Bernstein clears up many misunderstandings or deliberate distortions by unsympathetic critics. Rand's style of writing may be jarring to those who prefer Naturalism. It is worth reading or re-reading Rand with a guide and/or commentary. However, don't deprive yourself of the experience of entering and immersing yourself in Rand's world, which requires reading the novel. Use the guide sparingly as clarification is needed. Unfortunately, Bernstein sometimes refers to future events in chapters not yet read - be forewarned.

Dr. Bernstein is becoming a prolific writer. This helpful assistance for those studying The Fountainhead will not dissapoint. I could've used this more than twenty years ago, when first reading that wonderful novel. Be glad it's available for you today.

The book is great. If you want to use this instead of reading the book, don't. This is a good SUPPLEMENT, though.

A long time admirer of Rand's work, I found this a refreshing perspective on her. While I'd come to know her characters and read her philosophical works, I really didn't feel I truly understood her until I read this book. I cannot compare it to letters or the like because I have not read them. But, this work is like looking in on practical applications of her philosophy. For example, her discussion of the value of Christmas to atheist such as herself is very enlightening. In addition, her discussion of the monopoly of force still rings in my mind years after I first read it. Being born in the 70's, growing up in the 80's & 90's, her philosophy brings me much joy compared to the pink socialism that I have seen throughout my life and been frustrated by. I think this work should be a supplement to any serious reader of Rand and would highly recommend this.

If you would like a quick, easy-to-read introduction to Ayn Rand's philosophy...if you would like to see how Ayn Rand applied her philosophy...if you simply would like a glimpse into the objectivist world, then this is the book. This is a compilation of numerous articles on various issues that touched America, including the death of Marilyn Monroe. Some of the articles may shock you, but all require a second read-through. Keep in mind, though, that Ayn Rand was a narcissist who had a closed-minded view of who her followers were and who they weren't; that prevented her from portraying objectivism for what it is -- a great "philosophy of philosophy," a method of interpreting human actions and a guideline for having your own ideas.

What many regard as the most influential philosopher of the 20th century, Philosopher and Novelist Ayn Rand was known for crafting novels of Hugoesque proportions that presented the heroic elements of the ideal man, as well as writing epistemological treatises on the art of logic and the process of concept formation that focused on the most abstract and fundamental issues to man. In *The Ayn Rand Column*, Rand shifts to a different gear as she writes short crisp pieces on the current issues of her day.

*The Ayn Rand Column* contains over 35 pieces by Rand ranging from the brief, but concise pieces such as an "Introduction to Objectivism", "The Secular Meaning of Christmas", and "Why I Like Stamp Collecting" to the more lengthy "Textbook on Americanism", "Modern Management", and "The Fascist New Frontier." The collection also features an introduction by the book's editor Peter Schwartz, that helps ties the pieces together.

My favorite piece in the collection is Rand's "War and Peace" where Rand makes the case for why today's peace movements are *not* advocates of peace, but of gang-rule, statism, and thus dictatorship. Quoting Rand,

"Professing love and concern for the survival of mankind, these [peace] movements keep screaming that...that armed force and violence should be abolished as a means of settling disputes among nations, and that war should be outlawed in the name of humanity. Yet these same peace movements do not oppose dictatorships; the political views of their members range through all shades of the statist spectrum, from "welfare statism" to socialism to fascism to communism. This means that they are opposed to the use of coercion by one nation against another, but not by the government of a nation against its own citizens; it means that they are opposed to the use of force against *armed* adversaries but not against the *disarmed*..."

And after some discussion of the concretes events to support her claim, Rand concludes:

"...Let all those who are seriously concerned with peace, those who do love *man* and do care about his survival, realize that war cannot be outlawed by lawless statist thugs and that it is not war but *force* that has to be outlawed."

If I may make a brief philosophical assessment: Wow!

What is most illuminating about this collection is Rand's ability to dissect what, at first glance, appears to be a concrete, trivial issue--say the much-maligned "commercialized" gift-giving during Christmas--and shows how it relates to some timeless philosophical principle of vital importance (Sorry! You'll have to read the book for the principle). To use a popular metaphor, Ayn Rand was a woman who could see the forest (abstractions) for the trees (concretes), and vice-versa.

Though this book uses the issues of the 1960's to reveal the work of philosophy in action, it is of value to the modern reader of today, as the philosophical principles Rand elucidates are timeless.

