Home :: Books :: Audio CDs  

Arts & Photography
Audio CDs

Audiocassettes
Biographies & Memoirs
Business & Investing
Children's Books
Christianity
Comics & Graphic Novels
Computers & Internet
Cooking, Food & Wine
Entertainment
Gay & Lesbian
Health, Mind & Body
History
Home & Garden
Horror
Literature & Fiction
Mystery & Thrillers
Nonfiction
Outdoors & Nature
Parenting & Families
Professional & Technical
Reference
Religion & Spirituality
Romance
Science
Science Fiction & Fantasy
Sports
Teens
Travel
Women's Fiction
Atlas Shrugged

Atlas Shrugged

List Price: $34.95
Your Price: $22.02
Product Info Reviews

<< 1 .. 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 .. 111 >>

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: WOW
Review: This book sums up, in story form, all of the things I have been thinking about the current direction of society, but have been unable to quite put into words. An excellent read; I have pushed others to read it so hard, that they think I'm getting royalties :)

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: Life changing
Review: This book read my mind.

I can't believe that such an incredible book has been written. I've read that this book has been compared to the Bible in its influence on the world. I've even read some people refer to this book off-hand as their Bible. I can see why. Never have I read such a lucent social and political critique mixed with a good ol' fashioned common sense philosophy.

The darts that it throws at the Left, and liberalism in particular, as stunning. James Taggart is a character especially to watch, as he is the running subject of an attack on limosine liberalism I haven't seen since the likes of Native Son. (I find that kind of ironic because Native Son critiques limosine liberalism in the defense of communism, a philosophy that Ayn Rand despised.) She also attacks social conversatism as well, though for whatever her reasons, she doesn't seem to have the same edge on it.

The book is also hugely critical of Keynesian economics. The book's bad guys are mostly government bureaucrats heavily influenced by Keynes. In one part of the book, it goes as far as to put Keynes' famous quote "in the long run, we're all dead" in one of the character's mouth.

Its treatment of relationships is also stunning. While I don't particularly like the fact that the sex scenes border on ..., it gives very lucent dating advice.

Lastly, I wish to make a comment about the unreality and flatness of the book. Apparently, people seem to miss the point that the main reason this book was written was to promote and explicate a philosophy, not tell a story (though it does a good job of that too). If this concept is hard for you to grasp, read 1984, which does much the same thing, only more explicitly.

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: if i were an atheist i would be an objectivist...but...
Review: This book is clearly a masterpiece of thought, from the philosophy to the characterization to the simple craft of writing. I find it hard to believe that Rand was accused of making unrealistic characters. Perhaps I find this accusation silly because I am related to one of the characters. I have an uncle who is so similar to Hank Rearden that they might as well be soul brothers. The only difference is that my uncle is not in metals and does not have blond hair. In his late 50's, my uncle is a hard and closed man with few friendships, with a net worth of at least $100 million, running the software firm he created with his own hands more than three decades ago. Let me say that just because we do not run into these people every day does not mean they do not exist.

I have to suspect that many did not like the heroes and heroines of this book because they resented seeing a picture of greatness that they did not have a desire to live up to, or perhaps because of their secret knowledge that they could not live up to it if they tried. Some people have will power and inner strength and consistency, and others just don't.. Some people know deep down that if you give them the ball they will drop it, just as others know they will carry it. How can anyone accuse Rand of being inhuman because she did not believe in theft? Because she believed in glorifying achievement and giving credit where credit is due? I think a true meritocracy would be great. I welcome the day when parasites stop seeking to feed off my flesh.

I do have a few problems with Rand's philosophy, however, which I feel obliged to point out.

For one, she claims that altruism is the greatest sin, but in reality it is not altruism that she has so brutally characterized in the book. None of the villains in Atlas Shrugged- Taggart, Mouch, Lawson etc.- truly practiced altruism (selflessness). Rather, they hypocritically gave the mere Appearance of altruism in order to serve their own interests and desires. There is a major, major difference. Furthermore: the villains in Atlas Shrugged not only practiced phony altruism in an effort to gain status for themselves, they forced others to participate in their schemes. Again, BIG difference. If I give bread to a hungry child, that can be an act of altruism (selflessness) on my part (if I am doing it for the right motives and not to impress someone). But if I force YOU to give a piece of YOUR bread that you do not want to give, that is an act of violence on my part, NOT altruism, because I am forcing you to do something against your will. I am unfairly making you carry out my desires rather than respecting your freedom to do as you wish. Coercion and altruism are not the same thing at all. They are not even on the same plane. Rand has set up a straw man here. True selflessness does not harm society because it does not make any demands on anyone except the person acting- because if it does, it is no longer selflessness but coercion. When the weak make a claim on the strong, that is not altruism either. That is puling, self-abasing mockery and nothing more. Ironically, altruism was practiced by both of the heroes- Dagny and Hank. Dagny showed mercy to Cherryl Brooks, and Hank showed mercy to the "Wet Nurse" who changed his ways and wanted a job. There is nothing wrong with selflessness, as long as one does not try and force it on others or use the appearance of selflessness as a weapon or method for obtaining some desired thing, which is coercion and deceit.

