Rating: 
Summary: A great introduction to Objectivism!
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: one of the best
Review: This is definitely the best book I read in a long time. Ayn Rand's Objectivism philosophy is fascinating to anyone that loves freedom, capitalism, and reason. This is not a book that any closed-minded socialist-like thinker should read (i.e. people that believe in increased federal government control over our lives). This book rightfully criticizes the intellectuals of the 20th century that promoted socialist programs and even socialism itself. Ayn Rand was a real thinker that reminded me of how great this country was and still could be if we return to what we were when this country was created by our democratic, capitalist, and intellectual founding fathers. I am looking forward to the Atlas Shrugged movie that is in the making.
Rating: 
Summary: Not suitable as a history of philosophy
Review: When reading this book I was reminded of some of the works of the philosopher/poet Friedrich Nietzsche, who never attempted to pull the punches and whose dialog was interesting and fun, and not ever in the mainstream. However, he did not usually address the philosophical issues at stake because of this. The author of this book is very harsh in her criticism of philosophy, indeed of most of the schools of philosophy throughout history. Her criticism though is not detailed enough, and too vituperative to be of much use to the understanding of the trends in the history of philosophy, especially ethical and moral philosophy. The author mentions Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Aquinas, Hegel, Kant, Compte, Marx, Nietzsche, Spencer, Bentham, Hume, and Descartes. To be fair to any one of these philosophers would take perhaps an entire lifetime of careful analysis and research, and thousands of pages of written material, but the author spends only a few paragraphs on each, classifying them according as to their status as being "Witchdoctor" philosophy or not. Of all these philosophers, the author is sympathetic with only two of them: Aristotle, who she labels as "the intellect's Declaration of Independence", and Aquinas, who she labels as "the prelude to the Renaissance", and responsible for the return of Aristotle to Europe. That Aquinas was influenced by Aristotle there is no doubt, but it was the efforts of Islamic scholars who translated the works of Aristotle, and thus they should be viewed as the progenitors of the Renaissance, not Aquinas. And even though Aristotle's philosophy is highly interesting and of course greatly influenced the history of Western philosophy, the author does not give sufficient justification for her enthusiasm for it. Having read much of Aristotle's philosophy, I have yet to run into passages from his texts where he states that there is only "one" reality, as the author imputes to him in this book. She gives no textual quotation for this view, even though it indeed might be correct. The remaining philosophers are classified as being "Witchdoctors": these individuals are spoken of as those who are frightened by physical reality, never practical, emotional, and embrace mysticism as their essential worldview. The author however gives no examples from the works of these philosophers to support this strange classification. In addition, she evidently believes she has full understanding of the mind and how it works, reducing it to sensations and perceptions, followed by conceptions, the latter of which is uniquely human. If only it were this easy, as they current efforts in neuroscience will illustrate. The author makes no attempt to justify her view of the mind from a scientific viewpoint, and gives no references to the scientific literature. In addition, the author seems that consciousness is needed for an entity to be able to form concepts. That this is not really true is proven by current developments in artificial intelligence: concept formation can indeed be done by certain software programs, which can prove (original) mathematical results and arrive at new scientific knowledge. These programs are not conscious in the way the author describes however (and albeit then only superficially). Should we label the intellectuals today, or even at the time of publication of this book as "frightened zombies", as the author does early in the book? Does this serve any scholarly purpose that will further our understanding of modern culture and its philosophical overtones? Such individuals she says have abdicated the realm of the intellect and have embraced Buddhism and Existentialism in some instances. But what of these last two schools of thought? What makes them an abdication of the intellect? The author does not give textual support for her reasons for her labeling, making her claims unsubstantiated in this regard. I know a few brilliant scholars and productive scientists who practice Buddhism, and some who are sympathetic with Existentialism. These individuals have certainly not abdicated their minds and their goals, and show no sign of doing so in the future. They are confident, rational individuals, not frightened zombies.
The author would have made the book much more palatable if she would engage in more rigorous scholarship. One can agree with many of the ideas in the book, such as the notion of morality as being a code of values to guide human choices and actions. Interestingly, this view can be justified scientifically, even given a mathematical formulation, and further formulated in the context of rational intelligent agents in the field of artificial intelligence. In addition, she recommends that anyone interested in living in a free and rational society should follow the advice of the old Western sheriff and "leave your guns outside". She is certainly right about this, and her belief that no one has the right to force his ideas on others. The current rate of technological development is perhaps the biggest counterexample against the stance of the author on political and economic issues. The rate is unprecedented, and is itself increasing, and despite the "decadent" philosophies that currently exist (as seen through the author's eyes), shows no sign of abatement. This might prove that folly and reason can exists in the same person(s); but it is also proof that humans are the best example of lifeforms that have ever evolved yet on this planet. Confident of the future, with a firm grasp of reality, unashamed of themselves, and always yearning for understanding and adventure, they are indeed true intellectuals.
|
