Atlas Shrugged

Rating:
Summary: A few reasonable arguments against it
Review: "All you need to destroy Objectivism once and for all is a reasonable argument against it."

Very well. Here are a few at random (by no means an exhaustive list):

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; _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.

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 give no guidance.

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 arrives 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. That means that, in strict consistency, all Objectivism can say about Hitler's atrocities is that it's a shame he loused up his _own_ life so badly.

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.

I could go on, and sometimes I do ;-). But that will do for now.

Rating:
Summary: For those who claim that Atlas shrugged is a joke
Review: For those who claim that Atlas shrugged is a joke or is nothing, let me tell you something:

Take a look at the province of Quebec. It's a socialist province in Canada. In school, they kill your mind. They give lots of space for the handicaped and the mindless people but for the intelligent people there is nothing. Here in Quebec, you almost have no rights to think! People will tell you: "Who are you to judge?" - "You don't have the right to judge!". The government take as much as 55% of your money to help the poor, "give" free hospital, help the angry women to do their useless marchs and give millions of dollars to help the gay people. They spend tons of MY cash to things like that. The Quebec is going bankrupt! This is the same exact story as in Atlas Shrugged! Look at Quebec, I give it less than 20 years before it blows up!

Reading this book refreshed my brain. Now at least I know i'm not alone to think this way, even if everyone around thinks not and say "You don't have any social consciousness!"

Two thumbs up for Atlas Shrugged!

Rating:
Summary: Target of hatred and mindlessness
Review: Do you the reader consider yourself too easily confused and manipulated to judge an idea for yourself? Do you need someone to give your morality to you? Do you need the approval or input of someone else, anyone who sounds like they've made up their mind, in order to make up you own? If so then stay as far away from Atlas Shrugged as you can.

I wish I didn't have to give the book a rating: that would be the harshest thing I could do to someone like I just described, making them resort to a permanent evasion of the ideas set forth in Atlas, a punishment they would give themself and richly deserve.

I would like for once, just once, to read a negative review of Atlas that gives a clear, focused, well-reasoned, POLITE explanation of the reviewer's objections. I KNOW there are reasonable "objections" to aspects of the book (valid though they are they can't change it's earning of five stars): I've heard them made (ex.-- the characters have virtually no personal idiosyncrasies, but are rather highly focused portrayals of certain philosophical standpoints, and as a result are unconvincing portrayals of "real" people. This is true, and yet doesn't detract from the reality of the ideas and conditions they stand for, and to see Rand make the connections between these is fascinating proof of the power of inductive reasoning). If such a request is characteristic of a member of a dogmatic "cult", then I am guilty as charged.

All you need to destroy Objectivism once and for all is a reasonable argument against it. To find a good example of a single outspoken thinker that brought a ruinous case against an entire philosophy, I suggest you investigate Ayn Rand.

These reviews rely on the honor system, meaning those who have not read a book aren't entitled to air their opinion of it (whether they develop a premature opinion of it or not rests entirely on their own conscience). By reading many of these reviews it is clear that this system has been abused by many: a true Objectivist would not do this. This is just a hint at the intellectual dishonesty we (Objectivists, as well as the nation as a whole) are up against.

