A great explication of Ayn's philosophy, and the primary reason I think she's an idiot.

Boy, where do I start? First, I chanced upon Ayn Rand thanks to Netflix and the documentary I watched that focused on Atlas Shrugged. Intrigued, I went to my local used book store and all I could find was "For the New Intellectual" which, I now know was possibly the best book I could have encountered in the first place, as far as Rand's works are concerned. It does a good job of featuring excerpts from some of her other works and giving the general layout of her philosophy.
Now, I found myself feeling deeply disturbed, deeply engrossed, utterly fascinated and a part of my soul was delightfully touched while I read things I always felt and never dared utter aloud. Things that talk about givers and takers, morality and independence. Much of what she has said is contrary to how we are raised or how our society actually maneuvers. I don't see any harm in her philosophy, though I am aware how controversial it is, and I was happy to entertain every bit of what I read. Her writing does require someone to have an open mind. Having also read the communist manifesto, multiple Buddhist texts and other books that promote the greater good or some kind of selfless altruistic sacrifice, I find myself agreeing, in part, with each of them. Both sides of the argument have merit. However, the dedication to independence, to caring for oneself above all others, to actually earning your keep I find to be the greatest endeavor in regards to the greater good. The greater good starts with a greater individual. She does not preach evil selfishness. She does not preach theft, quite the contrary. She holds a great contempt for corruption, for it is the opposite of what she believes earning to be. She seems to admire the fair trade so much that her plausible and intelligible argument is exquisitely and perfectly rational. One must find it hard to argue against her, though there were some things I had to disagree with.
One thing that I cannot deny, Rand writes with such a fiery passion, the likes of which, I have never encountered before. Each excerpt was as passionate as the last. Her writing is superb and flawless. Her stories are interesting and engaging. It is refreshing to read something of this nature, written with language that does not condescend but seeks to treat the reader as an equal, as someone with a mind. Her respect for her readers and their intellect is astounding and I found such pleasure in reading her work, I even had to read some of it out loud to my husband. The parts that stood out the most, aside from the introduction was The Fountainhead excerpts and several sections from Atlas Shrugged, including, "The meaning of sex", "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", and of course, "This is John Galt speaking".
I know this in not everyone's cup of tea and that there are some out there who can probably pick this apart in mere moments, but I kept an open mind despite my personal reservations and was glad to have done so. I will read Atlas Shrugged in the future. In the meantime, I recommend this book to anyone curious, anyone bold and anyone who likes to think.

Part III of multi-part review series.

A greatest hits: introductory essay and selections from the four novels. Will reserve commentary on the novels for those reviews.

Introductory essay develops two sets of binaries: Attila/Witch Doctor and Producer/Parasite. The latter is crass unexamined producerism--so it’s standard proto-fascistic aggressiveness.

Preface proclaims that the volume “presents the outline of a new philosophical system” and a “new theory of the nature, source, and validation of concepts“ (vii). By the end, we see that, vanity of vanities, there’s nothing new under the sun.

Introductory essay contains the master figure of her writings: “When a man, a business corporation, or an entire society is approaching bankruptcy” (10). This is neo-spenglerianism, tacitly admitted to be erroneous at the end of The Virtue of Selfishness. Nevertheless, “America is culturally bankrupt” (id.), whatever the hell that means. (Rand has no law, so the precise meaning of bankruptcy can’t be deployed here.)

Worse than bankrupt, “America is a country without a voice or defense” (id.), a fundamentally odd proposition to utter in 1961, when the US was launching coups d’etat with impunity and issuing nuclear threats with sprezzatura.

Her indictments of particular fascist states notwithstanding, we see the fascist roots of the doctrine here: “In times of danger, a morally healthy culture rallies its values, its self-esteem, and its crusading spirit to fight for its moral ideals with full, righteous confidence” (11). Mussolini wrote that--or could have, anyway, if he didn’t. Instead of rallying around objectivism, the US committed a “tragic error” by believing “the solution is to turn anti-intellectual and rely on some cracker barrel sort of folksy wisdom” (11).

