The design and UX isn't done, Rob and Abbie, okkurrrr! 😌
thomasgoddard's review against another edition
4.0
I've re-written a review of this a few times. It's really hard because it's an uphill battle trying to explain to anyone that there's value to be extracted from Objectivism. And I don't mean to say there's a lot. But the views on the idiocy of socialism and the chapter on rights and sacrifice. That's worth wading through the nonsense about selfishness for.
It's not a unique viewpoint, but it is quite a clear system of thought. And a lot of the aspects I was led to believe about Rand, and those who share her views, are just absolutely stupid. Most of the time they're extremely biased or completely misunderstand the points raised.
The older I get the more I realise that most philosophies are an exercise in alienation. You'd think they'd be an attempt to weld the bonds between all men. But actually they just serve to intellectually distance us from the opposing perspective targeted.
I think the most reasonable response to life, and the people in it, is just to try to avoid zero-sum games. And to think about issues locally too. None of this broad swathe nonsense. The moment we start straying into the trap of thinking about people in groupings and tribes is the moment we might as well abandon any claim of moralistic virtue.
Is there a right way to run society? Probably. But I doubt the best way will be dreamt up by one of us. I'm leaning toward some form of artificial intelligence. Yeah. And it'll probably throw us back into little villages again. It'll be nice. Cottagecore meets Black Mirror. High Rise with a dash of Cider for Rosie.
It's not a unique viewpoint, but it is quite a clear system of thought. And a lot of the aspects I was led to believe about Rand, and those who share her views, are just absolutely stupid. Most of the time they're extremely biased or completely misunderstand the points raised.
The older I get the more I realise that most philosophies are an exercise in alienation. You'd think they'd be an attempt to weld the bonds between all men. But actually they just serve to intellectually distance us from the opposing perspective targeted.
I think the most reasonable response to life, and the people in it, is just to try to avoid zero-sum games. And to think about issues locally too. None of this broad swathe nonsense. The moment we start straying into the trap of thinking about people in groupings and tribes is the moment we might as well abandon any claim of moralistic virtue.
Is there a right way to run society? Probably. But I doubt the best way will be dreamt up by one of us. I'm leaning toward some form of artificial intelligence. Yeah. And it'll probably throw us back into little villages again. It'll be nice. Cottagecore meets Black Mirror. High Rise with a dash of Cider for Rosie.
nekomancer42's review against another edition
4.0
The first item in this collection is some of Ayn Rand's best writing, and an excellent summary of Objectivist ethics. It's worth reading if you want a better understanding of some of the most critical concepts in Objectivism. Others parts of this collection are also good, but feel free to skip anything written by Nathaniel Branden; his writing is awful by comparison, his arguments draw from a bad misreading of the worst thinking in outdated psychology, and all this is packaged along with a strong dose of blatant homophobia.
izzyizreading's review against another edition
Got this for a philosophy class where we needed to pick someone for a paper/presentation, and we couldnt have repeats
I don't even really remember this tbh
I don't even really remember this tbh
whogivesabook's review against another edition
4.0
I've re-written a review of this a few times. It's really hard because it's an uphill battle trying to explain to anyone that there's value to be extracted from Objectivism. And I don't mean to say there's a lot. But the views on the idiocy of socialism and the chapter on rights and sacrifice. That's worth wading through the nonsense about selfishness for.
It's not a unique viewpoint, but it is quite a clear system of thought. And a lot of the aspects I was led to believe about Rand, and those who share her views, are just absolutely stupid. Most of the time they're extremely biased or completely misunderstand the points raised.
The older I get the more I realise that most philosophies are an exercise in alienation. You'd think they'd be an attempt to weld the bonds between all men. But actually they just serve to intellectually distance us from the opposing perspective targeted.
I think the most reasonable response to life, and the people in it, is just to try to avoid zero-sum games. And to think about issues locally too. None of this broad swathe nonsense. The moment we start straying into the trap of thinking about people in groupings and tribes is the moment we might as well abandon any claim of moralistic virtue.
Is there a right way to run society? Probably. But I doubt the best way will be dreamt up by one of us. I'm leaning toward some form of artificial intelligence. Yeah. And it'll probably throw us back into little villages again. It'll be nice. Cottagecore meets Black Mirror. High Rise with a dash of Cider for Rosie.
