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."

In one essay, Branden dissects the criticisms of capitalism during the Industrial Revolution. He shows the relationship between the Industrial Revolution and the Population Explosion. More to the point he shows how Capitalism improved peoples' lives--by providing more sustenance for people to live on.

Alan Greenspan's Essay "Gold and Economic Freedom" is a masterpiece frequently quoted elsewhere, but origionates with this book. If you want to know how the Fed kept inflation down throughout Greenspan's reign as Chairman, here's the essence of his philosophy and modus operandi in a few pages. Greenspan also in another essay explains how corrupt monopolies cannot exist--without the help of government.

Rand herself, while sometimes going overboard on the "Morality" side, does make some very valid points in two essays in particular: "The Roots of War", and "Man's Rights." The theme of both is "being generous with other people's fortunes." (If I had the ability to take all of your money, I will show you just how compassionate to the world I can be.)

In "Roots of War" Rand explains that, outside of voluntary charity there are two ways to acquire something: take it, or swap something for it. Conquest or trade. There is no other option. Government is the agent of conquest, capitalism the agent of trade. She also shows the logical progression of each. In a conquest driven society, the pick pocket beats the honest man, but the robber beats the pick pocket, and the murderer beats the robber. Welfare states are not based on altruism but quite the opposite, and will eventually either collapse or look elsewhere for plunder. In a trade society, those who offer the best value win.

In "Man's Rights" she goes over the same concepts as in the Roots of war but more on the individual's level. She also discusses how "Rights" have gone from claims you have on your own life to claims someone else has on your life, and its potential consequences.

Finally, "Extremism--or the Art of Smearing", is a powerful essay on how left-leaning collectivists smear their opponents. Change the names and you've got the exact same thing occuring today, but this essay was written in 1964! Goes to show that the fundamental tactics of collectivists have not changed in at least 35 years.

All in all a very good book.

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.

Even if you don't agree with her, you will still have the freedom to use your own rational mind to challenge or discard anything that she says. Anyone who approaches Rand with an open mind, however, will have to admit that she had an uncanny understanding of how the value that each individual places on his own life impacts the course of history and the progress of man. She clearly describes how the cult of self-sacrifice is a logical and immoral progression from mysticism and how the resulting psychological, political and economic processes undermine individual liberty, man's pursuit of happiness, the general quality of life for all men, and the advancement of civilization.

The selfless and self-sacrificing among you can take comfort in the fact that when Rand's vision of laizzez-faire capitalism and individual freedom is finally realized (reason always wins in the end), you will still have compete and total freedom to live irrational, mystical, irresponsible lives. No one will have the right to prevent you from sacrificing your own life, mind or values to any person, state, religion, or collectivist ideals. No one will force you to achieve your full potential as a human being. It will still be your life and you will have complete freedom to sacrifice your own value in the service of lesser values.

The big change will be that you will no longer be permitted to force other men to sacrifice their own rational, life-sustaining, self-interest to your own. That is the virtue of your fellow man's selfishness. You will not be able to destroy him or deprive him of his liberty. You will no longer have the "right" to place liens on the success of others, or to force individuals to give up objective reality for subjective or collective delusions. Irrational, angry mobs will no longer have the "right" to enslave rational individuals and force them to sacrifice themselves to what is not rational and of their own choosing. You will not be entitled to legally force the efficient, intelligent producers to support the inefficient, the mediocre, or the parasites, be they rich or poor. All men will be free to use their own rational minds to seek their own values and happiness as long as it doesn't deprive others of individual liberty. All men will be free to learn and create, and trade freely with whomever they choose, which by default elevates the status of all men.

Rand's hyperbole sometimes made me laugh, but this book clearly articulated so many of my own perceptions and thoughts. It also made me see possibilities I never imagined before. This book and Rand's other writings are a must-read for anybody interested in the real meaning of liberty. Everything she talks about in this book is happening all around me.

This is a real philosophy book, not just someone airing opinions in dime-store language and calling it intellectual discourse. Even so, it is not that hard to read and moves very quickly through its ideas. I was very impressed with the way the writers back up what they say with logic and examples.

I was constantly thinking, as I read the book, "Yeah! That's right!" Other times, I found myself, for the first time, questioning some real basic beliefs I had. Ultimately, this book has had a great positive influence on me and helped me to lead a life that is more productive and happy.

Just beware that if you accept this philosophy and want to remain objective, that it may be best to avoid some people who call themselves Objectivists. I've found that many are less interested in ideas than they are in agreeing with everything Ayn Rand wrote and said. They seem incapable of questioning even her most off-the-cuff remarks even when they are obviously in direct conflict with her formally stated views or are obbviously based on old/dated information.

For instance, the discussion of love in this book describes it as a manifestation of deeply held values and would therefore have little to say against a same sex relationship - as long as the relationship was based on proper values. Despite this, many objectivists continue to blast same-sex relationships. When asked why, they quote things Ayn Rand wrote in a letter to someone or whatever and don't seem able to discuss the issue - or many others - with their own independent thinking.

Don't let the "born-again" Objectivists or the shrill detractors of this philosophy (most of whom clearly don't understand it in the least!) sway you from reading this book. It's an excellent book, very enjoyable, and as corny as it sounds, it can really change your life for the better.

Objectivism, the philosophy which Ayn Rand originated, is a full system of thought. This book presents a part of that system, its ethics. And here, as with the other books Miss Rand has written, her thesis is controversial, strikingly original and brilliantly articulated. The book, for instance, begins with the following premise:

"Ethics is _not_ a mystic fantasy--nor a social convention--nor a dispensable, subjective luxury. . . . Ethics is an _objective necessity of man's survival_--not by the grace of the supernatural nor of your neighbors nor of your whims, but by the grace of reality and the nature of life."

This conception of ethics as a _this-worldly, objective need of man determined by reality and not by some ruling consciousness_ is virtually unwarranted in the history of philosophy. Her conclusions are just as controversial however--and, for proof, read the following passage (which shows the difference between the Objectivist ethics and that of every other system known to mankind):

"Every human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others," says Miss Rand, "and therefore, man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself."

In other words, Rand advocates _rational selfishness_. Now, what does this mean or entail--and how does one achieve it? These are the questions that the book answers (and which the other reviews posted at this site most certainly do not). If you would like to find out those answers, I highly recommend you read this book.

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.

1. Ayn Rand is often accused of giving "wrong definitions". A definiton of selfishness as "excessive concern with self" violates (c), until such time as "excessive" is given an exact meaning. Such a definition is a tool for people who wish to deceive others into a wrong course of action by small degrees, cashing in on the victims' fear of "excessiveness", instead of (as any good person would) appealing to their desire to avoid evil and do good. Hence Rand substitutes the definition that corresponds to the actual significance of the word in reality - concern with one's own desires.

2. Rand is also accused of misrepresenting other philosophers. You may notice that in all these attacks, no actual detailed representation of the philosophers she is supposedly misrepresenting is given. I claim that if anybody obeys (a), (b), and (c) with regard to these philosophers, the result would be too nonsensical for respectable publication.

3. Many do not like the tone of Rand's writing: they describe it as "shrill". But such an analysis is clearly a violation of (a). Rand makes ethical judgements, so she uses words with moral connotations("victim", "looter", "cannibal"), instead of the amoral language preferred by her non-extremist, non-excessive, non-selfish, non-profit, non-judgemental, non-life, non-absolute opponents.

"Philosphy: Who Needs it" is the work of an integrated mind, one that applies its theoretical judgement to the fullest extent in every practical detail of grammar and diction. It is to me astonishing that a system of philosophy could be devised that would make this possible.

As the title of my review suggests, the book is an excellent reference guide to Objectivist writings. However, the material provided is made up of quotes from other sources, rather than being an actual summary of Objectivist thought on the particular subject at hand. I mostly use my copy for quickly finding pithy quotes to use in papers or articles, or as a way to find where the original full-length essays are located if I can't immediately recall. Thus, it's my opinon that it is best used as an index to your pre-existing library of Objectivist books.

The book also suffers a little from its age, as it is limited almost exclusively to Ayn Rand's own writings. A second edition including material from newer Objectivist thinkers, such as Tibor Machan, would be both a benefit to Objectivists and serve to diffuse those critics who claim that the philosophy is the exclusive toy of Ayn Rand.

What am I doing? I can't explain it better than Rand!

Read this book if you are interested in the nature of art. And especially if you've ever wondered about the phenomenon of 'modern art.'

It's a great series of essays despite (or because of) Rand's prejudices--she was a strange combination of teenage ugly girl duckling sexual fantasies out of Danielle Steele combined with the mind of an Aristotle and the Romantic triumphalism of a Victor Hugo.

For all artists, and especially writers, ( Er. . .remember those tiny details like theme, plot, and character? ) this short work is outstanding. Many will choose to worship, others to ridicule her views; while still others will grant her grudging admiration.

But all should read it.

Someone once defined a classic as a pop hit that remains 'on the charts' as time goes by; e.g. Beethoven may not be the number one hit in the recording industry this year, but he's not in any danger of running out of new listeners who will continue to purchase his music. Hence, he's a bonafide "classic." Got it?

Likewise, there's a reason why Ayn Rand, decades after her death, remains THE most widely read novelist in the world. The sales of "Atlas Shrugged" alone continue to number in the hundreds of thousands.

Perhaps she was on to something. . .

The clarity, rationality, precision and straight-forwardness with which Ayn Rand has presented her philosophy of art is a major literary achievement in itelf.

She has delved into the very depths of the process of artistic creation and brought to light certain fundamental aspects of art which the world had never known before.
She has introduced concepts such as "sense of life" and revolutionzed the entire way of handling aesthetic issues.

Her analysis of the meaning of art,its function in man's life,the basic principles of literature,the criteria for jugding art works - all are presented in a logical,structured manner - starting with the definition and explanation of terms such as "concepts" , metaphysics etc.,proceeding step-by-step to a thoroughly rational analysis of what constitutes great art.

Most illuminating is her analysis of the fundamental premise of the Romantic novel (the premise of volition).

She has also presented the goal of her own fiction writing which would clear the doubts of her admirers as well as her critics.

The point here is that it is all so convincing!! Except for a few statements here and there - such as a derogatory dismissal of Tolstoy's works,or a sarcastic remark regarding a "Hindu dance" (I am an Indian-and belong to a Hindu background-though I'm an atheist-and there is no such thing as a "Hindu" dance),her arguements are unequivocal and irrefutable.

The main drawback of "The Romantic Manifesto" is that it is not comprehensive enough and at least left me wanting more.
I think that Ayn Rand should have not only given more examples, but more importantly, given a more detailed analysis of the already mentioned examples. For instance,she has named "The Scarlet Letter" one of the best Romantic novels, but has not mentioned another word with respect to its theme,plot-theme,characterization etc.

Nevertheless,this book is so forceful that it can change anybody's understanding of art, or at least add a new dimension to it.Otherwise too,it is a very interseting read of the non-fiction genre.

At the end,I would,without hesitation call it one of the most original,profound and enlightening books of ideas of our times.

Throughout her work, Rand analyzes the different types of art, mainly Romantic art and Naturalistic art. In short, Rand defines Romantic art as a painting, sculpture or writing which portrays LIFE not as life is but as life COULD and SHOULD be. For example: An artist's work displaying a painting of a building as it could and should be is a romantic art work. Rand tells of how Romanticism lived for only a brief period of time in the 19th century and possibly early twentieth century and how today it is nearly non existent. She reccommends reading, as a beautiful example of the romantic form of art, the works of Victor Hugo. Rand tells of how today the predominant form of art is what is called Naturalistic art.

Naturalistic art, says Rand, is work which portrays life as it is, exactly as it is and nothing more. Rand tells of how, in art schools of today students are encouraged to do only naturalistic works. She also mentions several authors of today's era who have come close to creating some ROMANTIC art but have fallen short.

Rand discussed how it is the PHILOSOPHY of today which promotes and encourages naturalism and deters Romanticism. This discussion will perhaps be most appreciated by those readers of Rand who appreciate and admire her works, but wonder as to what, upon careful analysis, would be the cause of the bitter political and sociological debates which rage over her ideas and works. This book is BEST for those who have read and liked her works but it is fine, standing on its own, as an analysis or what makes great art great!

Yes, Ayn Rand was a bully, a manipulator, and an hypocrite. Unfortunatly, this book is so poorly written, it doesn't explain well the clear connection between morality and manipulation, as most libertarians define it. For a better understanding of manipulation and control through guilt inducements. "When I Say No, I Feel Guilty" by Manuel J. Smith is a much much better book and it will give you all the tools necessary to counter this kind of manipulation.

But be careful to take it with several grains of salt; Walker sometimes goes over the top in his personal opinions, without always identifying them as such. (One egregious example: in his chapter on Nathaniel Branden, he as much as blames Branden for causing the death of Branden's second wife Patrecia, who died tragically owing to a failure to take her epilepsy medication. Walker's grounds for this horrible accusation consist of nothing more than his own assertions about what Branden "should have known.")

This book leaves the impression that it was patched together without much attention to detail; for example, here and there, out of the blue, we are given a quote from "Smith" with no indication _which_ of the book's three major Smiths (Kay Nolte Smith, Phil Smith, and George H. Smith) is being quoted. (This information is available in the book's endnotes, but its absence in the text seems to indicate that the book was pieced together from shorter snatches with no eye toward continuity.) Numerous interviewees are "introduced" more than once (sometimes only a few pages apart), and several stories are repeated needlessly. There is no doubt that the phenomenon Walker is trying to document was and is quite real, but this would have been a better book if he had taken the trouble to edit it more thoroughly (including editing _out_ some of his own opinions).

Kudos to Walker, though, for the work's final section: a fictional "biographical sketch" of an Ayn Rand that could have been. As Walker effectively shows through his imaginative reconstruction, had Rand been a little less paranoid and a little more willing to seek professional help for her depression and other psychological disorders, her personal life and influence might well have measured up more closely to her public persona.