities about them.That's why he's written this book.The book is not a rant; it's an extended conversation with the reader.

Mr. Nyquist is a freelance writer.He's created a book by his own means, his own intellectual effort.He deserves respect for that effort and for his courage.There's no need to remark perjoratively, as some negative reviewers have done, that Nyquist started with "vanity publishing" attempts of this book.Such remarks remain beside the point of the book's main and cogent discussion; they even constitute an ad hominen argument against what are the book's main ideas, and Randians especially ought to know and recognize this error.But, sadly, they do not and keep uttering irrational mouthings.

Great authors in the past have followed the path of self-publishing and great authors in the future will continue to do so. There is no shame attached to this endeavor at all.Mr. Nyquist has a right to feel proud of his work.It is a wonderful and awesome read.

The author shows the reader exactly where the cracks and fissures in Objectivsm are -- especially in regard to Rand's views of human nature (and in her pedestrian esthetic tastes).I think the author does this job better than any other anti-Rand author managing to get his or her words out in print, no matter the means.

Granted the author's ways of reaching his goals, his ways of taking the reader on this exploration, journey, or tour through the museum of Rand's ideas can be quirky or even eccentric at times, but he gets the job done and he does it very interestingly, compellingly.

The book is not a dry treatise as some might expect, although someone less informed and less skilled at being a highly specialized philosophical tour-guide of Rand's ideas than Greg Nyquist might have created such a work and bored the reader beyond tears.It is a provocative and informative work.

I recommend this book to men and women who feel uncomfortable in the cult of Objectivism and who need, understandably, really reasonable reasons to escape, good and useful reasons for escaping the cult that is Objectivism.I also recommend this book to men and women who want an overview of what pitfalls to avoid when exploring Objectivism.

This is a highly enjoyable and riveting read, but one which does require some academic acumen or intellectual staying-power to fully enjoy.

Peace to all, and enjoy!

Why all the spite?
The author offers a few worthwhile criticisms of Rand's philosophy, but there is far too much spite. He regularly claims her philosophy is vague and superficial, simply her subjective prejudices, lacks empirical support, and consists of verbalisms having little to do with reality. Despite this, he agrees with significant chunks of it! In the Introduction he says "None of Rand's views on human nature, epistemology, history, ethics, or politics bother me all that much."Why then all the spite?

To a great extent the Introduction is one long rant and could be skipped or read after the rest of the book. Such a start undercuts the author's credibility and highlights his emotionalist dislike of Rand. Then there are his own flawed ideas. For example, he says "there is no such thing as induction", yet repeatedly makes generalizations about Rand.

Chapter 1 - Theory of Human Nature

The author gives two basic conceptions of human nature - naturalistic and utopian. He considers himself an extreme naturalist and Rand a utopian. Are there no other alternatives? Rand was surely an idealist (ordinary sense, not the philosophical one). She thought the world could be a better place. If he completely disagrees with that, he is as much fatalistic as naturalistic.

He regards her philosophy not as the search for truth, but her means of projecting the ideal man. Her standard of human greatness is so unrealistic no man could ever meet it. Only her fictional characters could. Of course, some of them are near superhero status, but that doesn't imply real people can't be geniuses, rational, courageous, or have integrity.

The author says Rand's theory of human nature is based on the human mind having complete control over the body and will. Saying that a man must "create himself" is a lot like saying man has no given nature. This is a gross exaggeration. She held there are automatic mechanisms, which undercuts "complete control." She also had plenty to say about man's given nature. How did Nyquist miss it?

Rand says the ideal man has no "inner conflicts" between his reason and emotions. The author says this is wrong; conflicts are between different desires. This is a valid point for real people much of the time. I doubt that Rand would have disagreed. Nyquist has an "inner conflict" between his reason and emotions at least when it comes to Rand. Emotions aside, he finds much to agree with. Let emotion enter, and his antagonism overwhelms him.

He critiques Rand and her disciple Leonard Peikoff on the choice to think and innate emotions. Peikoff says there are none and wrote some things I haven't found in Rand's writing, so it's hard to know if she would have agreed. In any case he makes some valid criticisms of their claims, especially on the choice to think. Peikoff claimed there is no `why', and Nyquist rightly jumps on it. On the other hand, he makes false or dubious claims and misrepresents them. For example, Rand wrote that man's emotional mechanism was tabula rasa. However, she also wrote that the physical pleasure-pain mechanism of man's body is automatic and innate, which Nyquist ignores. This undercuts his depiction of Rand's position. Also, "blank slate" does not mean "no slate."

