Rating: 
Summary: Love or Hate
Review: This is one of my top 5 books, but I can understand those that hate it. If you cannot tolerate criticism of religion, stay clear. Some have pointed out that there are "better" philosophical books, and criticize this for being a novel. True. For myself, I am always interested in book that have a lot of people that love it. I imagine that Ayn would have understood that any artistic endeavor that addresses morals and is loved will also be hated. Atlas Shrugged is clearly a milepost that will be discussed for a long time. You may love it!
Rating: 
Summary: If it only were a little shorter
Review: It's a fascinating book and an excellently told story. Some of the philosophical topics have not lost any of their significance over time. The book is however rather long and tests the readers patience at many instances
Rating: 
Summary: Shining ideals vs. _Atlas Shrugged_.
Review: "[D]o you have a positive you uphold and defend? Is this why you attack AS, because it is so opposed to your shining ideal? What is this ideal, so that I may know it and stand corrected?" Happy to oblige. My positive standard is reason; my (relevant) ideals are liberty and capitalism. Rand's are not. Here are some points I've posted in earlier reviews that have scrolled off their respective review pages, just by way of pointing out a few of Rand's many philosophical errors. 1. In epistemology, Rand regarded herself as having solved the "problem of universals" when, in fact, she never raised it. Universals, if they exist, are "repeatable" features of reality -- qualities or relations that may be literally identical (not just "exactly similar") between disparate contexts. _Whether_ they exist is an irreducibly ontological question, not (as Rand thinks) an epistemological one. Rand fancied herself to have found a Third Way between nominalism and realism ("Objectivism") solely because she identified "universals" with concepts (and abstractions) in the opening paragraphs of ITOE. In metaphysics and epistemology, then, "Objectivism" is nothing more than a not-very-self-critical form of nominalism/conceptualism. 2. In ethics, Rand built "Objectivism" on a foundation of pure _subjectivism_. Since her ethic _presumes_ that one has made a positive "choice to live," Objectivism can give no guidance about whether to live or not, and all its ethical injunctions rest on an arbitrary decision about which, strictly speaking, Objectivism can't provide any instruction. In ethics, then, "Objectivism" is nothing more than a not-very-self-critical form of subjectivism. Moreover, having dispensed with any ultimate, objective ethical standard, Rand tried to introduce one anyway by insisting that anyone who did _not_ put the Objectivist ethic into practice was quite literally subhuman, even subanimal. She arrived at this insane view by (very much against her own epistemological standards) identifying "human" with just _one_ attribute of human beings: namely, rationality (understood in her own highly inadequate way). To see how this view works out in practice, read pp. 1054-55 of ATLAS SHRUGGED, where Dagny Taggart quite unnecessarily shoots a guard who has "proven" himself to be less than an animal. 3. In politics, Rand sapped all distinctive meaning from the moral concept of "rights" by making respect for rights depend solely on self-interest (rather than making justice foundational and deriving an ethic/politics of _self-responsibility_ from that foundation). That means that, in strict consistency, the only moral guidance Objectivism can offer to anyone contemplating Hitler-like atrocities is that it's a mistake to louse up one's _own_ life so badly. In political theory, then, "Objectivism" is nothing more than a not-very-self-critical form of might-makes-right: treating other people as Hitler did is "wrong" only because, in the long run, an "egoist" can't _get away_ with it. (Of course Rand wrote her essay "The Pull Peddlers" precisely because she thought people _could_ get away with taking unjust advantage of each other through the use of government power. That this undermined her case for "egoism" seems never to have crossed her mind.) Moreover, her claim that a government requires a legal monopoly on the use of retaliatory force is a very foolish recipe for totalitarianism. The entire federalist system (including the Second Amendment) is supposed to _prevent_ just such a monopoly. These are not her only errors by any means; Rand redefined quite a few terms and never let on -- perhaps because she didn't know any better, and more likely because one of her major purposes was to subvert traditional philosophy altogether. The result is that she not only misrepresents the thought of everyone else, but also makes it almost impossible for her _readers_ to understand anyone else. Everybody knows the obvious examples: she left the words "exclusive or excessive" out of her definition of "selfishness," she redefined "sacrifice" as the giving up of a _greater_ value for a _lesser_ one, and what she meant by "altruism" has never been defended by anyone important at all. Even