A previous reviewer basically hit the nail on the head, but I'll put it a little differently: Scott Ryan "demonstrates" that Rand did not "understand" or "solve" the problem of universals by stating the problem in a loaded, contentious Platonistic way. Many of his remarks about Rand not grasping the problem would apply equally well to Ockham, Wittgenstein, and Quine, whose philosophical credentials (I assume) are beyond question. That said, his points are sometimes interesting ones, and he sometimes points out an unclarity in the Objectivist position that went unnoticed.

He does not appear to realize that his own definition of valid inference, his presuppositions about what a property would *have* to be, what objective similarity would *have* to be, etc., etc., are themselves contentious and far from unproblematic. The arguments are underdeveloped and question-begging. Everything is played at the first level, where Ryan assumes that you will share his old-fashioned Platonist intuitions.

His own views are not sufficiently informed by the fact that human minds are natural entities with a determinate identity and particular modalities and powers, most of which are very nearly understood by physical scientists. This is not a particularly Objectivist point - I think that Ryan's beloved Armstrong would agree - but it is one that Ryan missed. Rational insight, intuition, feeling, the mind's eye, noetic rays, eidetic intuition, blah blah blah, come on! This is the 21st Century, man!

A huge problem is that Ryan is not sufficiently imaginative. He just cannot understand the appeal of any kind of empiricist-leaning view. The idea that numbers are anything but eternal, transcendent objects is just unfathomable to him. This lack of imagination is bad for a philosopher. It makes one, like Ryan, hostile, overquick, reckless, and endlessly self-referential and self-aggrandizing. I hate to see what he would make of Heidegger. He would probably criticize him because the analysis of Dasein's existentiales is irrelevant to the understanding of eternal abstract entities which are the only worthy objects of philosophy.

Unfortunately, I will be condemned by the general readers of this book for disagreeing with it. The truth of the matter, however, is that this book is simply opinion backed up by the will to believe, and is not rational.

Ryan attempts to insert a metaphysical argument into the thematic countering of Rand's philosophy, which is akin to violating the "Rule of Negation." Simply put, since Ryan's own definitions of rationality, reason, and objectivism can not be "disputed" by rational argument, they can not be used to judge anything.

Summed up, Ryan is just saying "Man, I don't like libertarians or what they stand for, so let me tell them how their beliefs don't fit MY definitions." No [kidding], Jack. You may as well choose to define words such as kind, good, nice, and bad, then tell readers how certain acts do not qualify as one or the other because they do not fit your definition.

The book is very well written, very well studied, very well researched, unfortunately the premise is simply flawed. Mr. Ryan's personal definitions are created to serve his purpose.

Mr. Ryan, in this book, has done an excellent service to philosophy. What we have here is nothing less than the destruction of every cardinal point of objectivism. He, unlike Rand, has been very careful to actually read what a person has to say before criticizing them. He is also correct in characterizing the problem of universals as a metaphysical issue, not an epistemological one, as Rand seemed to think. He has pointed out how she has conflated the difference between sense and reference, which, among many other things pointed out here, demonstrates that she truly did not understand the problems she was trying to solve. Nor, as one reviewer here said, did he fault her for not understanding the problem simply because she did not have a realist view. What he has shown is that Objectivism is not the via media between nominalism and realism that her followers think it is. It is actually very close to the conceptualism of Roy Sellars, with whom Ryan disagrees, but he by no means faults Sellars for misunderstanding the problem. Nor has he, as another reviewer implied, simply drafted up arbitrary definitions of his own. He is very well read in philosopy, much moreso than Rand was, and his definitions of "reason" and "rationality" are those that any self-described rationalist would accept. He has simply shown what is deficent in her characterization of the issues, and has altered the definitions to more accurately reflect the philosophical reality. He has examinded Rand's 'axioms', especially "existence exists", and shown that they are anything but self-evidently true. He proved that her refutation of determinism was sophistry aimed at a straw man. And most importantly of all, he has utterly obliterated her "ethics", pointing out how it was designed to paint Rand's opponents as sub-human wretches. By the end of the book it is crystal clear that her egoism, and her philosophy as a whole, is anything but rational. If Blanshard were alive today, I think he would be proud.