Rating:
Summary: Show me. . .
Review: Show me someone who disliked this book, and I'll show you a socialist. The writing is too brilliant and stirring to be disliked; the philosophies must be either adored or hated.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting ideas, unobtainable ideal.
Review: To begin with, I liked Atlas Shrugged; the rating I gave it makes that much obvious. I recommend this book for this reason and for another reason that is based on the preceding reviews. There are many reviews that rate the book at one star, and proceed to vehemently decry the book. My opinion regarding books is that if it creates strong impressions, be they bad or good, there must be something to the book that is at least worth taking a look at. I don't think I'm alone in this opinion; consider the fact that Mein Kampf is available on amazon.com. "Cold hearted conservatives" who believe in laissez faire economies will most likely love this book. "Bleeding heart liberals" will most likely hate it (I don't claim to speak for eithrer group). I personally think that the ideas expressed in this novel are interesting and at times appealing. However, the United States' downfall into a welfare state is improbable, and its opponents ideal of a laissez faire economy is equally so. The appeal of this book is the exaggeration Rand creates to convey her message. Creating Ayn Rand's ideal world in a novel would be even more difficult (for Rand) because of the inherent problems (e.g., the natural disparity in the powers of management and employees) Rand would have to overcome to make such a world look appealing. This problem makes itself apparent in a book like Bellamy's Looking Backward, which tried to create a utopian state that mirrored communism (a world I consider to be impossible). In the same sense, a book describing a utopia based on objectivism would be equally flawed. However, in this novel Rand is taking the opponent's world and noting its weaknesses, and in doing so, I think she provokes some interesting thoughts. Of course, these thoughts can cause greatly differing reactions, hence the great variance of opinion concerning this book. What this book provides the reader with is an ideal; it's up to the reader to evaluate this ideal.

For those that do not like the way that Rand writes: I liked it. I fully believe in aesthetics (which, I think, styles of writing fall under) and only ask that critics explain their reasons. While these reasons may do little to change my opinion, I still find it interesting to see how others view the same work. I liked the way Rand depicted characters' thoughts and found that the dialogue flowed smoothly. As far as the story itself: I liked the depiction of the struggles that the protagonists faced, as they battled the changing times by sticking to their belief in themselves and their abilities. The enemies, ostensibly through self-loathing, seek to take away the achievements of people like Rearden and Galt while not endeavoring to strive for personal goals themselves. While this contrast between the intelligent, resourceful heroes and the leeches who seek to undermine their efforts is interesting and entertaining, the ending was extremely disappointing. While working throughout the novel in an intellectual viewpoint (or pseudo-intellectual, as Rand may be viewed by some), the story devolves into an episode of the A-Team. The fact that I've been going on about philosophic, political and aesthetic topics and then resort to a 1980's TV reference helps to convey my disappointment with the ending of this novel. How can a writer go on for 1000 pages discussing a conflict of ideas and then end the book in a gaudy show of force to settle the issue? Ironically, this may be the most realistic element of the novel. For the earlier pages of the book and the ideas (albeit flawed) that it considers, minus the ending (which was a serious letdown), I give the book four stars.

Rating:
Summary: A one sided-arguement
Review: I think it's a mistake to just dismiss Ryan's work (and I enjoyed the Fountainhead) and also a mistake to not judge the book on what it is supposed to be. A novel. Not a poltical tract (although novels can cover poltical issues), but a novel.

As a novel it can be alkward at times. We know right away in about a hundred pages who the bad guys are and who the good guys are. Anyone who is an English major is a fool, those who want to make money are "gods". Those who seek charity to help the poor are suckers (at best) and rude idoits at worst. (as the relative who asks for money from Redrean but tells him they want it in cash so his name is not attached to the charity.)

I guess I can see her point in the wish to get rid of restrictions that hold back progress and how sometimes the world punishs those who do "good" work (not morality but in terms of quality.) but this one sided arguement very quickly sounds like the arrogant chats I had in college with closed minded selfish men and women who saw their "greatness" even if it wasn't there. (And when it was there it was just something to put up with. I still think Hemingway is a great writer, but he could be a major ass at times. he was a great writer in spite of being an ass - not because of it.)

I could take the book more seriously if the other side had a fair shot in the chat (the best art - like Shakespeare's - gives you both sides of the conflict of ideas) but as Ryan herself once said she was not intrested in debate but in full agreement in her views.

But you can't deny her skill, just that this book is overrated. The Fountainhead is a bit better.