on her own premises, what she should have defended was an ethic of _eudaimonism_ in which the distinction between "egoism" and "altruism" is of no fundamental importance since our real interests are not ultimately in conflict. Less well known: she thought "a priori," "analytic," and "necessary" were synonyms, and likewise "a posteriori," "synthetic," and "contingent" (no two terms in either triplet are synonymous); and she understood both "subjective" and "relative" to mean "arbitrary" (which they don't, nor are they synonymous with each other). Even the central term "objective" suffers at her hands; what most people mean by "objective," she calls "intrinsic." Not only did she anathematize by misdefinition, she sometimes intentionally misrepresented the ideas of other people. Any philosophically informed reader can see this happening on nearly every page she wrote, but here's my own favorite example: in "Philosophical Detection" (in _Philosophy: Who Needs It_), she incorrectly attributed the saying, "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," to "a very little mind, Emerson" -- knowing full well that the _correct_ version of the quote is, "A _foolish_ consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." (How do I know she knew better? I have an acquaintance who worked with Rand when the piece was originally published. The error was pointed out to her; she refused to correct it. And see Emerson's essay "Self-reliance" for the context of this quotation. He's not knocking logical consistency; he's arguing that it's silly to refuse to change your mind just because it might confuse other people.) The bottom line: Rand was a propagandist, not a philosopher. Those of us who really _do_ stand for reason, liberty, capitalism and all that nice stuff object to her because her "defenses" of them were so often incompetent and dishonest.
Rating:
Summary: Definitely Worth One's Time
Review: The huge gap between star ratings (either one star or none, hardly anything in between)of the book Atlas Shrugged, is an excellent indication that one either hates this book or loves it. Independent of what your end-reaction may be, I believe it will be worth your time if you ever ponder about the past, the present and the future of the human mind and of the human race in general. It _does_ make you think and think hard which is an accomplishment all by itself.
Rating:
Summary: Unacceptable by Current Standards
Review: What I've found so satisfying about this book is how the sum of its entire meaning so consistently fails to echo anything before it. Reason, Individualism, Capitalism, and Egoism are not concepts created in AS, but are united into a meaningful whole, with a common unshakable root: read the book. It doesn't do any good to just say this, you have to read it and spend genuine effort thinking about the philosophical essentials and trying to find fault with them. You'll have to use them to deny them, but it's still good to try, just to convince yourself. To the negative minded: do you have a positive you uphold and defend? Is this why you attack AS, because it is so opposed to your shining ideal? What is this ideal, so that I may know it and stand corrected? I'm all the more eager to learn it if it isn't rooted in collectivism and religion, both of which have such a rich history of slavery, death, and destruction (Nazism, Fascism, Communism, The Dark Ages, etc.). Also I would like to help out the arguments (and even the rants) of others who strongly dislike AS, so that you don't humiliate yourselves so much in the future. It hardly does you any good to denounce Objectivists by calling them "slavish" or "cultists". What is to be a cultist or slave but to be a collectivist or under the power of one? Next you'll have to say that we want to force everyone to agree with us and that we want to dominate our fellow men, and that we are unthinking and blind followers, that Rand is our God, and the head of an Objectivist State. If you want to make us (and anyone who can make a rational connection) laugh, then feel free, because we will then know that you never bothered to find out what Objectivism is, or can't, in which case you have my deepest sympathy.
Rating:
Summary: The "Why?" behind Capitalism
Review: A literary expression of communism and socialism taken to their logical conclusions. Ms. Rand answers through her story the question, "What would happen in a truly socialist world?" The answers along the way are scary, and have made me realize vicariously the values of reason, independence, and competition in human society. This is probably the most motivating, and yet the most polarizing book I've ever read. Motivating because it may just give true thinkers the best analogy to the real world as it should never be. Polarizing because it shows the fallacies and frailties that make us human - true heroes know themselves and how to lead others. Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto, Rand has written the definitive Capitalist Constitution. This is a fantastic story, with many implications for modern life. I only wish I'd read it sooner.