He claims Rand could not bring herself to reject the fundamental impulses toward religion, man's spiritual salvation. She wanted to save men's souls, but instead of looking to God, thought she could do it herself.

Chapter 2 - Theory of History

Much of this is about Peikoff's theory of history. Rand wrote very little on the topic. The author rightfully criticizes Peikoff's theory for its exaggerated importance assigned to philosophers. He claims instead that history is driven by more practical matters like human sentiments and desires and their unintended consequences. A good example is money qua medium of exchange. He endorses Vilfredo Pareto's idea that desires and sentiments are the primary determinants of the social order.

The chapter is not without the author's own misconceptions. For example: "There is absolutely no reason to believe that ideas become more influential as their degree of abstractness increases. If anything, they probably become less influential. . . . How can principles so vague and indefinite possibly guide man's concrete actions?" He seems oblivious to the phenomena that "more abstract" extends the range of application. For example, in biological taxonomy genus is more abstract than specie. Genus applies to multiple species and thus more organisms.

Chapter 3 - Theory of Knowledge

He critiques Rand's claim about the significance of the problem of universals and Rand's solution to it, which rests heavily on her theory of measurement omission. I largely agree with the author's criticisms here, especially on measurement omission. It is not that measurements are never omitted, but that she grossly exaggerated their role and was inconsistent.

The author's comments on abstraction show his misunderstanding of it in regard to concept-formation. Abstraction is the selection of common characteristics of the referents and thus central. In contrast Nyquist says it is purely secondary and approvingly cites Santayana that "the abstract is what is less familiar to the speaker." Huh?

He misunderstands Rand's words or distorts them for polemical purposes. One of many examples: "Rand's most serious epistemological error is her assumption that all human knowledge is ultimately conceptual in nature and can only be formulated through a process of deliberate conscious reasoning." But in Rand's own words, knowledge is "a mental grasp of a fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation" (ITOE, 1979, 45).

Chapter 4 - Theory of Metaphysics

The author says he detests metaphysics; it's too abstract, speculative, and non-empirical. I agree when the metaphysics is of somebody like Hegel, who gets Nyquist's attention. Moving on to Rand, he goes after her axioms and oft-repeated "A is A" as verbalisms empty of empirical content. (I think there is more to them than he acknowledges, when their meaning is elaborated.) He even agrees with them on some level, but criticizes the way Rand and other Objectivists use them polemically against other people.

The author's own view on logic is common but incoherent. On page 98, he says the following. "Reality is neither logical nor illogical; it just is. Logic is a quality that applies only to the realm of thought.". . . "Those who, like Rand, assume that reality is logical, are guilty of confusing our ideas about reality with reality itself." (I have even seen some who call themselves Objectivists express this view.)"Our thoughts about reality must be logical if they are to correctly represent reality."I must ask: How can thoughts -- logical or illogical -- be compared to reality if reality is neither logical or illogical (in his view)?

Chapter 5 - Theory of Morality

The author wholly agrees with Hume's attack on the so-called naturalistic fallacy, that one can derive an `ought' from an `is.' He contends Rand's morality is a complete failure, critiques her positions like `life is the standard of value' and the tension between bare survival and survival appropriate to man's nature, and altruism versus egoism. As an aside, this issue is often debated elsewhere as "survival versus flourishing." Despite all the criticisms, he believes there are some elements of truth in the Objectivist ethics.

One of several topics he undertakes is the dictum honesty is the best policy. After noting some exceptions given by Leonard Peikoff, Nyquist declares: "Once you admit that your moral principles do not apply `under all circumstances,' then you have, in effect, given yourself the right to break your moral principles any time you choose."Really? It's a policy, not a rule without exception. It may mean that the policy is a not quite as broad as expressed earlier. An exception to `all X are Y' leaves `some X are Y' or `most X are Y', not `no X is Y'.

Chapter 6 - Theory of Politics

He starts on the wrong foot. Citing Peikoff: "Politics, like ethics, is a normative branch of philosophy." Nyquist says: "No where is the basic problem of Objectivist theory of politics more aptly expressed . . . Peikoff is expressing the Objectivist view that political philosophy is primarily concerned, not with the basic facts of political conduct in the real world, but on how politics ought to be conducted." I disagree. Peikoff is saying a political theory, no matter whose, follows some ethical principles. For example, some would say "it's moral to rob Peter to pay Paul." Two pages later Nyquist in effect says the same thing: "the overwhelming influence of sentiment on political thinking".