This book is a bunch of academics engaged in endless bantering about quotes of Ayn Rand pulled out of context. I truly expected, and wanted, more. I bought this book because I feared I was reading Rand without criticism and wanted to see some quality criticism of her philosophy. Unfortunately, it is not to be found here. In a so-called "attack" against Rand's notion of selfishness, Anthony Flew uses the "analytic-synthetic dichotomy" explicitly, considering it a proven fact. He ignores that Ayn Rand thoroughly opposed it. This is a circular argument, one which should have been laughed out of existence by any editor, whether or not he had any knowledge of philosophy. Never mind that the rest of his argument is such garbled English that I wouldn't be surprised to hear that it was translated from another language by a computer. How this trash makes it into print is beyond me. And this is considered one of the "better" essays in the collection.

If you just want to convince yourself that Ayn Rand is nutty, this is the book for you. It does no prove this case; I don't think it attempts to prove anything. Indeed, I think its convoluted English is hiding something, namely that it has nothing to say. But it is perfect for someone who wants a tangled mound of words, not unlike the Bible, to consider magical proof against Ayn Rand without consideration of whether the words have any meaning. If you like Ayn Rand and want to read the book to "practice countering common arguments," as other reviewers have suggested, I recommend against it. Borrow it from a library or pick it up in a store for a mere five minutes. Then you'll see what I'm talking about. I have found more challenging philosophic thought in political cartoons.

The sole decent essay in the text and the reason I give it a second star is Eric Mack's. He describes the distinction between life and rational life, and what he calls Rand's equivocations on the matter: is life the ultimate value, or is life secondary to rational life? In fact, most of Rand's "equivocations" are quotes taken out of context and Mack admits this indirectly. But this has always been a difficult point in Objectivism for me and I appreciated the thought that went into the essay. I expected this book to be full of such insight, but this was all I got.

*The Philosophical Thought of Ayn Rand* is a collection of ten essays on Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, more or less hierarchically organized into three parts: Metaphysics and Epistemology, Ethics and Politics.

The essays included fall into two very distinct categories: those written by independent Ayn Rand scholars, like Den Uyl, Rasmussen, Machan or Mack, who show a real familiarity with Rand's published works (or, to be more precise, those works published prior to the publication of the book in 1984); and essays written by generally unsympathetic philosophers who merely took the trouble of reading a few Objectivist essays before refuting what are mostly misunderstandings of Rand's statements or arguments.

One example is Anthony Flew, whose pompously titled essay "Selfishness and the Unintended Consequences of Intended Action" combines a very cogent defense of the free market with a completely inept treatment of Rand's rational egoism. Flew takes the following statement from *The Fountainhead*: "No man can live for another... It is impossible in concept"; interprets it as meaning that no action can be unselfish and self-sacrificing; easily refutes the latter; and then blames Rand for her "false conclusion", her "lapse" and the "mess" she got herself into. Unfortunately for him, Rand was not saying that it is impossible ever to *act* in a self-sacrificial way, but that it was impossible consistently to *live* for another, which is totally different, and which I do not think Flew would be able to refute. As for his comment that "Rand is... mistaking it that all human relationships are or should be trading transactions", I surmise it is based on too literal an interpretation of the "trader principle", which is the Objectivist alternative to predatory egoism and altruism. Finally, the refutation of the Objectivist principle that there is no conflict of interest among rational men is based on an unjustified reading of "interest" as synonymous with "desire".

But the nadir of this collection is probably Wallace Matson's "Rand on Concepts" which claims to reformulate the Objectivist theory of concept-formation in a way that "preserves what is of value in Rand's treatment" and then proceeds to get rid of concepts altogether, claiming they are a dispensable "mysterious and subjective... third entity between word and thing"!

Of the ten essays included here, I would say that the five written by the better-informed Ayn Rand scholars are worth reading and often contain interesting observations and criticisms (though none that are so earth-shattering as to really threaten the structure of Objectivism), while the other five, when they are not off-topic, are generally lame.

This book, despite its occasional faults and shortcomings, nevertheless represented, at the time of its publication, a considerable leap forward in Randian criticism. While some of the essays (most notably, those by the editors and Tibor Machan) add little if anything to our understanding of Rand, most of the rest contain at least several important insights, and some contain scores of them. Wallace Matson, despite his odd desire to replace concepts with words and his fallacious remarks about the problem of induction, nevertheless has some apt things to say about the Objectivist axioms. "The subjectivists are not so obliging as to deny existence outright," he rightly points out. And his remarks about Rand's abuse of the "fallacy of the 'stolen concept'" are on the mark as well. Hollinger's essay, which, as far as I know, is the only critical examination of Rand's theory of history, is one of the best in the book. Wheeler's ensuing essay on Aristotle is helpful in pointing out various instances when Rand misunderstood or misinterprets the old pedant of Athens. The best essay in the book, however, is J. Charles King's masterful refutation of Rand's ethical theory. King shows that life cannot possibly be the ultimate standard of value because life is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Next we have Eric Mack's refutation of Rand's theory of rights. While it is true that Mack just skims the surface of the problem, Mack's treatment is still the best to date.