Rating:
Summary: A breath of fresh air
Review: Ten years ago my boss suggested I read Ayn Rand (thanks, Steve). I finally got around to it this year. When I finished it, I sat back with a glow of satisfaction. Of all the superstitions/religions, philosophies, and other belief systems I have encountered in some form or other, Rand has come the closest to the way I think and believe. I have yet to systematically record my ideas, and I'm glad I got Rand under my belt before I did. Objectivism is a good philosophy, and Rand is a great writer and thinker. Not perfect, though. Her complete rejection of any determinism is faulty, but she didn't have the benefit of the past 20 years of scientific genetic research. Her rejection of all things supernatural is faulty, though her rejection of a sentient deity is spot on. My experiences have shown me supernatural presence, though not necessarily able to influence the material world in any meaningful way. While she touts objectivity as the standard, she fails to understand that almost all human interaction has a subjective quality to it; not noticing it even while she was writing about Dagny and Henry, etc. Ironically, the political correctness advocates who recoil at Rand's ideas are the chief propagandists for turning human interactions into Rand's objective ideal. Finally, for those who think Rand is right, if you feel the need to defend Objectivism from attack, you don't understand Objectivism. Re-read Atlas Shrugged and Rand's other books. Hear the message she gives you, "It doesn't matter what they believe; only that you have used your reason to determine what is right, free of dogmatic expressions of faith in anything." To which I add, even free of dogmatic expressions of Objectivism.
Rating:
Summary: Freedom overshadows stylistic flaws
Review: It is not a secret that Atlas shrugged lacks the literary flair and poise accomplished in the works of the greater American writers of our century; e.g. Steinbeck, Faulkner, and Hemmingway. Although her characters are capable of assuming depth one often finds them reduced to the principles of Rand's philosophy. The dialogue digresses in many places into philosophical rhetoric. However, it was not aesthetic form that boosted Atlas Shrugged into the position of "most influential book in American history save the Bible." Too often I have found myself frustrated with Classic literature. The recurrent theme of man frustrating himself at every turn is not only disheartening, but unoriginal and gratuitous. Too many times after reading "great fiction" you just want to slap the author and say, "Snap out of it man, life isn't that bad." And you can't help but wonder, "Why can't someone ever write a great book about great people doing great things?" Atlas Shrugged is a breath of fresh air. From page one you can see that what Ayn Rand is attempting is a different sort of book. You aren't given heroes who are martyred on the altar of humanity or sacrificed to an imposed morality. They don't sacrifice at all. Ayn Rand presents characters who know what they believe and have the integrity to stand by their own values. What a novel idea. Atlas Shrugged exists as a tribute to the human mind. It takes a stand on life and demands that the reader respond. It is a cry for the freedom that has been relegated to the back shelves of bedtime stories in exchange for a more "practical" way of doing things. It is a reminder of the times in our lives when we had planned to do great things. And it offers up the suggestion that those plans don't have to be confined to the realm of memories. Whether you decide that you agree with Rand or not I find it impossible to believe that anyone could come away from this book thinking that it was time ill spent. Read it.
Rating:
Summary: I have known John Galt
Review: I read this book for the first time in the late 80's. Unfortunately, there were a lot of parallels between the events in the book and the nuclear plant where I worked. Over the next 10 years, I read the paperback version twice more and borrowed an unabridged audio version from a friend. Obviously, this story is a warning to those of us who try to carry others on the job. I chose to check out from the corporate world and get into my own business. But, it's not for everyone.
Rating: 
Summary: Dissapointing, very.....
Review: After having read, and seriously enjoyed The Fountainhead (in spite of the obvious gags in the philosophical theory of Rand), I took Atlas Shrugged with excitement with the anticipation of a great book. However, the description of the characters is no different that the one found earlier in the Fountainhead, and even worse. What really annoy me from this book (something that you can already perceive in The Fountainhead), is the number of times that I have to read the same statement (rephrased, and sometimes not even)throughout the book. Being more of a disertation about the purpose of life, and less of a novel, you could, and if fact, will focus your attention in the never-ending logical inconsistencies, the poor structure of Rand's thinking, and on the poor quality of her writing. On top of this, this anticomunism manifesto is, as it comes, old fashioned (although this is not her fault), and it is dissapointing to see how her backgroung makes her thinking very much expected. Finally, the book is a never ending book. NEVER BUY THE PAPER BACK COPY, OR YOU WILL END UP BLIND
|