Oddly enough, he concedes to Rand "her every normative claim about social, economic and political relations." Nevertheless, he can't resist inserting ridiculous comments. "She suffered from the delusion that political problems could be solved by manipulating conceptual constructions."

"It should be obvious that Rand and her followers have little if any, notion of how many real-life obstacles stand in the way of the implementation of their theory." And where is Nyquist's vaunted empirical support for this? I doubt he knows more than a handful of her followers, so he can't know what they think about this. Two obvious and enormous real-life obstacles are the prevalence of the sentiment that it's moral to rob Peter to pay Paul and business should be heavily government-regulated. I'd bet the vast majority of her followers would state these real-life obstacles instantly.

Chapter 7 - Theory of Aesthetics

Like he indicates in the Introduction, his fiercest antagonism towards Rand is inspired by her views on aesthetics. Reportedly Rand often inferred others' philosophical positions on the basis of their aesthetic valuations, and she had many negative ones. There was a lot of art considered great by many that Rand despised. Oddly enough, his antagonism to Rand's aesthetics is quite constrained in this chapter.

Chapter 8 - Final Thoughts

He tackles the question of whether Objectivist principles are harmful or beneficial to those who accept them. He believes beneficial in many cases. But they are "useless to those who know how to think critically or are familiar with the facts of history and the social sciences." What a non-empirical claim and subjective prejudice! How does Nyquest presume to know so much about so many people he doesn't know?

He turns to the question of what effect Objectivism will have on the future. With intrigue like that, I will make my final comment. For those who might be tempted to throw the book in the trash after encountering a few criticisms of Rand and her philosophy, they will at least miss some food for thought.

Avoid it
The best technical presentation of Ayn Rand's thought is Leonard Peikoff's "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand." Rand herself maintained that a philosophy should be graspable by real people--and not the purview of experts alone--and Peikoff's book is that presentation. So if you've read her novels and articles, and want to grasp her thought in a systematic way, then read Peikoff. Then, decide for yourself.

Nyquist's book does not rise to the level of a competent critique. He neither presents his own methods clearly, nor properly presents Rand. I have not said whether I agree with her or not. I have simply said that Nyquist's book is not the place to learn her thought. Stay away from it.

Melodramatic Slights of Logic
In search good supplement to my continuing rehabilitation from my Ayn Rand addiction, I looked to this book. I wanted a solid rebuttal of some of the contradictions I had gleaned off of Rand's writing. As Greg will tell you, academic philosophers have largely ignored Rand, and he promises to clear all that up. Needless to say, I was excited to read this book, because as much as I respect Rand's philosophy, I haven't heard any criticisms. Maybe I was just being sucked in to the infamous Randian cult lifestyle, I wanted a complete picture.

However, I was let down. There are points worth noting, some mistakes of Rand that are elucidated, some knowledge to be had from this book... But most if not all of it, I feel, was gone about in an unbecoming to a philosopher and sometimes childish manner. As far as tackling Ayn Rand goes, I was expecting Nyquist to show her up on her own ground. That is, clear and unambiguous discourse on errors in thinking Rand had committed. Not so. My expectations were shattered.

This book is littered with personal slander of Ayn Rand that supposedly discredits objectivism. Constant misrepresentations of her philsophy, either through ignorance by Nyquist or maybe he thought the reader wouldn't notice. Appeal after appeal to a "that's just how people are, everyone says so". Ayn Rand probably knows best of all that her philosophy and "people" don't match the best, as you can tell from her fiction. Often Nyquist simply stoops to generating controversy by using a word in a different sense that Rand has.

More often was a pulling my hair in intellectual agony than picking out any tidbits of worthwile criticism. I want my money back Greg. Paypal me. ... 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

Book Description
The Gospel According to Ayn Rand contains much of the text that appeared in It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand-somewhat revised and edited to conform to modern style-plus new chapters dealing with events that took place after the book was first published. Some of the new material deals with my campaign for Governor of New York as the Free Libertarian Party candidate, plus thoughts on my current political and spiritual leanings.