It's not a unique viewpoint, but it is quite a clear system of thought. And a lot of the aspects I was led to believe about Rand, and those who share her views, are just absolutely stupid. Most of the time they're extremely biased or completely misunderstand the points raised.
The older I get the more I realise that most philosophies are an exercise in alienation. You'd think they'd be an attempt to weld the bonds between all men. But actually they just serve to intellectually distance us from the opposing perspective targeted.
I think the most reasonable response to life, and the people in it, is just to try to avoid zero-sum games. And to think about issues locally too. None of this broad swathe nonsense. The moment we start straying into the trap of thinking about people in groupings and tribes is the moment we might as well abandon any claim of moralistic virtue.
Is there a right way to run society? Probably. But I doubt the best way will be dreamt up by one of us. I'm leaning toward some form of artificial intelligence. Yeah. And it'll probably throw us back into little villages again. It'll be nice. Cottagecore meets Black Mirror. High Rise with a dash of Cider for Rosie.
girlbossed's review against another edition
informative
medium-paced
2.5
As a self-proclaimed individualist, I have always felt that there is some virtue in selfishness. However, the topic has always felt controversial. How can you live in a society if you only think of yourself? You always have to sacrifice something in order to fit in! How can you have meaningful relationships with people if you only think of yourself? All relationships include compromise.
The two stars (2.5) are a thank you to the author for putting into words what my chaotic thoughts to these questions have been.
About Society:
The two stars (2.5) are a thank you to the author for putting into words what my chaotic thoughts to these questions have been.
About Society:
"“Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue. Thus, altruism gauges a man’s virtue by the degree to which he surrenders, renounces or betrays his values (since help to a stranger or an enemy is regarded as more virtuous, less “selfish,” than help to those one loves). The rational principle of conduct is the exact opposite: always act in accordance with the hierarchy of your values, and never sacrifice a greater value to a lesser one."
About Relationships:
"Love and friendship are profoundly personal, selfish values: love is an expression and assertion of self-esteem, a response to one’s own values in the person of another. One gains a profoundly personal, selfish joy from the mere existence of the person one loves. It is one’s own personal, selfish happiness that one seeks, earns and derives from love."
"Integrity does not consist of loyalty to one’s subjective whims, but of loyalty to rational principles. A “compromise” (in the unprincipled sense of that word) is not a breach of one’s comfort, but a breach of one’s convictions. A “compromise” does not consist of doing something one dislikes, but of doing something one knows to be evil. Accompanying one’s husband or wife to a concert, when one does not care for music, is not a “compromise”; surrendering to his or her irrational demands for social conformity, for pretended religious observance or for generosity toward boorish in-laws, is. Working for an employer who does not share one’s ideas, is not a “compromise”; pretending to share his ideas, is. Accepting a publisher’s suggestions to make changes in one’s manuscript, when one sees the rational validity of his suggestions, is not a “compromise”; making such changes in order to please him or to please “the public,” against one’s own judgment and standards, is."
Some other points I appreciated also include her opinions on "moral neutrality":
"Observe also that moral neutrality necessitates a progressive sympathy for vice and a progressive antagonism to virtue. A man who struggles not to acknowledge that evil is evil, finds it increasingly dangerous to acknowledge that the good is the good. To him, a person of virtue is a threat that can topple all of his evasions—particularly when an issue of justice is involved, which demands that he take sides."
...and what she coined "The Argument from Intimidation.":
"But the psychological pressure method consists of threatening to impeach an opponent’s character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: “Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X’s argument is false.”...It should be classified as a logical fallacy and may be designated as “The Argument from Intimidation.”"
That's where my appreciation ends.
Her Theory of Objectivism sounds like a very sound theory. You live according to rational, objectively good values that benefit you as an individual. Her idea of rational values, however, mainly includes being... productive, and by extension submitting to Capitalism.
In my opinion, you can never be objective (or rational) if you are biased, and you can never not be biased when it comes to humanity.
Something is objective only if it is always True and can exist outside of the human experience. Capitalism, as we know it, doesn't fall under that category. Neither does any other economic-political theory, which is why we can never state that any of them is objectively good or rational.