There was also a line repeated, "contradictions do not exist- if you have a contradiction, check your premises, one of them is wrong." This is faulty philosophy. It is possible for two seemingly contradictory statements to hold truth and not be contradictory. For example, to borrow from CS Lewis, the three statements 1. Tybalt was killed by one man 2. Romeo killed Tybalt and 3. Shakespeare killed Tybalt are all true, though seemingly contradictory. Sometimes the lack of understanding is what creates the contradiction, not the factual error of one of the premises.

I also find it hard to believe that man can find happiness in a handful of dust. Dagny and Hank's efforts, while noble, were in a way reminiscent of Ozymandias King of Kings- the worn down statue whose "greatness" was nothing more than dust and rubble. Rand provides the best hope for atheists- that is why I say that if I did not believe in God, then I would be one of her followers. But I do believe, and the objectivist/atheist case simply doesn't hold when it all comes down to it. If man was an accident, then all his creations were the byproduct of an accident, and if truth is not eternal, then it cannot exist in any form, and words have no more meaning than the waves crashing on a beach. The consistent atheist must accept that the babble of Simon Pritchett is true, to stand with Nietzche and say that there is no objective truth other than that which the powerful make useful for their ends. The objectivist / atheist must reject the witness of his own heart, the feeling of love for his children, as mere chemical twinges. He has to take pride in actions that will mean less than nothing two centuries hence. No thanks, Ann. I will take a reason for being that completes my circle of understanding, an understanding of why I am who I am, and an eternal purpose, over the empty final premise of my own flawed code any day.

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: The most important work of literature of the 20th century
Review: The only thing I regret is that I read this book when I was 16.

Every other work of literature and philosophy I have read has been a disappointment by comparison. And I have always come back to Ayn Rand as a bastion of reason and rationality. This...after having read Kant, Sartre, and all the rest...they all pale by comparison...such a waste of time.

I know...those with a Socialist (people must be forced to be good) mentality will disagree, but who cares? Ayn Rand did more to advance the cause of human liberty than any other writer of the 20th century; this will be her legacy.

Some of you are students and probably wonder why your college professors ignore Ayn Rand (or even attack her). But do not let that deter you from reading her works.

Most of the intellectuals of the 20th century are simply embarrassed by Ayn Rand. While Ayn Rand was making the case for liberty and individualism, many of them were supporting societies that committed some of the worst atrocities in recorded history. One has only to look at the crimes of Stalin and Hitler (NAZI stands for National Socialism) to see the obscenity of the causes they have indirectly supported by their endorsement of a collectivist mentality (with themselves as the overseers).

But I digress. Read the book! There is nothing like it.

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: The greatest book I have ever read
Review: This book clarified a lot of Ayn Rand's philosophy for me and was a key step in integrating the philosophy as a whole. A must read for any thinking person.

Rating: 2 stars
Summary: Boring (and That's the Good Bits)
Review: First of all, if you buy into Ayn Rand's philosophy you will love this book. You will be unable to put it down and it will affect your life. If you don't buy into Rand's philosophy you will hate this book. Reading it will be an act of pain and the only purpose for doing so will be akin to "know thine enemy." The problem that most haters of this book might have is that the three main characters (Francisco d'Anconia, Dagny Taggert, and Hank Reardon) are actually quite admirable. (I write this on the premise that if Taggert (and Rand) can ignore the fact that Reardon's lovemaking is essentially rape, then I won't make an issue of it.) These three characters are stalwart and honest and absolutely committed to their view of the world. Galt's character, by the way, is simply absurd. Meanwhile, the villains (Jim Taggert, especially, but the list can go on and on) are depicted as such infinitely despicable characters that you can't help but to cringe at their utterings. This is part of the main problem of both this book and Rand's philosophy in general. Rand does not believe in grey, but rather sees the world in pure black and white. One might argue that this is quite admirable for philosophy, but when it comes to practice it ignores the complexities of real situations. Life is not lived within a controlled environment, and so external and conflicting parameters must be taken into consideration. How one can take Rand seriously when all of her protagonists are perfect physical specimens of masculinity and femininity (by her own rather warped standards), while her villains are all physically degenerate, is beyond me. Reality doesn't work that way. It is possible to be good and ugly, and it is possible to be evil and beautiful. Rand does not believe in the public good because she is so convinced that the individual good will trickle down (where have I heard those words before?) to the public good. Of course, in advancing this argument she forgets about sweatshops and child labour, all things that the individual good is very comfortable with unless opposed by government legislation. Access to certain benefits of our society should (and must) be available to all. The second most laughable portion of the book (Rand's arguments about aesthetics are too laughable to even be discussed) is the doctor who has withdrawn his services because health care is no longer privatized. His argument that any doctor who would work under such a system is de facto an immoral and incompetent boob ignores the fact that there are sincere people of good will in the world. There are problems, but Medicare in Canada has proved Rand's argument here to be utterly fallacious. Also, John Galt's ridiculous speech near the end must be one of the most turgid moments in literary history. I've read Numbers and Leviticus, and they've got nothing on this. Finally, the book is simply not believable, it's characters are caricatures, and the philosophy is both immoral and inhuman.