Customer Reviews (16)

A Mind Out Of Focus
Ayn Rand was a thinker whose ideas ranged from the insightful to the ill informed.Occasionally she says something interesting and you think she had a unique ability to get to the heart of the matter.Other times, you shake your head and ask yourself how could someone be so misguided.I don't have a good explanation for why this is the case, but if you want to see Rand's mind *not* at work, her "marginalia" (comments she wrote in books she read) is the place to start.

Part of Rand's problem is that she is intent on misreading and misinterpreting what others write.She thinks she knows that an author means better than he does.At times, her misunderstandings border on the bizarre.For example, she comments on von Mises's work HUMAN ACTION.For page after page, Rand misconstrues what Mises said.(At one point she even "corrects" his definition of money.I'd like to see *her* 500 page treatise on monetary theory.)In one section, Mises discusses the Austrian concept of "the sovereignty of the consumer."This idea means that in a free market economy, businesses must produce and sell what consumers want if they are to stay in business.If consumers want dishwashers and porno mags instead of Beethoven CDs, then that's what will be produced.If you think about it, this is a powerful argument against socialism and government planning.The economy is already "planned" by consumers who vote with their dollars.Do government bureaucrats know better what consumers want?Yet Rand will have none of this.She goes into a tizzy about the term "sovereignty."It has"altruist-parasite implication[s]."It turns people into "slaves" of the "whims" of the consumer.

Even worse is Rand's misunderstanding of C.S. Lewis's work THE ABOLITION OF MAN.Lewis makes the point that planners use the power they have gained from science to dominate man.He concludes that any power won by man is also a power over man.Rand goes bonkers and comments "So when you cure men of . . .[diseases] - you make them weaker!!!" Uh, that wasn't exactly his point.She even accuses Lewis (an Anglican) of wanting science subservient to the Pope!

The most of obvious question is why would Ayn Rand's estate publish stuff which makes her look like something of a, well, loon?As the editor Robert Mayhew (a professor philosophy at Seton Hall) admits, Rand never imagined that her jottings would be published.Incredibly, Prof. Mayhew, while conceding the harshness of some of Rand's comments, says there isn't one case where what Rand said was "unfair."He even holds Rand's comment about C.S. Lewis that I quoted above as an example of her "matchless mind in action."

I like Ayn
As a fan of Ayn Rand, I'm tired of it feeling like a "guilty pleasure" to like her.

Every time I come out of the closet about my affection for Rand, it turns out bad, because I have to defend or at least explain the silly bunch of humorless crackpots that the Peikoff Factory keeps churning out. It's like being a Christian trying to explain away the Inquisitors.

Rand was frequently ridiculous, often pathetic, and permanently out-of-touch with her own internal emotional realities. (Come on, after the Branden affair, can even her most ardent followers deny that she was a little screwed up in the bedroom?).

She reminds us all just how hard it is to not be full of it when your emotions are involved, especially if you pride yourself more than anything else on not being full of it.

Rand was still a great human being, and I wish I'd known her personally. She might not have liked me, but I like her. She remains a great litmus test. I've observed that people who react to her like vampires to garlic are usually about as judgmental and arrogant as she was, just not as bright.

Still, it would help me a lot if you true believers would stop trying to mimic her pejorative style. Your constant overuse in ordinary conversation of words like cowardice, evasion, appall(ing/ed) immoral, depraved, etc. is like 4 year olds trying to swear. When Ayn smote the wicked, it was magnificant, but you guys couldn't smite your way out of a wet paper bag.

Oh, and please, nobody come back at me with any form of the archetype of Randian smite-speech: "there (is/can be) no greater (depravity/crime/abdication/evasion/immorality) than to...."

I swear I've heard you people use that phrasing for every thoughtcrime from putting up with your born-again sister-in-law's preaching without humiliating her at Thanksgiving dinner, to liking Elvis (it doesn't matter which Elvis, they're all depraved, you know).

And while I'm at it, you all can quit recoiling in horror every time you read something you don't agree with.

I just re-read Atlas Shrugged again for the first time in 20 years. Pretty cool book, and it helped me come up with a new drinking game. Start reading the book, and every time you find the word "torture" in a love scene, you get to take a shot. You can stay drunk for a week!

Rand never looked worse
I agree with other "negative" reviewers who regard this work as embarrassing.This book ends up making Rand look very bad indeed.In note after note, she seems determined to misunderstand, distort, even re-writewhat she is reading.If I were the executors of Rand's estate, I wouldhave burned these notes.To publish them to the world is practicallyscandalous.