Reviewers have been nearly universal in condemning Antony Flew's excellent essay on Randian selfishness, for reasons that I don't quite understand. (I suspect they were more interested in refuting Flew than in understanding him.) Flew, a distinguished British philosopher, contributes an essay of remarkable insight and good sense. He points out that Rand's moral ideas "could have been much better illustrated with the help of detailed accounts of paradigm lives, both good and bad." He aptly describes Rand's view that there can never be a conflict of interest between rational men as an "embarrassment of all concerned, reminiscent of the revelation in the Communist Manifesto that, in the upcoming utopia, 'the free development of each will be the condition of the free development of all.'" Flew proceeds to demolish the Randian view by pointing out that Rand's whole discussion of the matter involves "a constricted and factitious interpretation of the term interests." (Many of the problems in Rand's philosophy stem from "a constricted and factitious interpretation" of terms.) He ends the essay by showing how Rand's case for competitive capitalism can be bolstered by introducing ideas first developed by Adam Smith. In all, a very fine collection of essays; but worth reading only for those capable of understanding philosophical argumentation. Dogmatic, uncritical Objectivists had best stick with works recommended by Peikoff.

The first book, "It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand", is a humorous intorduction to the libertarian movement as it was in its free-wheeling 1960s counterculture days. Unfortunately, this "sequel" I was looking forward to reading turned out to be not really worth the time. The first few chapters recount the author's 1974 run for governor of New York as a Libertarian, but after that is where any connection to the libertarian movement ends. Most of this book is simply a chronological political commentary on the Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton presidencies - from the perspective of a Reaganite, not a libertarian. It's obvious that Tuccille gave up on libertarianism after his 1974 run for office and went conservative. Here he attacks the very counterculture tendencies he celebrated in his first book. There is nothing here about the history of the libertarian movement since 1974, which is what I was hoping for, since this has been marketed as a sequel. I hoped to read, for example, something about the Koch family's involvement with the movement, about Ed Clark's 1980 run for president, and about Murray Rothbard's departure from libertarianism and conversion to paleo-conservatism in 1989. No such luck - you won't find it here. Buy "It Usually Begins..." instead.

This is a very funny book. But don't kid yourselves, folks - classical liberalism didn't begin with Ayn Rand, it began a very long time ago in Western religious tradition. Since Rand hated religion, she kept (some of) the conclusions and worked backwards to reach her (bad) arguments. The result is a sort of bastard philosophy that takes a Marxist/Leninist view of reality, dresses it up in religious language, and retains the conclusions of the religious traditions Rand rejected. Read John Robbins' Without A Prayer: Ayn Rand And The Close Of Her System to see through Rand's contradictions and learn where it REALLY began.

Tuccille has done it again. It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand was a hilarious political satire, and the sequel, It Still Begins With Ayn Rand, is every bit as funny and on target as its predecessor. My only regret is that it took Tuccille 26 years to write the sequel. However, for anyone who wants a truly original, off-beat history of U.S. politics from 1974 through the present day, this is a must read.

Joseph Walsh

Ignore reviewers who nit-pick irrelevant details in Atlas Shrugged and the other novels of Ayn Rand. Far from promoting a a persecution, victimization attitude, Rand's books promote individualism, independent thinking and reason. Unfortunately, her philosophy contradicts centuries of flawed philosophy taught by and to our "intellectuals." For this reason, Rand's philosophy must be studied. It cannot be spoon-fed, like baby food, to those who "wish" that her book was written differently.

Go to http://www.aynrandbookstore.com for books and tapes by authors and teacher who really understand the precise literary and philosophic integrations contained in her novels. You will find that Rand wasn't 100% accurate, but she formulated a philosophy that answers some of the most profoundly perplexing problems of our time. Her philosophy was formed by induction-that is, from the facts of reality, not wishful thinking or faith.

Rand is decidedly anti-cult. If some of her followers have lapsed into cultism, then they, too, miss the entire point. The cultishness of some devotees does not detract from the fundamental soundness of her philosophy.