Ersatz epistemology in how humans must “integrate perceptions into conceptions by a process of abstraction,” but “he must perform it by choice” (14): “volition begins with the first syllogism” (15). None of this happens automatically as an apparatus of consciousness. Rather, one must choose as an act of volition to integrate two particular tall green & brown leafy things to achieve the concept of tree. Death-choosers apparently choose to evade the integration and therefore have no arboreal concepts. It’s odd: it seems for “choice” to be meaningful, even in the most naïve sense, the separate alternatives must be knowable, at least to a basic extent--and if the alternatives of “I’ll integrate the concept of treeness” or “I won’t integrate the concept of treeness” are available prior to the choice being made, it would seem that the point is mooted, as the concept must have been available when the rational mind evaluated the ramifications of the conceptual fork. So, yeah, it makes no sense in reality, but it probably makes a perverse sense in Randland.

Nifty comment that Witch Doctor provides “an insurance against the dark unknown of tomorrow” to Attila, “to sanction his actions and to disarm his victims” (19). I regard this comment, like “folksy wisdom,” supra, to be entirely unintentionally self-reflexive in this volume.

The text unravels completely when “it is not the case that Attila and the Witch Doctor cannot or do not think; they can and do--but thinking, to them, is not a means of perceiving reality, it is a means of justifying their escape from the necessity of rational perception. Reason to them is a means of defeating their victims” (19). This is odd when juxtaposed with the comments in VoS that humans are distinguished from animals by volitional thinking, equated with reason. That text then lays out the argument that capitalism, good governance, and whatnot arise out of reason. So: Witch Doctor and Attila use reason to beat their victims. Does the objectivist merely shrug away this tacit equivalence?

Text thereafter develops as a reading of history from the perspective of the simpleton Attila/Witch Doctor binary. It’s very schematic and puerile. But: “the first society whose leaders were neither Attilas nor Witch Doctors, a society led, dominated and created by the Producers,” was predictably enough the US (24).

Let’s back up for a moment: Attila “never thinks of creating, only of taking over. Whether he conquers a neighboring tribe or overruns a continent, material looting is his only goal and it ends with the act of seizure: he has no other purpose, no plan, no system to impose on the conquered, no values” (16). (This will of course be contradicted soon thereafter--“Attila herds men into armies, the Witch Doctor sets the armies’ goals. Attila Conquers empires--the Witch Doctor writes their laws” (2)--but never mind that.) The Witch Doctor “provides Attila with values” (16) and “preempts the field of morality” (17).

So: the US, with its slavery, and genocide of natives, and coverture for women, and property qualifications for voting, and exclusion statutes, and domestic torture, and starvation, and interminable war on the frontier, and religious supernaturalisms, is led by neither Attila nor Witch Doctor. Gotcha. We are assured that “during the nineteenth century,” again, as in VoS, “the world came close to economic freedom, for the first and only time in history” (25). Nevermind all the slavery and poverty and whatnot. Instead, we get the bizarre inversion that capitalism “released men from bondage of their physical needs, has released them from the terrible drudgery of an eighteen-hour workday of manual labor for their barest subsistence” (27).

Then comes the survey of philosophy, and it is a parade of sophomoric horribles, in which the summaries of others’ ideas is mendacious beyond measure:

Descartes is ridiculed for “the belief that the existence of an external world is not self-evident, but must be proved by deduction” (28). This is dismissed merely as the Witch Doctor, no explanation. After all, the material world is obvious, no? Hume is mocked for seeing “objects moving about, but never saw such a thing as ‘causality’” (29). This is dismissed merely as Attila (with some confusion of Hume’s ideas with Berkeley’s). Kant is pooh-poohed for the noumenal/phenomenal distinction (31) and the categories, which are dismissed, without refutation, as “preposterous,” a “pre-determined collective delusion” (id.); even if that correctly states Kant’s theory of ideology (and I’m not sure that it does), Rand has not refuted it. Rather, her dismissal is premised on a logical fallacy: “his argument amounted to a negation, not only of man’s consciousness, but of any consciousness, of consciousness as such” (31-32). I’m fairly sure that this is untrue, but the fallacy is argumentum ad consequentiam, i.e., she has argued that Kant must be wrong because otherwise consciousness is not true--and we can‘t have that. Hegel is dismissed in a sentence as he “proclaimed that matter does not exist at all, that everything is Idea […] and that Idea operates by the dialectical process” of contradiction (33).