A negative review with my name on it
I don't know what "cowards" that other reviewer has in mind, but there are several negative reviews here with the reviewers' names on them -- including an earlier one from me that has scrolled off the page. Maybethe anonymous reviewers just don't like getting spammed by angryObjectivists; me, I collect that stuff. The really choice examples I postto discussion lists so everybody can see them.

As for this volume itself,it's a collection of rather embarrassing marginal notes from some booksthat Rand attempted to read. Unfortunately she read them as though theirauthors were using terms with the meanings _she_ assigned them, andtherefore often misunderstood them. (As I and other reviewers have noted,her misreading of Ludwig von Mises' "subjectivism" is a very goodexample.)

It _is_ possible to support this contention by argument andexample. But this review board isn't a discussion list; reviewers here postfairly brief opinions, not lengthy, thoroughly argued essays. Objectivistswho expect otherwise, and then criticize only the _negative_ reviewers fornot giving all their reasons, are simply revealing their ownbiases.

Intellectual cowardice, indeed. I think that charge appliesrather to Objectivists who respond only with insults when their guru iscriticized. But please, keep those insults coming; sooner or later,_everyone_ will know just how centrally important reason and rationalityare to Rand's devoted followers.

cowardly critics
It's very nice to see all of the critical comments on Rand backed up by nothing in terms of substance.Indeed, the reviews are almost akin to, "I don't understand Rand but I shall say she is bad regardless." I don't blame those of you who identify yourselves as "A Reader"rather than leaving your email addresses and names.I would expect no lessconsidering the intellectual cowardice within your reviews. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (11)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Didn't Know Enough To Come In Out Of The Rain
The star of this book is Rand's essay "Apollo and Dionysus," a comparison of the near-simultaneous events Woodstock and the first lunar landing.I was in high school at the time, and I remember the Woodstock explosion that occurred during the school year following the August concert, the remarkable number of classmates who adopted the hippie lifestyle and pretty much stopped doing any work whatever.One guy who'd been a valedictory prospect dropped right off the academic radar, probably due to drugs.Rand's suggestion that Woodstock represented an abandonment of reason is supported by on-scene reports of concert-goers who simply showed up with the clothes on their backs -- no plans for food, water, lodgings or anything, and the fact that concert organizers also neglected such essential considerations.The Woodstock army completely trashed the place, ending up wallowing in a big muddy mess while standing stupidly outside in the rain.

On the other hand, the lunar mission was a sterling example of human achievement driven by rationality, the culmination of the application of brainpower to a problem, and the success which resulted therefrom.Oh certainly, Rand drew (and draws) a lot of fire, but she was absolutely correct in her belief that upgrades of our human condition will only be developed by people who think and act, and not by herds of hippies standing in the rain. ... Read more

Product Description
Atlas Shrugged is the "second most influential book for Americans today" after the Bible, according to a joint survey conducted by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (6)

a great book
A great book.Don't be put off by its length - it is very interesting throughout and worth the time.

Just The Facts
Just to clarify:

I am holding this set of audiobook in my hands (I just ordered it and received it). I just wanted to clarify a few things for the benefit of other Rand fans about this particular release.

It is the COMPLETE, un-abridged, audiobook of the COMPLETE Atlas Shrugged. For some reason, the title of the Amazon listing says "II part", which I assume means that is in 2 parts, which it is. But, you get BOTH of the parts with this purchase.

It comes in two cardboard boxes, plastic-wrapped together, labeled "Part I of II", and "Part II". Each box holds 21 audio CDs. The disks indicate "Tracks every 3 minutes", and it looks like it's a 3 minute average, not exact (the tracks are of various lengths, always *around* 3 minutes); so the chapters do not correlate one-to-one to tracks.

The disks also indicate that this was published by Blackstone in 1991. So, my hunch is that this is a commercial re-release of the version that has been in limited availability as the "Library Version" for some time. The box indicates that it was digitally re-mastered in 2007.

It sounds good. It's a bit different since I'm so used to Edward Hermann from the cassette audiobooks. But the funny part is that either Hurt or Hermann must have listened to the other, because many of the verbal characteristics of the characters are the same. It's oddly comforting if you have heard Hermann's version...

Thanks Blackstone... I can't wait for the Fountainhead un-abridged audio that comes out in about a month!