Mimi Reisel Gladstein concludes from the whole cult phenomenon surrounding Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_ that the novel must have some deep literary merit. But that is not necessarily the case. The cultish enthusiasm says more about the frustrations and repressed desires of adolescent and young adult Americans, of both sexes, than it does about Rand's particular abilities. I recall reading in Jeff Walker's book, _The Ayn Rand Cult_, that Rand figured out how to project into her novels the common adolescent feeling that you are being misappreciated and exploited by your "objective" inferiors, and meant for better things. _Atlas Shrugged_, frankly, isn't all that good as literature, though it does hold its own when compared with other productions of popular culture with cult followings among the young, like the novels of Robert A. Heinlein, for example. Rand's magnum opus acts more as a kind of literary Rorschach Test than anything else.

Gladstein is on target when she discusses the genre-crossing aspects of _Atlas Shrugged_. Is it dystopian fiction, science fiction, a detective novel, a feminist-flavored romance? All of the above, it seems, though Gladstein doesn't persuade me that Rand consciously borrowed from Arthurian romance as well. The feminist and female-romantic elements of the novel were never emphasized all that much by Rand's "orthodox" followers, but Gladstein does make the case that Rand pioneered a new kind of strong, independent female character -- Dagny Taggart -- who holds her own in a man's world and doesn't need a man to make her life complete, though finding her ideal lover in John Galt certainly helps. In the 1950's such an idea was radical, but because many fictional female characters these days are "Xenafied," Dagny Taggart's prototypical role has been obscured. Perhaps the miniseries version of _Atlas Shrugged_ due out sometime next year will give Rand the credit in this one area she deserves.

Still, I found some flaws in Gladstein's exposition of Rand's make-believe world. Gladstein fails to explore _Atlas Shrugged's_ unsubtle family-hating subtext: All of the major characters are alienated from immediate relatives as if that were a good thing. Even after Dagny makes an emotional connection with her hapless sister-in-law Cherryl, she displays no emotional response to Cherryl's suicide. The question of Hank Rearden's paternity never comes up, nor whether he and his wastrel brother Philip even share the same father. (If not, that could in itself explain the hostility between the two!) At the end of the novel, the strikers plan to leave their Rocky Mountain stronghold and rebuild an America where young people can look towards the future with hope -- but because the heroes don't have children, and apparently don't plan to, given the shortage of worthy females for them, you have to wonder where these youngsters are going to come from. (Because Dagny never seems to need contraception, despite having sex with three of the novel's heroes, she must be infertile.)

Perhaps the creepiest aspect of all in the novel, which Gladstein seems oblivious to despite her feminist sensibilities, is how John Galt's behavior towards Dagny throughout most of the story resembles love-obsessional stalking. In the real world, a guy in his late 30's who is still a virgin, abandons a well-paying technological career so he can hold a menial job on a railroad, and obsesses over and surveils the railroad's attractive female Vice President (even going so far as to sabotage her business deals), would be considered potentially threatening. (Call Gavin de Becker!) I don't know if many women fantasize about falling in love with their stalkers, but this is an aspect of _Atlas Shrugged_ I don't quite understand.

Nonetheless, Gladstein has written yet another contribution to Rand studies that I found worth the money, despite its limitations and brevity.

"Rand's Objectivism, of all the schools of contemporary philosophy, may well be the one that holds out the best, most ..........." Tibor R. Machan

Unlike most independent Ayn Rand scholars, who tend to consider themselves as superior professionals correcting the childish blunders of an incompetent amateur, Tibor Machan, as the above quote suggests, is a respectful commentator who correctly recognizes that Ayn Rand was a major philosopher and that most of what Randian scholars today can hope to accomplish is to polish up some aspects of her philosophical system, develop new applications of it and confront the latest batch of criticisms from academia. As far as his personal philosophy is concerned, he seems to have accepted most of the fundamentals of Objectivism, and in most contemporary philosophical battles, he is generally on the right side, defending free-will against determinism, ethical cognitivism vs. non-cognitivism, the free society vs. welfare statism and marxism, and the morality of business against leftist and conservative smears. I would therefore consider him an estranged friend of Objectivism, to be distinguished from the self-styled "sympathetic observers" of the philosophy who in the next breath call Rand a pseudo-philosopher.

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

This lack of system of course need not be a reflection of Machan's own mental functioning, even though he does have a penchant for pluralism and eclecticism, but is probably due to the way the book was put together: *Ayn Rand* is essentially a disjointed collection of articles previously published in various reviews, newsletters and books. Chapter 4, "Rand's Rational Individualism", for instance, is a slightly edited copy of chapter 10 of *The Philosophical Thought of Ayn Rand*.