Rating:
Summary: Simply pathetic
Review: If, somehow, the Objectivists come to you in your sleep and implant a microchip in your brain that posseses you to buy this book (which ain't bloody likely, since most of 'em are to busy stewing in their own idiotic juices to dress and feed themselves, let alone execute covert operations in brainwashing the masses)Be prepared for 1000+ pages of sheer, unadulterated IDIOCY! Oh BOY! Not only is this novel's bogus "philosophy" not worth three ounces of salamander vomit, but to say the writing is atrocious would be an insane demure. This book might be handy, however, if you've run out of toilet paper or need a new target down at the shooting range.

Rating:
Summary: Worth reading for some
Review: In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand sets out in novel form what she sees as the problems underlying various forms of modern philosophy. Whether or not her solutions would create a moral utopia, she sucessfully conveys the how and the why of her ideal "social system", laissez faire capitalism.

I would recommend this novel to someone intensly interested in the meaning of being human, man's relationship to society, and philosophy in general. The novel would seem too long-winded to someone without an intense and focused interest. "This is the reasoning...ad naseum" is a pattern prevalent in the text making it go over a thousand pages. One of the author's goals is to make the novel's ideas closed-ended, not open to any misintepretation or misguided criticism. While she often does a masterful job in detailing her thoughts, at the same time I think the book is sometimes too defensive (a criticism not often levelled against Ms. Rand) in that she often addresses the most miniscule and petty possible counterarguments to her ideas.

A legitimate question to be asked is whether to read Atlas Shrugged or Rand's non fiction works? Does Atlas Shrugged acomplish what a novel should? She has certainly structured a plot that provides an illumination of her ideas. However, it is reasonable for a reader to expect in a novel more depth of character development than Rand achieves. She uses her characters as archetypes of philosophy. I think it would have been a tremendous creative feet had Rand made her characters more down-to-earth while acomplishing the same strong rendering of her ideology. For one thing, all of the novel's antogonists are irrational straw-men. Rather then developing non- Objectivist viewpoints as non-Objectivists would and then showing why they are wrong, she makes them into, for lack of a better description, blithering idiots. In the real world, wrong ideas are less apparently wrong and, even more so, immoral and irrational people are not always so blatantly irrational, shallow, and stupid.

By not giving proper development to her antogonists, she can easily anger readers without predisposition to her ideology to the point where they will not want to read further. To make this truly a masterpiece, she needed to add more depth to what she deems irrational.

Having said this, it might be more worthwhile to read Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff, which is a non fiction work that outlines her ideas and the logic behind them. However, if an intense novel-style philosophic treatise interests you, and you would not mind her peremptory tone, this is certainly well worth your time.

Rating:
Summary: Highly Motivating
Review: This book is just as important today as it was when Ayn Rand first wrote it. Just substitute company names where obvious (e.g. Rearden Metal = Microsoft, Orren Boyle = Sun Microsystems, etc.) Ayn Rand had a special ability to create caricatures of people that we both hate and admire. These characters allowed me to finally articulate what I admire and what I don't. It's especially important to read this book realizing what Rand had lived through (i.e. the Bolshevik Revolution). All-in-all, I feel like a better, stronger person after reading this book and look forward to the day when my children are old enough to read it.

Rating:
Summary: Rand's Opus - a culmination of all she held dear and taught
Review: Those familiar with Rand's teaching method come to understand that her main triliogy of books are mere interpretations of her theories. Her belief in "Objectivism" and the notion that all people working to their fullest potential derives the greatest gains for all is so spectacularly reitterated in this novel that by the books end, you are screaming at the characters that try to foil the plans of the well intended. Most of us were assigned this book in high school and read the cliff's notes. What a tragedy. Had I read this book as a younger man, I do fully believe it would have altered the direction of my life. Maybe not in purpose but certainly in quality. I'd have enjoyed the ride better. Rand's books bring that out in you. As she said at the beginning of the FountainHead - "Howard Rourke laughed." We could learn a lot here folks - take the time to read this treasure.