The presentation of Marx demonstrates conclusively the unreliability of this text:

While businessmen were rising to spectacular achievements [detail of achievements that looks as though it were lifted from The Communist Manifesto] (against the scornful resistance of loafing ex-feudal aristocrats and the destructive violence of those who were to profit most: the workers [!])--what philosophy was offering, as an evaluation of their achievements and as guidance for the rest of society was the pure Attila-ism of Marx, who proclaimed that the mind does not exist [error], that everything is matter [mostly error], that matter develops itself by the dialectical process of its own ‘super-logic’ of contradictions, and what is true today will not be true tomorrow [?], that the material tools of production determine men’s ‘ideological superstructure’ (which means machines create men’s thinking, not the other way around, and the seizure of omnipotent machines will transfer omnipotence to the rule of brute violence) [chain of error]. (33-34)

It’s a litany of sleights of mind, misreading, silliness. I’d assume that it were plain dishonesty had I any confidence that the text of Marxism had been read--but as there are no citations, I suspect that this is reported second hand, mixed with incidental prevarication.

Thereafter follows equally bogus discussion of pragmatism, logical positivism, positivism proper, utilitarianism, Nietzsche, Spencer. Very much textbook Dunning-Kruger on display. A revealing slip toward the end:

The intellectuals, or their predominant majority, remained centuries behind their time: still seeking the favor of noble protectors, some of them were bewailing the ‘vulgarity’ of commercial pursuits [who? no citations], scoffing at those whose wealth was ‘new,’ and, simultaneously, blaming those new wealth-makers for all the poverty inherited from the centuries ruled by the owners of nobly ‘non-commercial’ wealth. (39)

Here is a rare sense of historical effect in Rand. Rand will never give the Soviet Union the benefit of the doubt for inheriting a feudal economy and for being destroyed by world war and civil war and world war again. Nor will she give the individual worker a break. But here the industrialist can’t be blamed for the poverty under capitalism--that was all inherited. Or is the result of government interference. Or caused by shiftless proletarians. Whatever. It’s deplorable.

Another tiresome refrain: “they [who? no citations] refused to identify the fact that industrial wealth was the product of man’s mind” (40). A silly idealism, buttressed by an even sillier idealist collectivism--as though no actual physical work was involved and capitalists dreamed up “wealth” ex nihilo, whatever that might mean.

The lack of citations is a real problem; it is more in the style of streetcorner jeremiad, impugning the alleged evils of a decadent society, than rigorous, researched colloquy. That fits the trite good/evil moralism and the spenglerian sky-is-falling paranoia.

Eponymous “new intellectuals” are revealed to be “any man or woman who is willing to think. All those who know that man‘s life must be guided by reason” (50). But isn’t Attila a thinker (supra)? Doesn’t the Witch Doctor use reason (supra)?

A contender for one of the worst books ever written--but likely not the winner, as greatest hits collections are mostly forgettable.

Ayn Rand was an evil woman, her ideas are evil and her followers are evil . those freaks who defend defend Ayn Rand — they’re like born-againers, people who’ve stumbled into a theory that is simplistic and purile, but because they are themselves simple-minded and childish, it makes sense to them. Besides being a crackpot economist and very bad novelist (and even worse screenwriter), Rand was a hypocrite and a psycho. She opposed all social programs, but when her chronic smoking resulted in her developing lung cancer, she didn’t hesitate to apply for Medicare in a (futile) effort to save her miserable, hateful, worthless life.