Adding to this is also the fact that the author seems to not be aware of how systematic oppression works (which is why she is apparently loved by the conservative girlies), and makes this whole ordeal sound too easy and accessible.
My opinion in the matter is that we can never find the 'right' philosophy to live by. No philosophy is right or wrong, because we are inherently irrational beings. It's time we stop turning to rationality to guide us, and look beyond these predated ideas to find something more novel.
leelulah's review against another edition
1.0
Although only Ayn Rand is put as an author, there are essays by her ex collaborator Nathaniel Branden, too, so I mostly talk about how both's observations are faulty, here. They are every bit as materialistic as Marxism, just to start.
-Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead are considered as a valid philosophical source.
-Denial of sacrifice: therefore, no place for parental love or any other form of human relationship that requires it, denial of Christianity. Families don't exist.
-Lacking criticism of the idea of collective rights which Rand uses to justify abortion. The primacy of individual rights will also justify "sex work", if we follow this line.
-Life is a property right in Lockean terms and does not cover the unborn, only accessible to those who can do productive work.
-Rationalist "morality". We know what's good and evil through sensorial experiences of pleasure and pain and then can logically demonstrate a principle, but to hold a principle beyond reason is a whim. Everything is oriented towards preserving life in a very Darwinist sense. Contractual morality. Therefore religion only "offers death". "Me first" philosophy. My judgement matters and is the only one that matters while at that. Everything that does not go towards the preservation of life is useless (art could be here, but the authors alos conisder it good in the sight of it being "productive work". Constant growth is a psychological need of man (disguised progressivism)
-Trade and knowledge as foundational elements of society even in interpersonal relationships which are only made for our own interests. Denial of parental love as a consequence.
-Only a rational man capable of productive work can become prosper in an objectivist setting which puts capitalism in its laissez-faire variety as its unquestionable god.
-Critical of utilitarianism, yet the only foundation of objectivist ethics is to support and justify her variant of capitalism.
-Compares faith to mental unhealthiness, especially neurotics, and only conceives faith in terms of fideism which require us to renounce to reason. The philosophy is rooted on "self esteem", control and pride. This absolute control of reality and one's existence is impossible as death is absolutely unavoidable and unpredictable. For the authors of this book to talk about objective morality while also subordinating theirs so that capitalism can work is laughable at best. While they condemn moral neutrality, the fact that libertarians cannot agree in issues such as abortion, prostitution and others which probably Rand would condone herself despite finding them repugnant (sound familiar yet?), that's a form of advocating for relativism. Similarly, the famous NAP is a poor foundation for morality.
-Sex can be disconnected from the personal aspect, giving place to deviant behavior (because he lists sex and human relationships as separate, even when the further explanation does not mention anything to that respect, it could be fully consistent with libertarian principles to masturbate, or employ any sort of device that replaces a person).
-Denial of the moral responsibilities of the state or any sort of social responsibility.
-The rol of the state is only limited to regulating contracts between individuals, legislating to this effect, and the existence of the army because the monopoly of the force must belong to them.
-Taxing should be voluntary but does not explain how to implement it, although recognizes that such "voluntary" contribution would demand less of those who can pay less, or leave them exempt if necessary, although still benefiting from army forces (which would be parasitic, in her view), implying that everyone who can will contribute out of self-interest (which is a bit delusional, I bet many rich guys would hire personal guards and then go away if there is foreign invasion).
-It's funny that Ayn Rand should decry racism as determinist while her notion of "you're a productive man or you're dead" is every bit as determinist. Oh, also uses the term "white trash". What a classist. To her, the world is a market.
-"A fully capitalist free market hasn't existed anywhere yet" [but when it does...racism will be over!] why is such wishful thinking familiar to me? Oh, right.
-Racists should have protected free speech. Seriously? Even eugenicist organizations? Hmmmmmm.
-Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead are considered as a valid philosophical source.
-Denial of sacrifice: therefore, no place for parental love or any other form of human relationship that requires it, denial of Christianity. Families don't exist.
-Lacking criticism of the idea of collective rights which Rand uses to justify abortion. The primacy of individual rights will also justify "sex work", if we follow this line.
-Life is a property right in Lockean terms and does not cover the unborn, only accessible to those who can do productive work.
