Most of the notes from Atlas Shrugged deal with analyzing the psychology of the "parasite." This goes on for pages and seems rather tedious since it comes across as largely speculation-no evidence is cited. More interesting are the notes from the interviews she conducted about how to depict a steel mill and other settings that occur in the book.

Also noted that she wants to believe in the existence of a soul (i.e., the element of a human being that thinks and is not part of conventional matter). That was rather striking!

I am inordinately proud of myself for finishing it in one day, though I wonder at the same time how much I missed. Can't see myself rereading it anytime soon, though. If I reread anything, it will probably be Atlas Shrugged or possibly The Fountainhead.

This is a fully integrated treatise on how to live by one's nature, qua man.

The question to ask about any philosophy is ' "does it work in the real world?" I can only answer from my own personal experience... and the answer is a loud YES!

Most books on philosophy are full of contradictions... this is perhaps the first integrated philosophy, integrated with what? Integrated with reality and mans nature as part of that reality. Thus, it is possibly the first book on philosophy that does not contradict itself... Ayn Rand still doesn't get the attention she deserves, in my personal opinion she is the greatest philosopher that ever lived.

Peikoff deserves nothing but praise for his adept handling in integrating her philosophy into one complete work.

This book brilliantly debunks mind spun mysticism's, in particular Plato's primacy of consciousness which itself is the primary precursor to all other mystical ideas and concepts.

Whether you agree with him or not, this book will be one of the most thought provoking and enlightening books that you will ever read in your life. Dr. Peikoff is the Michaelango of the philosophy profession, and has painted us an intellectual masterpiece. Or, to quote one reviewer from the Detroit Free Press, "Peikoff is an extraordinary communicator... He brings the most difficult intellectual ideas within the grasp of the general reader... Those who decide to examine Objectivism--with this book as a guide--are in for an awesome intellectual experience."

It is amusing to read disagreements of the Objectivist theory of concepts which are addressed and cleared up in the appendix. The appendix of the second edition of I to OE really is amazing. It is simply transcripts of round table discussions of professors who had read the original text presenting their questions and objections on finer points of epistemology. Rand was, apparently, at her intellectual pinnacle at this point, and any potentially hazy points are clarified beyond question.

The criticism that this is not presented in as scholarly a way as an epistemological monograph should be has its merits. The preface clearly states that main work is a reprint of a series of articles in which Rand presented her theory of concept formation. I certainly would have preferred a more scholastic presentation and a deeper exploration of the background of certain ideas, but this was Rand's style. She did not "write down" to her readers and her writing requires objective truth seekers to do their own research. I have, on multiple occasions, encountered the criticism that a reader was left wondering what Bertrand Russell was attempting to "perpetrate" in his theory of numbers. After encountering this passage I went to a philosophy text and read a passage describing Russell's theory of numbers as an attempt to create a purely logical language which would allow one to understand numbers without relating them to their perceptual referents. Since Rand demonstrates that concepts are valid within the context of the totality of human consciousness, and that abstractions must be derived primarily from their perceptual referents (numbers, specifically, are covered) which form their fundamental context, the dismissal of Russell stands.

For those who are familiar with Rand only from Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, this is a fascinating opportunity to understand the underlying support of a novelist's reasoning process, rarely made this explicit.

The criticisms about this book are shoddy, to say the least. I usually don't comment on what others say, but this is too silly to pass up. "Scott Ryan" says that Rand's ideas hold the theory of a priori knowledge, but that is patently false. He also says that negation and necessity would be hard to deal with, but that is not obvious at all. Negation, for example, is part of logical operations on concepts, and its differentia is reversing (negating) said concept.

"A reader" says that we cannot use measurement-omission unless we know the concepts of length, colour, etc. But that is akin to saying that a baby needs to know what "identity" means before he acquires such. They are all perceptual characteristics which can be used implicitly.

"The title essay was originally a speech given at West Point, and one of Miss Rand's own favorite pieces. In it, she eloquently demonstrates the importance of philosophy in man's life... in EVERY man's life. "...the choice we make is not whether to have a philosophy, but which one to have: rational, conscious, and therefore practical; or contradictory, unidentified, and therefore lethal." This book is for those interested in philosophy, as well as for those who aren't.