Which one is the full version?
I love this book!It is my favorite of all time.I listened to the abridged version narrated by Edward Herman and it was nothing less than superb.People nowadays have lost touch with what makes things tickin this world and Ayn Rand is turning in her grave.I have been a political spectator for too long now and it is time now for me to lower my blood pressure and go back to dreaming about the human potential.I hope there is still hope.

I now want the unabridged version and I have doubts on which one to buy??I don't want to buy only half , especially the second half as the previous reviewer stated.Can someone enlighten me on which of the three versions is which?

Those who preach selflessness do it for selfish reasons
In today's political clime Rand's writing is must reading. We are currently experiencing a resurgence in the war on the individual, with Hillary Clinton dropping quotes right and left that sound remarkably similar to statements made by Stalin and Lenin. Enough is a enough. Those who preach collectivism are trying to subjugate you. Those who preach altruism typically have their hand in someone else's pocket. As Rand says in Atlas Shrugged, "public welfare" is the banner that looters hide behind. Here Rand argues that capitalism is the ONLY just political system. The problem with many conservatives, as Rand saw them, is that though they defend capitalism they usually ground their defense in some vague notion of "God-given rights." Since religious beliefs are not rationally defensible this move greatly risks placing reason on the side of the anti-capitalists. No, Rand said, we must do what's right because it's right and not because we are told to or want to get into heaven. We must defend capitalism not because of some bizarre notion of being mandated by a supreme being but rather because it is the only political system that allows man to rise to his potential, to choose for himself, to bargain with others freely and to exercise his volition. Liberals who defend "minorities" (all the while ignoring that in one out of three of the most populated counties in America today whites are actually the minority) while engaging in collectivist attacks on "the cult of the individual" and "egoism" must contend with Rand's statement that one cannot claim to defend minorities while attacking individualism, for the smallest minority is ALWAYS the individual. People always act with selfish reasons. In order for charity to even be of any help the recipient must selfishly accept the charity. Bad competition, which levels the playing field by inhibiting the performance of rivals, drags achievers down to the mean. All the good such achievers can do for society as a whole is then eliminated, as in the "Anti-dog-eat-dog" agreement in this book. Good competition, in which people compete by perfecting their own skill and knowledge, improves everyone. Even if you are beat by someone else you are left more knowledgeable and able. I only have one question: Where is Galt's Gulch? I would like to move. This novel, originally entitled The Strike, is brilliant. The Fountainhead was about the individual vs. the collective, and this is about the producers vs. the parasites. What if the reviled "rich," those who produce the amenities others take for granted or expect the "government" to pay for, all went on strike? What then? By the way, if you like this book you will probably also like a book called Camp of the Saints. Check it out.

I love the party scene in this book. Rand perfectly points out the ultimate irony of parties: A party is supposed to be a celebration, but those who have done things worthy of celebration typically are not the kind of people who find any enjoyment in parties, whereas those who love partying are not the kind of people there is anything worth celebrating about!

The point of this book was ably made by Jon Hanson, author of a nifty little book called Good Debt, Bad Debt. The point is this: NEVER in history has there been a society that was socialist BEFORE it went capitalist. This has never happened because it would be impossible. It can only be the other way around. FIRST capitalists must BUILD and MAINTAIN a society BEFORE socialists can come and leech off of it parasitically. Socialists don't build or produce anything. They only appropriate. This is why socialism can only follow capitalism. Further, if the last remnant of the capitalist elements of society completely disintegrate, the entire structure collapses. It's not the socialists that keep things going, they just feed off of open sores.

Great book, only it is the second part
The book is great and the lecturer is very clear. However, I thought it was the complete novel, but this is the second part only and I have been having trouble to find part No. 1. ... Read more

Book 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 posthumous publications, the latest biographical information, and summaries of books and articles about Rand, published since her death, have been added. Burgeoning interest in Rand, the publication of her Letters and Journals and Russian Writings, and the growing body of critical works necessitates an expanded and revised edition of the Ayn Rand Companion. This new edition is the only general reference work that covers the complete Rand corpus, including both those works published during her life and those published to date. ... 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

Book Description
Ayn Rand is well known for advocating egoism, but the substance of that egoisms instruction is rarely understood. Far from representing the rejection of morality, selfishness, in Rands 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)

Quite Useful
The author sets out to analyze, integrate, and present systematically the whole Objectivist ethics, and she succeeds admirably. This book will be useful to the Objectivist who wants to understand more deeply the logical implications of Miss Rand's rational egoism and consider how to live egoistically. It will also be useful to anyone grappling to understand the Objectivist ethics (e.g. the reader of The Fountainhead who senses Howard Roark's greatness but struggles to reconcile it with selfishness, having subconsciously automatized altruistic premises).