-Rationalist "morality". We know what's good and evil through sensorial experiences of pleasure and pain and then can logically demonstrate a principle, but to hold a principle beyond reason is a whim. Everything is oriented towards preserving life in a very Darwinist sense. Contractual morality. Therefore religion only "offers death". "Me first" philosophy. My judgement matters and is the only one that matters while at that. Everything that does not go towards the preservation of life is useless (art could be here, but the authors alos conisder it good in the sight of it being "productive work". Constant growth is a psychological need of man (disguised progressivism)
-Trade and knowledge as foundational elements of society even in interpersonal relationships which are only made for our own interests. Denial of parental love as a consequence.
-Only a rational man capable of productive work can become prosper in an objectivist setting which puts capitalism in its laissez-faire variety as its unquestionable god.
-Critical of utilitarianism, yet the only foundation of objectivist ethics is to support and justify her variant of capitalism.
-Compares faith to mental unhealthiness, especially neurotics, and only conceives faith in terms of fideism which require us to renounce to reason. The philosophy is rooted on "self esteem", control and pride. This absolute control of reality and one's existence is impossible as death is absolutely unavoidable and unpredictable. For the authors of this book to talk about objective morality while also subordinating theirs so that capitalism can work is laughable at best. While they condemn moral neutrality, the fact that libertarians cannot agree in issues such as abortion, prostitution and others which probably Rand would condone herself despite finding them repugnant (sound familiar yet?), that's a form of advocating for relativism. Similarly, the famous NAP is a poor foundation for morality.
-Sex can be disconnected from the personal aspect, giving place to deviant behavior (because he lists sex and human relationships as separate, even when the further explanation does not mention anything to that respect, it could be fully consistent with libertarian principles to masturbate, or employ any sort of device that replaces a person).
-Denial of the moral responsibilities of the state or any sort of social responsibility.
-The rol of the state is only limited to regulating contracts between individuals, legislating to this effect, and the existence of the army because the monopoly of the force must belong to them.
-Taxing should be voluntary but does not explain how to implement it, although recognizes that such "voluntary" contribution would demand less of those who can pay less, or leave them exempt if necessary, although still benefiting from army forces (which would be parasitic, in her view), implying that everyone who can will contribute out of self-interest (which is a bit delusional, I bet many rich guys would hire personal guards and then go away if there is foreign invasion).
-It's funny that Ayn Rand should decry racism as determinist while her notion of "you're a productive man or you're dead" is every bit as determinist. Oh, also uses the term "white trash". What a classist. To her, the world is a market.
-"A fully capitalist free market hasn't existed anywhere yet" [but when it does...racism will be over!] why is such wishful thinking familiar to me? Oh, right.
-Racists should have protected free speech. Seriously? Even eugenicist organizations? Hmmmmmm.
metalandmets's review against another edition
3.0
3.00 out of 5.00
Well, this could’ve been 50 pages and no one would have noticed a difference. What a slog.
Like all philosophy I’ve read before, it steps on itself a little bit and just repurposes words with new but basically the exact same meaning.
It was thought provoking, the first time she said it, a fair amount I agreed and a little bit I disagree with, but a fraction of it was downright stupid.
I will say, this is mostly negative, but the actual core of the philosophy is still pretty sound, it was just long winded.
At least it makes more sense than The Satanic Bible so... progress?
EDIT:
I was a bit harsh on this fresh off of reading it but it’s settled in pretty nicely after a week. The philosophy is pretty sound but I still do think the writing style was really long.
Well, this could’ve been 50 pages and no one would have noticed a difference. What a slog.
Like all philosophy I’ve read before, it steps on itself a little bit and just repurposes words with new but basically the exact same meaning.
It was thought provoking, the first time she said it, a fair amount I agreed and a little bit I disagree with, but a fraction of it was downright stupid.
I will say, this is mostly negative, but the actual core of the philosophy is still pretty sound, it was just long winded.
At least it makes more sense than The Satanic Bible so... progress?
EDIT:
I was a bit harsh on this fresh off of reading it but it’s settled in pretty nicely after a week. The philosophy is pretty sound but I still do think the writing style was really long.
jhg1995's review against another edition
1.0
I bet the Kardashians follow this paper to the letter because their heads are too big to fit on their bodies!
Pathetic.
Pathetic.