This is an interesting presentation of Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy. Although it simplifies the views of many past philosophers, it provides a nonrelativist (ergo, "Objectivist") approach to philosophical thinking. In the latter respect, it is similar to the approach of Leo Strauss (1899-1973). However, Objectivism differs from Strauss in many respects, including its premise of economic libertarianism and its understanding of philosophy as a dogmatic tool in the service of preservation rather than skeptical, rational inquiry as an end in itself.

Ayn Rand (1905-1982) has been co-opted by the right wing of American politics. Although she shared with some (not all) conservatives the postulate of economic liberty, she differed from many of them in her atheism (she famously told William F. Buckley, Jr. that he was too intelligent not to be an atheist) and in her insistence that the basis of individual rights is not historical custom or divine revelation but rather philosophic natural rights. Aristotle and Locke were her favorite philosophers. She eschewed the emerging libertarian movement, writing that it was bound to end up as a hippie phenomenon because it lacked a philosophical basis for ethics. She similarly criticized Milton Friedman and "Chicago School" economic conservatives. Although she sympathized with Austrian School economics, she thought that Friedrich von Hayek's concessions to governmental actions were heretical, and she did not accept the fact-value dichotomy of Ludwig von Mises. She kicked the Austrian School theorist Murray Rothbard (1926-75) out of her inner circle (ironically called by the members themselves "the Collective") because he advocated anarchocapitalism as distinguished from her teaching that limited government was necessary. Needless to say, she would have been appalled by the theocratic turn of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. She never proved, to my satisfaction, how limited government could be consistent with her nonaggression principle, which I believe she obtained from Locke. Specifically, taxation and other governmental requirements cannot, in my view, be possible if one adheres strictly to her principles. She seemed to support some sort of voluntary financial support of government, which is self-evidently absurd. Similarly, the logical conclusion of the nonaggression principle, Rothbard's anarchocapitalism, is, as Rand herself said, totally unrealistic. Accordingly, one must find a different rational basis for government than that proffered by either Rand or Rothbard.

When one reads Rand herself instead of the writings of her many epigones, one often finds nuggets of wisdom. Unfortunately, however, Rand's philosophy itself has its limitations.

(Originally posted 3/16/2016; revised 3/17/2016.)

This book is a compilation of extracts Ayn Rand's four novels, with a long introductory essay. I think it's a pretty effective smörgåsbord. It's a pretty thorough cross-section of the Objectivist philosophical position. The extracts from We the Living and Anthen are very short. The Fountainhead features a little more prominently, but over half of this book is given over to extracts from Atlas Shrugged. I suppose that's understandable. Atlas Shrugged is certainly the most comprehensive expression of Rand's thinking, and by all accounts also the novel that she was most proud of.

The introductory essay has been received negatively by some readers, and I understand why. I doubt this book has ever found its intended audience. Clearly, this collection is targeted at readers new to Rand, and new to Objectivism, but I doubt that many of its readers fall into that category. Instead, this book is mostly being read by people who find the introductory essay too surface-level. Indeed, if you've read really anything by Ayn Rand before, that will probably be your experience too. But for readers totally new to Rand, I do think this essay is just about the best non-fiction introduction to her thinking that you're likely to find. It features all the immediacy and passion which makes Rand interesting to read, while also featuring all of the logic flaws and self-indulgence that renders her writing infuriating.

This book by novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand, (author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead") consists of one brilliant essay analyzing the backward and mystical state of the humanities throughout all of man’s history, and the most philosophical selections of Rand’s fiction.

This book is wonderful for studying some of the grand speeches Rand’s characters make without having to mark up your fiction copies, and for the sheer convenience of having all these noteworthy expositions in one book.

Plus, the title essay is one of Rand’s finest, stressing the importance of thought, and the necessity of new thinkers to study her unique philosophy of Objectivism in order to replace the irrational intellectuals of the present--that a commitment to a philosophy of reason is needed to revolutionize the humanities and to provide the proper foundation for the special sciences.

Good philosophy is usually recognizable, and awakens a desire to understand it more deeply. Bad philosophy inevitably has something fishy about it, but it is not often easy to articulate where the smell is coming from. And then who really wants to get closer? Often, I suppose, the badness has to do with questions that the philosopher does not even deign to ask. In Rand's case, the question, whether human being means a strictly individual human being or rather individual human beings in community? seems to be a question she thinks not even worth asking--to the grave detriment of her thinking, not to mention to the detriment of the acolytes who--all too ironically--elect to let her think for them. (I'm looking at you, former Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan.) But also, it seems strange that Rand's philosophy seems to need to consist in monologues and allegories that never quite transfer to the dialogical reality of the business of daily life. Still, full disclosure: this is all the Rand I have read. I am open to correction.

I read this book during guard duty in the army. It was a perfect fit.

A few years ago, I got into a discussion with a bookstore keeper about Marxism and capitalism. He pretty much told me I have to read Ayn Rand and so here we are.

As I've grown up, my opinions have mellowed out. I do think Marxism can work but I think socialism is more useful in the current state of the world. Nonetheless, I am so against capitalism so it was important for me to read this.