I consider Miss Rand's books as prerequisites to this work, particularly The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and The Virtue of Selfishness (in that order).

The author's writing style, though stilted in places, is generally clear, economical, and unambiguous, and she remains focused throughout, confining her digressions to the footnotes (and even those are typically relevant and interesting).

My principal gripe against this book is its neutral, noncommittal tone. Since it is not merely a restatement of the Objectivist ethics, the author obviously has something to say, i.e., many opinions on the subject. It seems to me ingenuine of her to pretend she has no opinion about the truth or falsehood of Objectivism. One can glean from the text that she probably believes rational egoism to be true.

I did not expect the author to attempt a novel validation of rational egoism, but I also did not expect her to deliberately obscure (though somewhat half-heartedly) her own opinion of its truth or falsehood. To present rational egoism without "bias" would be to say nothing new about it, and Tara Smith has done something better here.

Though she explains, in the introduction, that she is merely presenting the implications of Miss Rand's ethics, and confesses that she is "sympathetic" to it, I cannot see why she did not (consistently) simply write from the point of view of what she actually believes. Her approach seems calculated to appeal to moral subjectivists or multiculturalists, and that is so out of place in a discussion of Objectivism that I found it distracting.

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

Book Description
A detailed philosophical study of Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (4)

Whats wrong with you lot
I suppose it is enivitable that Porter would get bad reviews: He is often critical of Rand which will alienate the randroids. He is always critical of contemporary philosophy, which will alienate most people who have wasted their time pursuing the subject academically.(i.e. anyone who has studied in a western university).He shows how Rand successfully undercuts the modern Left at the deepest metaphysical and epistemological levels. Thats probably a substantial proportion of readers of any philosophical book.

In this book Porter demonstrates that Rand has developed a theory of concepts which is extremely powerful and which resolves both a multitude of philosophical mistakes and philosophical problems. Careful reading of this book gives you a superb grip on her theory, but it is hard, detailed work. This work is well worth doing as it will give you deeper insight into philosophy in general and concepts and conceptual thought in particular.

I wonder if any of the reviewers above who gave it one star could substantiate their judgement in detail. It appears to be the usual sneering, devoid of reflection.

Don't waste your money.
The other reviewers are right - this dog of a book should never have been published. In fact it seems to have been published by the author himself by way of a vanity press. Well, he shouldn't have wasted his time or hismoney, and I shouldn't have wasted mine. This author knows NOTHING aboutphilosophy, but that doesn't stop him from complaining REPEATEDLY thatphilosophers are a bunch of idiots. If possible, he's even more ignorant(and prouder of it) than Rand herself.

Clunk!
I've recently started to study Ayn Rand's "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" (ITOE).I decided to purchase Mr. Porter's paragraph by paragraph commentary in the hopes that it would illuminatesome of ITOE's obscure, contradictory and bizarre passages (which, come tothink of it, pretty well describes every sentence in the book).

Well,call me philosophically unsophisticated, but I couldn't find a singlecommment in Mr. Porter's book that helped me better understand ITOE.(Infairness to Mr. Porter, I didn't read the entire book, but I did read afair amount of it.)

There may be some gems of wisdom in Mr. Porter'ssmarmy, know-it-all commentary, but I didn't find any.

The blind leading the blind.
I wouldn't have thought it was possible to write a _worse_ book on "Objectivist epistemology" than Rand herself wrote. But I was wrong; Tom Porter has managed it.

If you're looking for a book written bysomeone who possesses less than a college-freshman-level understanding ofphilosophy, who thinks that historically important philosophers have beenpretty much one and all dishonest or stupid or both, and who grinds hisantiphilosophical axe under the name of Ayn Rand while providing even fewerreferences and explanations than Rand herself bothered to provide, thenthis is the book for you. But if you're looking for a book that actuallyevinces a faint glimmer of hope that something in Rand's hodgepodge of anepistemology _might_, on one or two points, be modified into somethingbarely salvageable at the hands of someone with some philosophicalcompetence, try David Kelley's _The Evidence of the Senses_ instead. Thisbook ain't it.

Of course, this book will be of tremendous interest t