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: The World As It Could Be And Should Be - According to Rand
Review: Several arguments against reading this book inspire me to refute them.

To those who argue that anyone who enjoys this book is secretly indulging in their own narcissistic delusions of superiority - My own beaming happiness upon reading this book was not derived from identification with the heroes as much as from inspiration by the heroes. Simply put, Rand wrote a book which portrays the world as it could be and ought to be, in her reasoned opinion, pitted against the world as it, unfortunately, usually operates (id est irrationally). The "flaw" of her characters, that they are unrealistic, is their greatest aspect.

To address those who caricature Rand fans as slathering advocates for the extermination of the weak and unproductive - you're forgetting that Rand advocates the use of force only in self defense (or to rescue a friend, say, from his torturers). In Rand's world you are perfectly free to be as irrational, petty, and weak as you please - you will not be harmed for it - but neither can you expect the rewards of others' creative efforts. That Rand chose to write about the greatest of the great and the worst of the worst in her books does not mean that she hated anyone who did not run a factory. Nor are her ideas inapplicable to a grocery store clerk or mother of three or any "common" person (not that such a thing exists). As an introduction to her philosophy, the book is a good start, and that's part of what it was meant to be.

For those who are disturbed by the sexuality in the book - specifically those who backhandedly imply that it is glorified rape - while the sex may be different from most people's idea of good sex, rape is non-consensual, forced sex, which this is not.

Finally, for those who call this book the work of the next God and rail at any attempt to discuss (*objectively*) its shortcomings, please note that any idea can become dogma when applied unilaterally and out of all contexts.

Sorry that this is not entirely a review, but in refuting bad arguments for and against it, I suppose I am arguing for reading it. I would not suggest buying the standard paperback, it is of course 1100 pages, in 9 point font. This tends to strain the eyes after ten consecutive hours of page turning. Enjoy.

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: The most important book I've ever read
Review: Count me among those who say that this book changed their life.

When I read The Fountainhead, it reaffirmed what I already believed, and it was exhiliarating to hear somebody else say it, clarify it, crystalize it. But it wasn't telling me anything I didn't already know.

THIS book opened up new worlds to me, made me think about issues I hadn't thought about. Love it or hate it (and I, of course, love it), this book is a must read.

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: The best book I've ever read.
Review: I think that the 600 reviews that are here say enough. When I was given this book my friend said, "There is a saying that goes with this book, It will either change your life, or it will scare you to death."

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: Great introduction to Ayn Rands beliefs, but a little long
Review: I heard Neal Boortz discussing this book on the radio months ago, and I have become interested enough in Libertarianism that I wanted to understand more. I purchased the book and managed to finish it in around 5 weeks. This was the first book by Ayn Rand I have read, and it was a great read. I could relate to the main characters Dagney Talgart and Hank Rearden more closely than I expected, and what they experienced from the people around them was very similar to the way I view most people myself.

If I have a problem with the book, it would be that I thought the book went on a little long. I thought the points Ayn Rand was trying to make had been hammered home by the time Dagney's plane crashed in John Galt's valley. The next 350 or so pages started to drag. With the exception of John Galts speech, Henry Rearden's defection, and Galt's capture by the government and escape, I found it hard to read the rest of the book. However, for the first 600 pages, I was mesmorized by the ideas Rand was conveying, and I thought her points were interesting,logical, and intelligent.

I found it amazing to think about Ayn Rands vision of the future and how close to what she described we have really traveled. It left me understanding how important it is that we fight the expansion of liberal thought at every opportunity before we go too far and alienate the producers to a point of no return. Ayn Rand is a true visionary, and I would highly recommend this book to anyone.


<< 1 .. 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 .. 111 >>

© 2004, ReviewFocus or its affiliates