I have tried REALLY hard to understand and respect the philosophy of Ayn Rand, but it’s difficult. I really don’t like throwing this world around, but at certain points while reading her books, I think, “Is she a sociopath?”. If I’m being generous, Ayn Rand makes good arguments that being a pure altruist is not a good thiing and can lead to some very bad results. As a recovering drug addict who spends a lot of time trying to help others, I get that. But Ayn Rand takes this to an extreme. If the world ran how she wanted it to, we never would have reached the top of the food chain as humans. The biggest issue with Ayn Rand is that she thinks she has the monopoly on truth, rationality, logic, and knowledge. From that premise, she then goes on to describe what an intellectual is. On the surface, it sounds like she’s just trying to convince people not to listen to people into pseudoscience, and I can get on board with not falling into the trap of mystics and those who believe in the supernatural. The issue is that Ayn Rand somehow twists that argument into saying that we should all only worry about ourselves and our needs while neglecting others unless we’re doing some Machiavellian manipulation. I have yet to meet an Ayn Rand absolutist, and anyone who I’ve come across who thinks they are would have a hard time agreeing with everything she argues. And if there are absolutists out there, my suggestion is to run for your life because I wouldn’t trust them at all. I may read some more Ayn Rand or books by people who are fans of her philosophy, but I’ve yet to see much good that can come from it.

I think the most egregious part of this book is how she butchers Kant's ideas. In the tradition of a typical "straw man argument," she offers a simplistic version of his ideas, and then knocks it down.

I am not a Kant follower, but if you are going to attack his philosophy, at least try to get it right.

The two stars are for spelling and grammar.

I love Ayn Rand's ideas but this one (the long essay) was very repetitive. Another disappointment was that most of the book is actually quates from Rand's books.
I was expecting for some new insights on Objectivism but if you read her other books (fiction and non-fiction), this one won't teach you anything new.

The start of this book, Attila v. Witch-Doctor, was interesting and would have made a nice short essay. Interestingly Ayn describes herself ideas as the moderate and logical moderate. I'll summarize the rest of the book (and my thoughts on it) by paraphrasing:
"The concepts I've been expressing in my books and essays are needed in America now more than ever. It's time that smart, successful people like myself step forward and start practicing what I'm preaching. Now I will remind you of these ideas by quoting some of my own works."
There were some serious MAGA vibes, but I am positive that Ayn would despise Trump, she's all about integrity and she measures worth through accomplishments.
While I agree with many of her core values and ideas, this book was a bit of a disappointment because it didn't really introduce anything new. It was just sort of a call to arms and a recap. Also, many of her arguments in this book were particularly straw-mannish and especially black-and-white (which is saying something for Ayn).

This is the best single source for the philosophy of Ayn Rand as espoused in her fiction. While she would go on to write some additional philosophic essays that rivaled these -- this is the compendium that forms the base of her philosophy of Objectivism. In addition to the title essay the collection includes excerpts from four of her novels (Anthem, We the Living, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged). The selections from Atlas Shrugged alone are key statements of the Objectivist philosophy and conclude with the seventy-five page long section "This is John Galt Speaking". This is useful as a reference to the work and thought of Ayn Rand.

It has the best statements about objectivism that have been compiled into a summation that is easy for people to digest. When I read the four books that were covered in 'For the New Intellectual' I had taken some notes about the moral purpose of Rand's philosophy. This book worked as a small pocketbook to reinforce my understanding. This is one of Rand's best books in her non-fiction work. It stands out as a book for people who want to think independently and critically for the benefit of themselves and for what they need to do in order to achieve their own happiness.

For the critics who say that selfishness is bad, I say that it is only being made to look bad because looters and socialists just want to guilt you into submission. Selfishness is an attribute of successful people because they refuse to be held back by other people's lives to get you to live for them. We can be extremely proud of ourselves by building things for our own needs for survival. We don't seek power, we seek freedom.

Informative and accessible selection of excerpts for those interested in understanding Randian thinking. (Much easier to wade through than reading the entirety of Atlas Shrugged.)

Two principles

1. Emotions are not tools of cognition
2. No man has the right to initiate force on another.

Pretty easy concept. Not sure why people are calling Ayn Rand evil over this idea. Seems like they are ignoring principle number one.

I really enjoyed the first half of the book focusing on laying out the idea of objectivism. I appreciate her writing knowing that it comes from a position of experience in getting her ass kicked by communism.

I didn’t need to re-read the portions of her fictional books when people began speaking in full essays (second half) . It was a bit of a chore to read, even though I agree with most of it. I’d say you should pick this up from the library, but I’m against anything publicly funded after reading this.