Ayn Rand makes a good point. It's a solid argument and I can see why she's such an important philosopher. She's such a revolutionist and I like that. I just can't agree with her. I think she looks at philosophy a bit too briefly. You can't split the world into Attila and the Witch Doctor, no matter how much you'd like to. It was enlightening and yet it was so wrong.

I'm far too sleepy to write an entire intellectual review, thus proving that I am probably not one of the new intellectuals. It's a neat book.

what I'm taking with me
• It's time for some new blood in the world of philosophy.
• Ayn Rand is proof that confidence is key. Believe you're the best and someone else is bound to agree with you.
• I would so watch a rap battle of Marx and Rand.

I was somewhat surprised to see that this volume is more like anthology of Rand's fiction and not a collection of essays on Objectivism. Despite this lack of original content (with the exception of the opening essay), I am pleased with the volume as it is composed of Rand's better moments with the lackluster ones minimized. Objectivism is a flawed philosophy, but those flaws are not as apparent here. Some of the flaws I've come across in the sampled volumes were even omitted here, which can be viewed as a cause of concern for those who are of a more impressionable mind and a cause of intrigue for those who wish to better understand Objectivist thought. My favorite aspect of this work, however, is its intertextuality. Reading this as a companion piece to the works excepted from here allows the reader to better understand the ideas Rand was trying to convey, which in turn allows one to compare how successful these books are at relaying said ideas.

"Love is not self-sacrifice, but the most profound assertion of your own needs and values. It is for your own happiness that you need the person you love, and that is the greatest compliment, the greatest tribute you can pay to that person."

"I swear - by my life and my love of it - that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." There is a quality in Ayn Rand's writing that I find supremely attractive: the unflinching, unapologetic assertion of the sanctity of the individual human mind and that any system of thought, government, or economy which seeks to destroy the individual man's reliance on his own rationality is evil. Ayn Rand is not the first writer to speak of these things; Emerson, Thoureau, Nietzshce, and Steinbeck are all writers that I favor for a similar sentiment expressed.

At points I vehemently contend with her, at other points I unreservedly agree - but that's the point isn't it, to think for myself.

I took up Rand's book because I knew nothing about her writing except that most people who say something about her are almost angry with her and those who like her are angry at everyone else. For my part: I am not angry and I think that though there are merits to the philosophical criticisms of her shortcomings these do not eclipse the value of her work.

This book starts with an essay by Rand titled “For the New Intellectual”. The second part is excerpts from her novels that pertain to her idea of objectivism. Having read Galt’s speech twice now, I can confidently say it is painfully too long. But of course she hits the nail on the head in so many ways throughout this book.

A disappointing work, despite its ambitious title and underlying promise of potential. Written in what feel like the "mania years", there is a clear sense of bitterness in the short opening essay that takes away half the enjoyment in reading it, since the forceful (and sometimes repetitive) manner in which the ideals are presented make it be more of a manifesto and less of a refreshing new read. To this is added the laughable fact that the opening essay is merely that, and amounts to no more than 25% of the book -- the rest of which is a series of excerpts on Ayn Rand's novels.

As someone who has read Ayn Rand, I cannot say this book was particularly interesting -- it is too synthetic a piece to provide sufficient insight into her philosophy, or excitement in what increasingly feel like hammered-down, one-size views on businessmen, the world, businessmen, politics, businessmen, ethics and men (of business).

All in all, I was expecting a more detailed account of Objectivism as applied to modern society, especially as to how it relates to conflicting philosophical codes (an interesting and fundamental passage of which can be found in this work, but is too briefly approached to go beneath the surface). Instead, I got a short, averagely written essay compiling thoughts Ayn Rand has been heard saying too often to be surprising, and a series of loose quotes from novels I already own.

The joke, clearly, is on me.

This is a ~50 page title essay with several excerpts taken from We the Living, Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged. The vast majority of the book consists of the title essay and John Galt's objectivism speech in Atlas Shrugged. I agree with Rand's philosophy, but I was hoping for more novel material in this book. The title essay is very good, so that was worth the $1 I paid for this at a thrift store. The title essay discusses the two categories of enemies to producers and men of thought: Attilas and Witch Doctors. Attilas are people that achieve goals through the use of and threat of force, while Witch Doctors are those that seek to influence people to go against their rationality. Attilas and Witch Doctors need each other to be complete and, though they may appear very different, they are actually similar and both cause human inventiveness and rationality to be suppressed.

This is a good introduction to Rand's philosophy if you don't want to commit more time to reading The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged. Also, it's worth it for the Rand junkie that wants to read the well-written title essay.

I usually don't review comic books but I'll make an exception for this book. There is no grey in her world, and this book read like a comic book. The real world is such that you can't have perfect liberty with perfect equality (moreover she doesn't care about anything but the individual so inequality would have no meaning for her). She's got this weird worldview that the business man is the ideal man. Critical reasoning and intellectual thought must agree with what she says it is or what a 17 year old says it is otherwise she will reject it without explication. She really does mean the things she said in her novels. The individual is everything the group is nothing. Greenspan, one of her accolades, said after the finically crisis became real, "I'm shocked, I can't believe it, the bankers self interest did not lead to protecting shareholders equity".