"As Leonard Peikoff states in the Introduction, "Ayn Rand was not only a novelist and a philosopher; she was also a salesman of philosophy -- the greatest salesman philosophy has ever had." Philosophy's purpose is not to impress people at cocktail parties or to "trick" people in debates with ready-to-wear paradoxes. Philosophy is essential to life -- read this book to discover why. "

However, some assertions proposed in negative reviews should be addressed for prospective readers. The assertion that her "theory of human nature states that men are the product of whatever philosophical convictions they happen to "program" into their minds" is an absolutely inaccurate representation of Rand's theory and needs to be identified as such. Rand's theory, obvious for any reader with an honest desire to understand what she wrote, was that the state of a person's life, including his actions, productivity and overall happiness, result from the beliefs and values that a person holds. As was stated earlier, a person has no choice whether or not to hold a philosophy; the conceptual nature of consciousness allows one no option other than to have beliefs and values. The issue is whether to form your beliefs and values by the method of rational, conscious thought or simply to allow them to arise within your unconscious as the result of arbitrary life experience (meaning: by default). *This* is the reason that philosophy is a practical necessity for every human being and why the answer implicit within the question "who needs it?" is EVERYONE.

An important aspect of life is "relating to other people", but this is in no way fundamental. Social relations fall within the context of politics, the branch of philosophy dealing with interactions between people. Politics is derivative of ethics which is derivative of the fundamental branches of philosophy: epistemology and metaphysics. Underlying fulfilling and happy life of satisfying relationships is the ability to use one's mind properly. All actions an individual takes result from his beliefs and values just as in logic, conclusions follow from premises. Dismissing these fundamental facts as impractical philosophical speculation is both myopic and concrete-bound. An understanding of these issues is the beauty of this book and the rest of Rand's work. Take heed, however. If you have already made up your mind to reject a derivative part of her philosophy, such as laissez faire capitalism or the ethics of one's own life as the standard of value, and are unwilling to question your pre-established beliefs, then you will derive no benefit from this reading.

Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism is implicit in her novels, but she held that the plot of a story was never to be subordinated to didactic philosophical purposes. Thus, even in *Atlas Shrugged*, the novel in which her philosophy is most explicit, many details are left out. After *Atlas* was published, Ayn Rand spent much of the remainder of her life writing essays that elaborate upon her philosophy and apply it to current events. *Philosophy: Who Needs It* may be the best collection of these essays for a curious reader to start with.

The answer to the question implicit in the title is that *everyone* needs philosophy, that philosophy is an inescapable part of your life. The real questions are: Is your philosophy an integrated system that you consciously accept? Or is it a random assortment of rules of thumb, trite slogans, and things you learned in church, none of which you ever think to question? In the title essay, Ayn Rand does not try to sell you on her particular philosophy, but on the importance of philosophy as such. I recommend this book to anyone who thinks philosophy is merely of "academic" interest.

Dr. Peikoff's theme is that actions follow from ideas. With passionate dedication to truth he quotes from the writings and speeches of the principle architects of Nazi Germany to show the ethical premises guiding their political actions and programs. The evidence is clearly presented. And it leads inexorably to the conclusion that the same ideas which made possible the horror that was Nazi Germany, currently dominates the intellectual establishment of the United States.

"The Ominous Parallels" is both a warning and an alert. It tells us what we should do to avoid becoming a fascist state. It alerts us to how far down that road we currently are.

Dr. Peikoff's "The Ominous Parallels" is also a rallying point for all of us who care deeply about the future of our country and the freedom of its citizens. It helps us to recognize that "it could happen here" if we do not change our views regarding the proper beneficiary of one's actions.

Rand was, in essence, a reactionary. She reacted -- and with good reason -- to the 1960s and 1970s, a rather insane period in our time. She makes some excellent points in "Apollo and Dionysis," contrasting the amazing human achievement of the Moon landing with the mud-wallowing revelry of Woodstock.

But venomous polemics do not "reason" make. In the world of Randians, all is black and white. Balance does not exist. Either you are are an Apollonian creature of the mind -- a faceless John Galt -- or you're a craven Dionysian carouser. (Rand never figured out how to, as Hunter Thompson wrote, "wallow with the eagles at night and fly with the pigs in the morning.")

This maddening tendency toward judgment leaches from every essay in this collection.... and is the prime reason why I can't give it a much better rating.

Page after page reveals profound insights into the intellectual atmosphere of the times. The writing is always informative and thought provoking, and quite often brilliant.

In short, this volume is especially suitable for readers already familiar with the gist of Ayn Rand's philosophy and literary writing.