Scan barcode
stephenmeansme's review against another edition
2.0
Content-wise, it's 2 stars or less, but I'm giving it an extra star for a combination of historical interest---it's more interesting to read this if you recall the social and intellectual conditions of the 1950s and 1960s in America, as well as Rand's childhood in the USSR---and the convenience of having only 170 pages (or 6 hours) of Rand's "philosophy." Read this and be done with it.
scordatura's review against another edition
1.0
I am reading this for my studies, that's the only reason. My blood started boiling in the first paragraph... this isn't going to be fun.
Finished it finally: I was expecting it to make me angry and in some ways it did. What I didn't expect was to see such poor reasoning, such poor internal consistency, so many random "choices" (decisions to place certain things centrally in her ethics), so many black/white views on matters... that I cannot fathom that intelligent people take it seriously. In one way, this is a silly book, easily dismissed but at the same time it has very dark connotations. It allows people to dismiss matters like white privilege and how random life can be, giving them an excuse to say that hard work fixes everything, and that everyone should focus purely on their own success and pleasure.
In the end, whenever my blood started boiling while reading it, I donated money to charities Rand would have found objectionable. This helped me actually finish the book without my brain liquefying.
Edit: typos.
Finished it finally: I was expecting it to make me angry and in some ways it did. What I didn't expect was to see such poor reasoning, such poor internal consistency, so many random "choices" (decisions to place certain things centrally in her ethics), so many black/white views on matters... that I cannot fathom that intelligent people take it seriously. In one way, this is a silly book, easily dismissed but at the same time it has very dark connotations. It allows people to dismiss matters like white privilege and how random life can be, giving them an excuse to say that hard work fixes everything, and that everyone should focus purely on their own success and pleasure.
In the end, whenever my blood started boiling while reading it, I donated money to charities Rand would have found objectionable. This helped me actually finish the book without my brain liquefying.
Edit: typos.
lipsandpalms's review against another edition
5.0
It's amazing to think how much of this book feels like common sense after reading it. The rights of the individual, aka the smallest minority, are the most important to protect. This is the sole purpose of government: to protect any man from a violation of his individual rights infringed upon by any other man. The government accomplishes this by having a monopoly on violence. The idea that any group or any state can have rights is a ridiculous idea.
I invite anybody who believes that affirmative action, minimum wage, reparations, or many other left wing ideas and ideals to read this book and challenge Ayn and Nathan's writings.
I invite anybody who believes that affirmative action, minimum wage, reparations, or many other left wing ideas and ideals to read this book and challenge Ayn and Nathan's writings.
bootman's review against another edition
5.0
I’ve never read anything by Ayn Rand, but I’ve found that I disagree with all of the people who are fans of Rand, so I wanted to read some of her stuff to see what it’s all about. I think it’s important to read books by people we disagree with to see what we’re missing or not understanding as well as to have a better idea of where they’re coming from. I’m a non-fiction reader, so I have very little interest in reading her insanely long works of fiction. I grabbed this book because the title obviously stands out, and it’s a collection of essays about her philosophy of objectivism and self-interest. I felt that this would give me a pretty good idea of what she was all about and the core aspects of the ideas fans of hers promote. But, I will definitely read some more of her non-fiction work to get a more rounded-view of her opinions and thoughts.
After finishing this book, I guess I’ll start off by saying that there are actually a few things I agree with. I’m a recovering drug addict, so I know the imporotance of personal effort and hard work. What I found was that there were many, but not all, sections on labor and economic ideas that I agreed with. For example, there’s an essay on our personal responsibility to not want to stifle technological advances just because we don’t want to learn new skills, and I definitely agree with that. But, as a whole, I’d say I maybe agreed with 20% of this book. As for the other 80%, I could write a 5,000 word essay about the various issues wiith the arguments in this book. The main issue is that when it comes to the arguments of morals and ethics, it starts from an incorrect premise that neglects evolutionary and moral psychology. From that bad premise, the book then goes on to say what’s rational and logical. When you have a bad premise that isn’t backed by science, you cannot then say what makes a person rational because it’s not based in reality. What I will do is give this book the benefit of the doubt because it was originally written in 1964 before a lot of the latest research was conducted. But for anyone who still holds these bad premises in 2021 that deny scientific evidence, there’s not really an excuse.
Do I recommend this book? Absolutely. There are a LOT of fans of Ayn Rand’s work, so it’s good to know what it’s all about. I do think some people can benefit from this in the same way they can benefit from some, not all, of Jordan Peterson’s work. Like they taught me in AA, take the best and leave the rest.
After finishing this book, I guess I’ll start off by saying that there are actually a few things I agree with. I’m a recovering drug addict, so I know the imporotance of personal effort and hard work. What I found was that there were many, but not all, sections on labor and economic ideas that I agreed with. For example, there’s an essay on our personal responsibility to not want to stifle technological advances just because we don’t want to learn new skills, and I definitely agree with that. But, as a whole, I’d say I maybe agreed with 20% of this book. As for the other 80%, I could write a 5,000 word essay about the various issues wiith the arguments in this book. The main issue is that when it comes to the arguments of morals and ethics, it starts from an incorrect premise that neglects evolutionary and moral psychology. From that bad premise, the book then goes on to say what’s rational and logical. When you have a bad premise that isn’t backed by science, you cannot then say what makes a person rational because it’s not based in reality. What I will do is give this book the benefit of the doubt because it was originally written in 1964 before a lot of the latest research was conducted. But for anyone who still holds these bad premises in 2021 that deny scientific evidence, there’s not really an excuse.
Do I recommend this book? Absolutely. There are a LOT of fans of Ayn Rand’s work, so it’s good to know what it’s all about. I do think some people can benefit from this in the same way they can benefit from some, not all, of Jordan Peterson’s work. Like they taught me in AA, take the best and leave the rest.
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.