Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
10 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Objectivism 101, July 6, 1999
By A Customer
How do you take such heady subjects as Objectivism, rational thought and the virtues of selfishness, to an audience accustomed to the white washed, banal pablum of 1950's America? By simplification and reiteration. Atlas Shrugged is long, has some very simple, one dimensional characters, and repeats its themes often. But, it had to. It is a subtle introduction of a decidedly humanistic, secular philosophy to a puritanical, non-secular society . As many have said before, you will love it or hate it. If you subscribe to strict religious dogma and dismiss your mind as impotent and unable to "know" anything, then you will hate it. If Plato's parable of the cave is the world you live in, you will hate it. If you despise Bill Gates for his Billions; if you believe the government owes you better health care (or anything for that matter, other than a rebate on your taxes), then you will hate it. If you are excited by success (anyone's), believe in your mind and its abilities to think rationally, and laugh at new age channelers, witch doctors, snake handlers, or any other mystic who believes "A" is "non-A", then the chances are you will love it. Read it and find out who you are.
|
|
|
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The Best Business Book Ever Written, September 15, 2007
That's right. It is the best business book ever written. Rand believed in the value of the individual. She believed that the state, the government, should have no control over a person's work and his or her achievement. She believed that no group should try to control the individual and that no person should compromise in an attempt to blend in.
This is Ayn Rand's masterpiece. It expresses her complete philosophy in a riveting plot that takes place in the U.S. in the future. The economy is collapsing because of the strange disappearance of leading producers and industrialists. The theme is the role of the mind in man's existence. It demonstrates a new moral philosophy based on rational self-interest.
In this wonderful work, Rand shows what the world would be like if the real producers, the productive individuals, would stop their work and their production. It is stunning and awesome.
While the dialog is stilted and uncommon to the culture, it was Rand's unique way of crafting her fiction. Her characters lacked depth and emotion, similar to those of F. Scott Fitzgerald.
While this may take away from the storytelling, it is actually merely the format for her presentation of her Objectivist philosophy. And, it is that philosophy that is the critical part of all of her work, including her fiction.
According to Wikipedia, "Objectivism holds that there is a mind-independent reality; that individual persons are in contact with this reality through sensory perception; that human beings gain objective knowledge from perception by measurement and form valid concepts by measurement omission; that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or "rational self-interest"; that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual human rights, embodied in pure, consensual laissez-faire capitalism; and that the role of art in human life is to transform abstract knowledge, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form--a work of art--that one can comprehend and respond to with the whole of one's consciousness."
But it can better be summed up, I think, by saying that it is the belief that a person owns his own mind and the production of his mind, i.e. his work. