For The New Intellectual, by Ayn Rand, is one of the better philosophy books I have read. It is comprised of the title essay, and 3 chapters dealing with Rand's three best novels: We The Living, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged. In the title essay, Rand makes an excellent case for the need of a new breed of intellectuals. Her objectivist philosophy ties in well with the writing, lending the power of reason and logic to her sometimes extreme statements. Of the final three chapters, I found the treatment of Atlas Shrugged to be the most impressive. Rand gives commentary on many of the great speeches and conversations from the book, ending with the amazing "This is John Galt Speaking" speech. While her comments are short, they lend insight into what she intended the different pieces to portray to the reader, and what they mean to her. On the whole, I think 'For The New Intellectual' is a pretty good book. Only the first 50-60 pages are her philosophical writings, but the rest of the book is a valuable tool for anyone who is a fan of her novels. I would recommend 'For The New Intellectual' to anyone interested in learning more about the objectivist philosophy and anyone who has read her novels.

Let it be known that For The New Intellectual is a book dense with psychological insights and eye opening rational objectivism. This reader was awed by Ayn Rand's crisp writing, and cutting wit. Liberals will be immediately offended, but for those without philosophical bias, Rand is difficult to dismiss. The book includes the essay, "For the New Intellectual" as well as excerpts from We the Living, Anthem, The Fountainhead, and many speaches from Atlas Shrugged. The beginning essay is more than worth the price of admission, while the excerpts gave this first time Rand reader a good sense of where to turn next. Ayn Rand's philosophy is truly life affirming and hard with truth. Truth hurts sometimes, and Rand is not easy answers for idle minds. Rather, her philosophy dares to look starkly at where man's moral code has come and where it has led us. Ayn Rand seperates herself from all other thinkers that I've experienced because of her perspective as a 20th Century American. While many of her ideas find their root in Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy, she stands alone-- offering a positive solution for mankind. She absolutely asserts that man is the end in himself, and that his happiness on earth is his proper goal. For the New Intellectual is both a slap in the face and fire in one's pants. Some will answer Ayn Rand's call for a new moral code and meaning to life, and as she says of the others, "leave them to heaven."

This book was my first formal introduction to the philosophy of Objectivism. The first essay a moving and thought-provoking introduction to the thinking of Ayn Rand, and provides a brief overview of her views on the history of philosophy, politics, and religion. For years after reading it, I would notice a detail of something I saw or read in my daily life and would suddenly find myself remembering and comprehending ideas and examples presented in the book with such clarity that it seemed that I knew them all along, and only now was able to put them into words. The rest of the book is excerpts from her fiction novels, and my recommendation would be to read the fiction books in their entirety instead, and then go over the excerpts. However if you are pressed for time or urgently wish to get into the philosophy first, this book makes a great introduction to Ayn Rand's philosophy.

First of all, her claim to reason is just as solid as any "propagandist" it is flawed and bent to serve her ends. Individualism is not the property of capitalism. Capitalism produces a unifying demand, which creates conformity. A capitalist's freedom is: the right to exploit for personal advancement. Glorifing this "right" is what completely undermines capitalism as a viable system. She accuses people of being misinformed about capitalism when she doesn't know as much about socialism. The socialism that she knows is part of the past. Stalinism holds no relevance to today's left. Before you can accuse us of being misinformed about capitalism (which is just a handy way of saying that we're wrong because we don't conform to your beliefs.) you must realize that the socialism of today is built on a much more solid base. Michael Albert has created a new form of socialism, Parecon, that is based on wages equivilant to effort. Individualism is not discouraged. Human rights are not undermined. Really, if you feel the need to hate socialism, you should know what it is. Hypocracy is not a way out. If you don't read at least some socialist thought, as I have with capitalism, you cannot make a educated decision.
http://www.parecon.org

The star of this book is Rand's essay "Apollo and Dionysus," a comparison of the near-simultaneous events Woodstock and the first lunar landing. I was in high school at the time, and I remember the Woodstock explosion that occurred during the school year following the August concert, the remarkable number of classmates who adopted the hippie lifestyle and pretty much stopped doing any work whatever. One guy who'd been a valedictory prospect dropped right off the academic radar, probably due to drugs. Rand's suggestion that Woodstock represented an abandonment of reason is supported by on-scene reports of concert-goers who simply showed up with the clothes on their backs -- no plans for food, water, lodgings or anything, and the fact that concert organizers also neglected such essential considerations. The Woodstock army completely trashed the place, ending up wallowing in a big muddy mess while standing stupidly outside in the rain.

On the other hand, the lunar mission was a sterling example of human achievement driven by rationality, the culmination of the application of brainpower to a problem, and the success which resulted therefrom. Oh certainly, Rand drew (and draws) a lot of fire, but she was absolutely correct in her belief that upgrades of our human condition will only be developed by people who think and act, and not by herds of hippies standing in the rain.

I find it amusing that Rand is called a closet Leftists, an individualist, a Statist, a conservative, etc What is missing from these rants (the reviewers - not Rand) is a discussion of the book and its subtitle - "The Anti-Industrial Revolution"

Consider the anarchists and socialists who arrive in jets at WTO meetings. Their main goal (apart from the ubiquitous violence) is an end to free trade and capitalism. (No word on what will replace a market system.) At the just completed conference on development, environmental groups protested such things as outdoor plumbing, electricity to villages in Africa and the idea of using credit instead of traditional ways (bartering goods). This in spite of all evidence that these things have made life easier and longer for 3rd world folks.

On another level, the Left is mounting a relentless, ideological assault at universities against any discussion of ideas it does not approve of and on those same campuse and in Europe, one witnesses a rising tide of virulent anti-semitism. Jews have always been connected with the financial side of capitalism which may explain some of the hatred. The problem with the "New Left" is that they view industrialism as predominantly a matter of workers engaging in manual tasks. The idea that physical abd not intellectual labor drives economies would be applicable in a pre-industrial society. And that, I guess, was the point of these essays - that what the New Left is asking for is anti-industrial in nature.

Yes, some of these essays stretch the point - but the idea of comparing unlike events to arrive at a stated conclusion is quite common. What this book does do is remind us that ideas have consequences in the real world. Prophetically, the article on public schools sounds as if it could have been written yesterday.

This books claims to engage Rand "where she wished to be engaged--at the level of philosophical argument." As a Christian who is also an admirer of Ayn Rand, I found Mr. Robbins' arguments to be grossly inadequate. I actually found this very disappointing, since I profoundly disagree with Rand on several issues and was hoping to fid a book that would provide ammunition for engaging Objectivists in a reasoned debate. I will have to keep looking.
In the foreword, Mr. Robbins wastes no time in calling Rand's philosophy "deadly poison," then he attempts to "prove" his point using out-of-context quotes and word twisting. Let's look at one glaring example from the second chapter:
Mr. Robbins quotes Rand as saying that "reason" is "the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses." He then claims that she equivocated on the meaning of "reason" when she said that "reason is the only objective means of communication and understanding among men." This claim is absolutely ridiculous. The former quote is the definition of reason; the latter is a description of one of its many uses--there is no equivocation here.
Mr. Robbins makes the claim that "Christianity and Objectivism have no presuppositions or propositions in common. They have no common ground." Thank goodness that is not the case; for if it were, then Christianity would have no foundation. Is not the most basic presupposition of Objectivism that existence exists?
By inference one might conclude that Mr. Robbins does not believe in existence. But as president of the Trinity Foundation, he believes that one God exists in three Persons. If he really believes that Christianity and Objectivism have no common ground, then he is guilty of the fallacy of the stolen concept, for the concept of existence is necessary in order to believe that God exists.
That error in itself may be a simple oversight. Unfortunately, it is only the tip of the iceberg. In the final chapter of this book, Mr. Robbins introduces us to the philosophy of Gordon H. Clark, which he calls Scripturalism. Unfortunately, Scripturalism's epistemology is only workable if you first accept Objectivism's entire epistemology as a presupposition! Mr. Robbins makes the incredible claim that the Bible is the source of all knowledge. How are we to read and understand the Bible in the first place if we cannot engage in the very process of concept formation that is central to Objectivist epistemology?
While Mr. Robbins rightly pointed out some serious errors in the conclusions Rand came to, he failed in his chief aim, which was to destroy the foundation of Objectivism. I hope that anyone, and especially any Objectivists, who are unfortunate enough to read this book will also take a look at the works of Norman Geisler before drawing any conclusions about true Christianity.

In 1974, John Robbins came out with Answer to Ayn Rand, a work that criticized Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy from a Calvinist perspective based on the philosophy of Gordon Clark. Clark was a rationalist who denied that there could be any proofs for God's existence. His philosophy was also excessively anti-empiricist.

Robbins updated and expanded that work in 1997 under the new name ,Without a Prayer. This book is certainly worth reading, but -- while it was one of the better discussions of Objectivism at the time -- it has been superseded by other works.

I must first object to the macabre cover. On the front of the work is Rand's tombstone and the back, that of her husband Frank O'Connor. What's the point?

In any event, the substance of this work isn't quite that bad. There are a couple of excellent chapters -- those dealing with her theory of concept formation and also the religious nature of Objectivism. Robbins has an eye for showing the contradictions and false assumptions of Objectivism, but at times he gives the least charitable interpretation of something Rand said to then contrast it with something else she said, in order to make Rand look silly or muddleheaded. Of course, Rand was these things at times, but not even she deserves to be unnecessarily held up to ridicule.

Some of the work is mediocre and at times borders on the scurrilous. For example, Robbins tells us that "Their [Christians] continued existence under Objectivist government has already been the subject of debate in Objectivist circles . . . ." [p. 210.] Of course, there is no citation to such a "debate." A society based on Objectivism certainly wouldn't be hospitable to the senile, the retarded, and anyone who doesn't agree with Rand. But to imply that Objectivists advocate the murder of Christians is to out-Rand Rand at her worst. While Mr. Robbins rightly protests that Leonard Peikoff wrongly equates the rise of Nazism with Christianity, he no has qualms of stooping to Peikoff's level (or worse) when he attacks Objectivism.

Robbins even gets silly when describing David Kelley as a "radio receiver channeling omnipresent energy." [p. 37 n. 25.] Rand said some foolish things in her day, but I don't recall reading anything so silly as that.

This book is to be commended on one ground, however. Mr. Robbins has no doubt introduced a great many people to the thought of Gordon Clark, one of the most influential apologists in recent history.

"The desirability of the conclusion is no substitute for argument, and those who allow themselves to be deceived by arguments because they like the conclusions are poor philosophers." - John W. Robbins

John W. Robbins is an intellectual UFO. A Christian, he discovered Ayn Rand while in college and, admiring her "uncompromising vision... of how the world might be and ought to be" and her "portrayals of rational, creative, and intransigeant individuals", he "read all that Rand published". Even today, he agrees with many of her positions, such as "her praise of purpose and productive work, her condemnation of lazinesss, her enthusiasm for private property, her advocacy of laissez-faire capitalism and limited government, her attacks on altruism, her support of egoism and her vigorous defense of logic."

However, Robbins is not an Objectivist, but a follower of evangelical Protestant philosopher Gordon H. Clark, some of whose shorter pieces are included in the appendices. Robbins defines Clark's philosophy as "scripturalism", a doctrine according to which "all our thoughts- there are no exceptions- are to be brought into conformity to Scripture, for all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are contained in Scripture." Among the corollaries of this position are the idea that evolution is "the greatest superstition of the twentieth century", and an extremely negative (Popperian) view of science, according to which "all the laws of science are false, and all have the same probability: zero" because they are "conclusions of logically fallacious arguments".

In Objectivist terms, he is a pure intrinsicist: he believes that we have access to infallible propositional truths, which are delivered to us directly from the mind of God via Scripture, and that all our knowledge either comes directly from Revelation or from logical deductions from it. A pure rationalist, too, he totally rejects empirical evidence as a possible basis for knowledge, and reduces logic to deduction, denying even the possibility of induction ("Truth cannot be derived from something non-propositional, such as 'observations'. Unless one starts with propositions, one cannot end with propositions.")

Most people - and especially most Objectivists - would be tempted to dismiss him as a wacky fundamentalist, but I personally respect Christians and even admire some Catholics, and I even share some of Robbins' ethics and politics, so I was willing to listen.

Actually, *Ayn Rand and the Close of her System* contains excellent points against Objectivism, some of which I had already arrived at by my own thinking. I particularly liked, for instance, Robbins's argument that what the "primacy of existence" actually means is "the primacy of unconsciousness"; his identification of the bias inherent in the "indestructible robot" example used to justify the concept of life as the root of value (the robot is assumed to be impassible and unchangeable); or the argument that Rand's ethics would "seem to permit, if not require, murderers to fight against their just punishment" and is "completely compatible with a pro-death, pro-suicide point of view" - among many other highly interesting points.

I am not saying that Robbins has refuted Objectivism, only that some of his points corroborated or even refined my own understanding of the problems of the philosophy and raised objections I am currently unable to answer. Of course, not every argument is of a high caliber. Robbins occasionally resorts to ad hominem, sarcasm or straw man arguments. Moreover, even though he does understand many of the points he discusses, he is prey to a certain number of false alternatives, assuming for instance that the non-intrinsicist is necessarily a Kantian subjectivist or that a volitional theory of consciousness must necessarily exclude the possibility of automatic processes at all levels, including the sub-conscious.

In fact, if true, Robbins' critique would be devastating not only for Objectivism, but for modern science (including psychology and psychiatry, which he rejects as "pseudo-science" and "witchdoctory") and the whole empiricist tradition in philosophy. He is particularly virulent against Aristotle, whom, contrary to Rand who saw in him "the first of our Founding Fathers", he calls an "explicit totalitarian" and a "fascist". But Rand's interpretation is vindicated in such Objectivist works as Robert Mayhew's *Aristotle's Criticism of Plato's Republic* or F. D. Miller's *Nature, Justice and Rights in Aristotle's Politics*. As for Robbins' attacks on the Objectivist politics, it seems to focus on rather careless statements of the theory, and might not be as effective against the more scholarly derivation of the Objectivist position in Tara Smith's *Moral Rights and Political Freedom*.

Even though Robbins' own point of view is untenable and he is not always a very nice person, I think his book is worthy of close scrutiny and deserves a systematic Objectivist answer.

The reviewer below, Greg Nyquist, makes the point that Kelley belabors the obvious in saying that we should tolerate people who hold intellectual positions that we regard as mistaken. Perhaps this is the case. Maybe this is pretty obvious, if one (unlike Leonard Peikoff) keeps one's eyes focused on the world instead of on the written words of Ayn Rand.

But Nyquist goes on to mischaracterize Kelley's argument in this work (Kelley does not defend tolerance solely on the basis of the notion that evil deeds are the only thing that can make one evil; he agrees with Rand that it is intellectual dishonesty and evasion that make one, fundamentally, an immoral person). Later, Nyquist stakes out what I regard as a mistaken philosophical position. He approvingly quotes a very stupid idea from a very silly thinker (Popper), a thinker who did not realize that his own half-wit innovation on Logical Empiricism was susceptible to the very same criticisms that he made of Marx and Freud.

In any case, the idea of Popper's is this: all hell will break loose and liberalism be destroyed if we believe there are moral facts. Nyquist writes that: "If you believe, as all good Randites are supposed to believe, that 'reason' can discover objective moral absolutes that can be validated beyond all doubt, then I do not see how one can escape Peikoff's position that tolerance is essentially vicious." This is a ridiculous argument, as ridiculous applied to Kelley and Rand as it would be if applied to Christians or G.E.Moore. Whether or not the position that there are moral facts will lead logically to intolerance DEPENDS ON WHAT THE MORAL FACTS IN QUESTION ARE. If one of the moral facts is that one should listen to others and not condemn them as immoral on the basis of complicated intellectual errors that they might make by mistake, then the belief that this is a fact will not lead to intolerance. (This is precisely what Kelley holds.) In addition, Rand's morality is an individualistic, agent-relative morality, and if Peikoff realized this and gave up his semi-deontological characterizations of Rand's views, it would become increasingly apparent that the notion of getting all worked up over what other people do (when it has no chance of effecting you) is A SILLY WASTE OF TIME.

Granted, given certain ethical beliefs, holding that they are true MIGHT entail some kind of neo-fascist, coercive implementation of them. But this is not the case with Rand, as it is not the case with Christianity (the argument Nyquist outlines is often made against Christians).

So: Nyquist understands neither Rand's ethics nor Kelley's book, and I urge other readers to judiciously set his comments aside. Nyquist should leave philosophical commentary to the professionals.

......Kelley is not changing the fundamentals of Objectivism, but defending them. He does so by appealing to the works and words of Ayn Rand, not by changing them. His challenge is not to the originator, but to the self-proclaimed "intellectual heir" and "Objectivist authority" Leonard Peikoff.

...

But the gnostics won't read the book, because getting caught carrying a work by David Kelley in your backpack is sufficient cause for excommunication.

Kelley defends Objectivism as a philosophy of reason. Those who value it as such will find the book an excellent analysis of the inductive nature of judging character as well as the difference between error and evil. Those who value Objectivism as a kind of religion in which John Galt and Howard Roark are avatars and Leonard Peikoff is an oracle, would do well to wait for the Cliff Notes version. It will leave less of a bruise on their foreheads.

When I was new to Objectivism, I was curious why there were no Objectivist academics of any stature or reknown (the situation has since improved .... slightly). Why were there no teachers of Objectivist philosophy at colleges, so I could go learn about it? I was also curious why the writers at the magazine called the Intellectual Activist (the main periodical of the official Objectivist movement) were all so similar to one another. Didn't they ever come to disagreements about the application of principles? For instance, why did they all support U.S. backing of Israel on the basis of such flimsy, aesthetic arguments?

Well, then I read this book. It is many things: Kelley defends a view about what is essential (i.e., most fundamental) to Objectivism, and also what warrants being called Objectivist. He defends a view about the assessment of moral character. But for me - at the time - this book was an invaluable window into the weird, behind-the-scenes world of Objectivism. It was written as Kelley's defense in response to his "excommunication" by Peikoff, Binswanger, Schwartz, and others who run the official movement. Now, Kelley takes these people seriously, and he tries to answer their arguments and lay out the justification for the actions that got him excommunicated (he accepted an invitation to speak at the Laissez-Faire books dinner). But if one reads between the lines, one starts to see what is really going on. One gets a picture of how the Objectivist movement has been totally handicapped by hacks like Peikoff, Binswanger, and Schwartz, who want their followers to BELIEVE every word Ayn Rand said without thinking too hard about it. In short, it looks highly probable that these people had no real principled argument with Kelley (that's just a smokescreen). In reality, they were just jealous of Kelley's intellectual abilities, and (more importantly) they feared the honesty and openness of his intellectual work. "Wild," you might say, but no: it looks very probable that Peikoff, etc think that Kelley's openness - his willingness to say, "I don't know; that part of Objectivism hasn't really been developed," or "Well, there are a number of things you might think, here" - will destroy their little power-structure and money-making machine, the Ayn Rand Institute. Why? Because once people start saying, "Uh, gee, there really are some puzzles in Objectivist doctrine," people will start asking Peikoff and his associates questions. They won't be able to answer, and people will quit taking them so seriously (and be less likely to contribute). At the end of this book, one sees that Kelley was a threat to be contained - not a threat to Objectivist principle - a threat the Ayn Rand Institute's (ARI) support and revenues. It is now the official °RI policy that one should not even READ Kelley's book. Ah, now I understand. It is no wonder that such an infertile, incestuous, fear-regulated organization has produced no scholars of merit. No decent person could, in good conscience, stay on board at that place.

A professional Rand basher, who critizes her for being so harsh and intolerant of other peoples views, spends an entire book brow beating his deceased opponent. What a hypocrite. I have to wonder if Nyquist bullied little blind kids in gradeschool.
I don't agree with many of Rands views, but just read Nyquists' reviews of all Randian literature to see just how biased he is.

Are there many men who had a lower opinion about
human nature than Nyquist ?

Greg Nyquist is the kind of guy that would probably annoy a person who enjoys day-dreaming and dallying in flights of fancy. He states his allegiance to naturalist and empirical philosophies and respect of biological views of human nature upfront. If you make a claim, Nyquist will simply ask you for evidence supporting it. And ideally, he doesn't mean you observation of one individual - he means scientifically tested data, or references and arguments in support of your claims. Define what you mean by pointing to things, and present your evidence.

The view of human beings that Nyquist develops with such a worldview is cynical, but Nyquist is obviously able to empathize with lofty ideals - he just thinks that all issues should be brought to the bar of scientific and rational analysis with substantiating evidence. Of course, he also stresses that you should not evade the evidence contrary to your theme.

How well does Nyquist's criticism of Objectivism hit its mark when shooting from this perspective? It hits it very well! Nyquist criticizes Objectivist claims about human nature, history, art and philosophy by simply taking an Objectivist position, looking for the evidence, and asking what science, and then his philosophical viewpoint, have to say on the matter. My favorite parts of his critique are his criticisms of Rand's assertions about human nature and the tabula rasa mind. I had thought about doing such a critique myself, but guessed intuitively that Nyquist would have done one first. He presents the empirically based genetic and sociobiological evidence for genetic influences on human choices and behavior.

I am not a history buff, so I am not able to critique historical views with great competence. While Nyquist might score points here, I think it might have helped if he was able to cite more than one reference for every point that he made, or at least, primary references. However, this does not destroy his points that undermine the lazy approach of replacing real empirically tested or substantiated knowledge with philosophical perspectives.

While I disagree with Nyquist's arguments that attempt to dissociate logic from metaphysics (I am acquainted with the history of the argument between Blanshard and Nagel on that point - not directly presented by Nyquist - and I side with Blanshard), I do appreciate and agree with his argument that the scientific claims pretty much trump speculative philosophical ones and that underlying philosophies that declare allegiance to "reason" are not necessarily declaring an allegiance to the scientific method that certifies predictive and testable knowledge. I also agree with him that it is when allegiance to *scientific empiricism* is pervasive, and not just *bland declarations of allegiance to reason* that progress amongst human beings is greatest (not that the two are totally mutally exclusive, but Newton is an example of a mystic who was a scientific empiricist). Speculative philosophy can be right about things, but the idea that it grants certain knowledge is very dubious, whether coming from Objectivism, Christianity or Marxism. The method by which of verbalist speculation replaces science is common in lots of philosophy. Nyquist uses this to show how Rand ends up confusing many of her readers by playing upon their intuitive understandings of her ambiguously defined words. He does what is pretty clear to most people who have argued with Objectivists - show that "reason" to a hardcore Objectivist is synonymous with "the ideas of Objectivism".

I do not think Nyquist has written a perfect book - I sometimes found the presentation format to be uneven (not every chapter seemed to have a conclusion, for example), and there were points on which his disrespect for a certain position led him to dismiss it without sufficient empathy.

However, he deserves a 5-star review if only for bringing Objectivism to the bar of empirical analysis. Reviews that disagree with him will tend to dislike his naturalism, especially as he cynically applies it to ethics and politics, asking how Rand's capitalist fantasies, with which he (and I) share some sympathies, will ever take root.

In the end, you respect for this book will depend on whether you are able to empathize with arguments you disagree with, and whether your view of human nature is conserative or libertine.

THIS BOOK IS ONLY FOR THOSE WHO KNOW AYN RAND AND ARE HUNGRY FOR EVERY WORD SHE HAS WRITTEN. FOR THOSE NEW TO AYN RAND, STAY AWAY - CHOOSE ONE OF HER MORE FAMOUS AND POPULAR NOVELS. MOST OF THE WRITING IN THIS BOOK IS AMATEURISH AND EMBARASSING TO READ - EVEN FOR ME, A STUDENT OF HER PHILOSOPHY. HOWEVER, EVEN IN THESE POORLY WRITTEN PIECES, MISS RAND'S PHILOSOPHY AND STYLE ARE VISIBLE. THE MOST INTERESTING ASPECT OF THESE SHORT STORIES, PLAYS AND PIECES IS TO SEE THE DEVELOPMENT OF MISS RAND'S WRITING - FROM POOR GRAMMER, SENTENCE STYLE AND STRUCTURE ( THAT OF A FOREIGNER WITH NO COMMAND OF THE LANGUAGE) TO THE WRITINGS OF SOMEONE WHO HAS GREAT TALENT AND IS DESTINED TO BECOME A BEST-SELLING AUTHOR. THUS, IF YOU ARE NEW TO AYN RAND, READ ONE OF HER MAJOR WORKS!!!

The beginnings of evil, in this case, are some really terrible fiction (even worse than Ayn Rand's later stuff) and some outtakes from THE FOUNTAINHEAD that Rand never intended to publish. If you *must* enrich Leonard Peikoff and his cronies by purchasing this volume, at least pay close attention to the passages excised from THE FOUNTAINHEAD. Howard Roark was originally conceived as a man completely incapable of giving a damn about anyone but himself; later revisions made it a bit less obvious that his origins lay in Rand's vulgar understanding of Nietzsche. Since she later filed the serial numbers off of her Nietzschean influences, the passages presented here are of some historical interest. Some of the other works here presented - e.g. the play IDEAL, in which actress Kay Gonda conceives herself as the most marvelous creature alive, wishes in good Randian fashion that there were someone else in the world she could look up to, and eventally lets some poor fellow kill himself on her behalf in the erroneous belief that he is rescuing her - also provide some insights into the Mind of Rand; most of them are not pretty. But *none* of them are any damn good - even for early fiction.

I read this book as if it were the last one she had written. I savored the stories, the characters, the sometimes enevitable plots. I grew up with Ayn. First I read Anthem, then The Fountainhead, and then Atlas Shrugged.(These over the course of my teen years.) I believed that what she said was true. Yes, I have matured and realized life is not quite so perfect as I wished it could be as Ayn had expressed it. However, I have found that if I expect the best from life, and except nothing less, then that is what I will recieve. I think that is all Ayn ever intended to say. Yes, she seemed to make it all complicated and profound, but all in all she just wanted what was the best and what was right. Don't we all?? YOU determine what is right and best for you. It doesn't have to match anyone else. I just happen to match Ayn. Have you read We the Living? If you have not please do. I think this is as close to Ayn as you will ever get. Yes, she is an idealist and a capitalist to the nth degree. Ahhhh, but to believe in something so strongly, that is admirable.

Are ther any John Galts coming up with a cure for cancer? and new math equation? anything? No No No. All we get from the objectivist is the type of balony found in Ominous Parrells.

Are there any John Galts coming up with a cure for cancer? and new math equation? anything? No No No. All we get from the objectivist is the type of balony found in The Ominous Parallels. A book for and by fanatics. Not science not history just the application of a crazy philosophy to produce a crazy book. The most mediocre people out there today are Objectivist.

"The Ominous Parallels" by Dr. Leonard Peikoff is a brilliant study uniting philosophy and history to identify the fundamental cause of the rise of Hitler and Nazism, and more broadly, of fascism.

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 not the greatest non-fiction writer. In fact, some of her non-fiction books are downright mind-numbing. _The Voice Of Reason_ sort of plies a thin line between being interesting and just plain pedantic.

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.

This volume contains a selection of lesser known columns, articles and essays from Ayn Rand's impressive oeuvre. The essays, etc. are arranged into three broad sections: Philosophy, Culture and Politics.

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.

This collection of essaies is invaluable to those individuals who believe that "reason ... is the glory of our nature." In these essaies, Ayn Rand analyzes events in the world from the '60s and '70s, such as the Apollo 11 mission to the moon, and the American debacle in Vietnam. There is an incisive clarity to these essaies, and to Ms. Rand's philosophy in general. Her philosophy, that of Objectivism, is not a faith or a creed: it affirms the fundamental principle that man should be guided by his reason in an objective manner, to pursue his own self-interest. Personally, I felt this way about life when I was younger, but I was sidetracked during adolescence (when we all are vulnerable to "collectivist" ways of thinking due to our intense desire at that age to be accepted by our peers) by the prevailing philosophical ideas of the day: that reality is not knowable to us with any certainty, that one opinion is as valuable as another, that there is no objective reality, and that there is no basis for me to have strong convictions about anything. Reading these essaies (after reading The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged) is like coming home again to the reality that was there all along. Rand, despite the unwavering strength of her convictions, was despairing of the chances for America to retain any of the glory with which it was bestowed at its inception. She makes a convincing case that the birth of this nation was during a brief historical flash when the ideas of the enlightenement (e.g. that the distinctive feature of a man or woman is his power to produce earthly success by the power of his intellect, and that I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of my own happiness) were transcendant, and that the US has been in intellectual (and hence, real) decline ever since. These essaies provide clear, practical instances of looking objectively at events in the world. Ms. Rand shows the rottenness of multiculturalism, while at the same time blasting racism. This is an example of how screwed up intellectual life is in this country: today you would be called racist if you are against the emphasis on multiculturalism in this society. But Rand's point is that people cannot be judged based on their race or other accidents of birth; we should be judged instead solely on the acheivements of our intellect--the products of our reason applied to our free choice. This is a beautiful book that has had a major impact on me. In fact, it has helped to save me from the cesspool of collectivist philosphy that threatens to overrun our world. Incidentally, this in fact may be the good that comes out of 9/11/01: that the people of the US and the world will see how years of appeasement and passivity has emboldened the enemies of reason. Buy this book and read it. You'll be glad you did.

have to agree with the others who didn't like this book. in chapter 10, we learn yang is a creationist nutcase...he thinks galaxies are 10 billion light years away (or seem) because God made the light travel faster until recently. he seems to be part of the "anything goes" school of Xian apology - where you hold any hypothesis no matter how illogical (or contradicting your other knowledge) if it seems to uphold a 6th grader's Bible understanding. yang doesn't understand science methods (though thinks he does) and never got occam's razor. "there is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action" - goethe. in 1 or 2 places, Yang has a decent point against Rand - but so did Branden, buy his books! :-) rand had problems but this type of book is not a good way to fight her

Michael Yang used to be an Objectivist, and now he's a Christian. And he'd like to tell you why. This book makes a nice companion to John Robbins's _Without A Prayer_. Yang devotes much less detailed attention to Rand's philosophical errors and contradictions than does Robbins, on whose previous book Yang quite properly leans. But Yang complements Robbins's work by providing greater detail on just exactly how Rand misunderstood and/or misrepresented Christianity. Indeed, as he notes, it was a couple of her ill-considered remarks about the Bible that started him thinking to begin with. In addition to providing fine summaries of Rand's two major novels and an outline of her philosophy, Yang also engages a few thinkers whom Robbins does not -- on both sides, from C.S. Lewis to George H. Smith (author of _Atheism: The Case Against God_). Moreover, he elaborates at some length on several broad principles at which Robbins only hints in his own book, including (for example) the Christian theistic idealism which both Yang and Robbins have inherited from Gordon Haddon Clark. Yang's book is divided into two broad sections. In "Part One: The Fiction and the Practice," Yang provides the aforementioned summaries of _The Fountainhead_ and ATLAS SHRUGGED and then spends several chapters describing the Objectivist views of self-esteem, competence, and romantic love. In "Part Two: The Philosophy," he provides the aforementioned outline of Objectivism and proceeds to criticize the Objectivist views of reason, morality, government, and science -- in each case arguing that Christian philosophy deals much more adequately with the material in question than does Objectivism. He closes with a brief overview of the major arguments for the existence of God (most of which, as a Clarkian presuppositionalist, he takes to be inconclusive, though the ontological argument fares well at his hands). An epilogue invites Objectivists (and of course anyone else) to consider becoming Christians themselves. As with Robbins's book, Objectivists will probably be put off by Yang's solidly religious approach, assuming as they will that Rand was right in tagging all religion as "irrational." And again, the loss will be theirs; Yang, like Robbins, depends heavily on Gordon Clark, whose Reformed/Calvinist theology gave _very_ high place to reason and rationality. (Incidentally, Clark's text on the history of philosophy, entitled _Thales To Dewey_, was published in the same year as ATLAS SHRUGGED.) At any rate, this book is a fine critique of Objectivism and an excellent corrective to her numerous misstatements about Christianity. Even if Objectivists don't read it, they should.

This book is provocative and controversial. That much can be gathered from the previous customer reviews that suggest a polarization of opinions regarding its worth. This is to be expected since readers of Rand generally either love her or hate her. However, it is unfortunate that some of the Yang's detractors seem not to have read his book very carefully. He has been criticized for, among other things, failing to understand Objectivism, treating Objectivism unfairly, taking an uncritical view of the Bible (including a failure to deal with the manuscript evidence), and failing to give an empirical, scientific basis for the existence of God.

For starters, Yang has understood Objectivism very well indeed. In this book, he gives quotation after quotation from Rand and her followers. He spells out the Objectivist position before he criticizes her and demonstrates her flawed thinking. Over 700 footnote citations and about 100 works cited in the bibliography are evidence of his meticulous effort. Furthermore, Yang consistently begins by presenting an empathetic view of Objectivism, especially in the early chapters, with respect to its beliefs about self-esteem, romantic love, and productive work. Gradually, he reveals the internal contradictions in Rand's views and then shows that Rand could not justify her ideals on the basis of her premises. And it was Rand who challenged readers: "Check your premises."

As for taking an uncritical view of the Bible and failing to account for the manuscript evidence, that accusation fails considering Yang's gargantuan effort to critically discuss Christianity and Objectivism in 367 pages. Furthermore, Yang's primary objective in his book was not the question of manuscript evidence for the Bible. One of his objectives seems to have been to point out the failure of the philosophical empiricism and materialism of Rand and contrast it with Christian revelation. Nevertheless, Yang gives a page-long footnote discussion on page 348 on the subject of manuscript evidence and offers some suggestions for further reading.

As to the subject of science, such as the question of an empirical proof for the existence of God, one would do well to read Yang's chapter on epistemology (Reason and Reality) or his chapter on Science and Christianity; (this last chapter of 55 some pages could easily have stood alone as a monograph on the subject). These chapters marshal the writings of scientists as well as non-Christian philosophers of science like Stephen Hawking, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakotos and others, to demonstrate the logical fallacies that are at the heart of the scientific method and reveal the utter skepticism that results from adopting an empirical philosophy. This leads to the intriguing conclusion: if science can't prove anything at all, it is begging the question to require Christianity to prove its veracity by the method of science. As to the issue of Creation and the question of the speed of light slowing down leading to the illusion of a older universe, a previous reader also seems to have misread Yang. Yang had already demonstrated that one problem with the scientific method was that an infinite number of hypotheses can "fit" the finite number of empirical, observed "facts". Although the belief in divine creation does not require that one knows for certain that the speed of light is slowing down; nevertheless, the slowing of the speed of light, as documented in a standard college physics textbook, supports one hypothesis, namely that the universe is much younger than we have been told it is. By the same token, it contradicts the theory of evolution and the idea of an ancient universe. Yang is merely taking one empirical finding of physics and using it against those who would utilize science to argue against the Christian belief in creation. He did not assert that the slowing of the speed of light is a certainty or that it was the basis of his belief in creation. How could he? He denies, along with reputable philosophers of science, that science can produce truth.

Rand's literary abilities were considerable, but her philosophy had numerous flaws, which unfortunately, many of her admirers have ignored. This excellent book by a former Rand admirer has shown us where the problems lie and discussed them honestly and thoughtfully. Moreover, this work takes readers beyond Rand's writings and challenges them to consider some broader philosophical issues. It is well worth the time and the money.

Rand uses her limited knowledge of reality to paint herself into a corner.

She is not a serious Aristotelian, she is just another atheist philosopher...a dime a dozen.

St. Thomas Aquinas was a serious Aristotelian. If there is any doubt let us look at his genius. Aquinas could remember EVERYTHING ever said to him by anyone and recall EVERY word that he ever read. His single-ness of mind and genius is further demonstrated by the fact that he could write (at least) three different books at the same time by dictating to 3 different secretaries seated around him, and going from concepts in one book to different concepts in another book, instantly and without any difficulty of mind.

Rand's philosophy is hiddenly close-minded. That is, it appears to be open-minded and "truth loving," but is not. She is a "corner painter." Her level of intelligence is certainly high, but Aquinas would run intellectual circles around her head. She was not at that level of genius.

OK, let's make it simpler:
So, who would you rather hear perform Strauss' "Death and Transfiguration"? The Chicago Symphony Orchestra or the Lubjawana Radio Symphony Orchestra? Answer is easy: Chicago.

Aquinas or Rand? Answer is easy: Aquinas. Anyday.

Oh, I have one final thought for you. Rand is trying to explain that God can't exist because He cannot fit into our concept of nature, with all it's finite limitations. That is tantamount to saying that a Ford Taurus cannot exist because it can't fit into a cardboard box. Unfortunately, death overcame her before she could figure that one out. Tisk, tisk.

In this engagingly written work, Long raises several sophisticated criticisms of the Objectivist theory of value and the Objectivist theory of knowledge. To really over-simplify: he rejects Rand's vitalism, i.e., he argues that it's not the case that x is valuable just in case x significantly contributes to the life of the agent. Then, he rejects her epistemology, on the grounds, basically, that if Rand's theory were true, she couldn't know that it was, and we couldn't know all kinds of things that we take ourselves to know. Long outlines the aretaic/flourishing theory with which he would replace Rand's moral theory; he introduces the contextualism with which he would replace Rand's theory of knowledge. His final theory follows Aristotle more closely than Rand does.

Now, I am not convinced that Long has gotten it right, but he certainly states some well-formulated doubts about Objectivism. The other two writers in the volume - Fred Miller and Eyal Mozes - try to resist Long's arguments, but they do not state their views precisely and clearly enough (but hey, they didn't get as much space to write in as Long). Any serious Objectivist will want to think about how to respond to Long's arguments philosophically. And by the way: this guy is no hack. This book ...is probably the best piece of serious, non-hostile, informed critical work on Objectivism ever written. This book is *SO* much better than these critical works written by mystics, Christians, and egalitarian socialists; the writer is a serious Aristotelian, . ...

This book has changed my life. Seriously.
Amazingly enough, the author easily commands an intellect far greater than those his book is about, combined! I sleep with this book at night...
if you know what I mean.