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

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

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

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

There are some weaknesses to the work as well. First, Prof. Machan doesn't spend enough time on Rand's theory of concept formation, which her followers consider he greatest contribution to philosophy. Second, he is too kind to Rand when it comes to her often unfair and inaccurate attacks on other philosophers. While he says that Rand caricatures other thinkers, the fact is that Rand had little knowledge of the history of philosophy and her discussion of other philosophers is simply pathetic. Anyone who doubts this should read her essay, "For the New Intellectual." Third, like many of Rand's admirers, Prof. Machan overestimates Rand's originality. The fact is that most of Rand's ideas can be found in other writers.

In spite of its flaws, this is generally an outstanding book. I recommend it highly.

For a book which takes three hours or less to read, and ideas which are common pop-philosphy, Cliffsnote for "Anthem" is a little over-kill. The essays are more difficult than the original book. The entire concept of having Cliffnotes for a book like "Anthem" is antithetical to one of the points Rand is trying to make, to think and assess for yourself.

I recommend this, but barely.

I have read Anthem many times and I was pleasantly surprised by this cliffsnotes summary and analysis of the book. It includes a short biography of Ayn Rand but the bulk of the book is spent on a detailed going over of Ayn Rand's plot, theme, and characters. It is fascinating to read an intelligent analysis of the characters I love. The gems of the book are the three critical essays; The Meaning and Importance of "I", The Role of Free Will in Anthem, and the Regression of a Future Collectivist Society into a Second Dark Age.

This book is written by an Objectivist author and is definately worth buying.

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

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

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

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

This loosely connected series of essays expands his earlier work, extending beyond Atheism to embrace various Christian and social 'heresies'. Beginning with his personal Path to Atheism, he provides the skeptic with methods of argument and several readings. He gives accounts of those Christian philosophers who wrote against atheists and heretics. Heretics, of course, have been subjected to the severest punishments in the Christian churches, for a soul lost is more serious than an unconverted heathen.

Smith's discussion of Deism is the highlight of this book. As a philosophy accepting a god without a structured religious organization, Deism was a major theme among critics of Christianity. Abolishment of church hierarchies, with their inevitable moral and monetary corruption, led many thinkers to leave Christianity in favour of a personal relationship with a deity. Many of the Founding Fathers of the United States adhered to this view, a product of the European Enlightenment of the 18th Century. Arising coincidentally with many philosophies of personal freedom, it was almost inevitable that a nation experimenting with democratic ideals would espouse it. Smith's essay on the writings of Deists is enlightening.

Smith's discussion of Ayn Rand's ideas came as a bit of a shock. It's difficult to find anyone, apart from a few feminists, in this era who knows who she was. Smith's account of her life includes a smattering of choice quotations, but the brevity of the entries demonstrates the paucity of adherents. There is an Ayn Rand Institute site on the 'Net, but seems hardly worth the bother.

The two essays on public education and the War on Drugs are heartfelt expressions of a true libertarian. Neither will add to Smith's popularity in a nation where 'Christian virtues' reign with such strength, but they're required reading for anyone who wishes to understand views other than the accepted 'norm'. Smith appears to forget that public education in the United States, even given its Puritan foundation, was furthered by a desire to free education from the thrall of an Established Church. The struggling economy of a growing nation would have led more children into hazardous and fatiguing work situations from which they would never recovered. Extending the years of compulsory education freed many children and opened job opportunities. The result put more women into the work force, ultimately leading to improving their role in society.

Smith confesses his lack of a formal education, but he's certainly managed a wealth of research to produce this book. Not a deep study of the challenges to established thinking, this book is a valid starting point for those seeking further knowledge of libertarian thinking.

This is a loose collection of essays by Smith. They cover a variety of topics, like Smith's personal atheism, heresies over the years, and Objectivism. His critiques of Objectivism are well-written and, IMHO, spot-on.

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

In Anthem, Ayn Rand creates a society of collectivization that has no discernable basis for its power in the world. The book is a method of propagating atheism, self-worship, and anarchism.

I wouldn't exactly say that anthem is a book,it is more of a poem of man's search to rediscover what has been lost in his collectivist society. It was frightening to hear how individual's were described as "We," without a clear recognition of their own individual traits and characteristics. I personally, was overwhelmed with the realization, that maybe this could happen to us in the distant future. An extremely well written novel.

Follow the struggle of a man as he finds the one word that his society has lost. And think about what your mental state would be if you did not have that word...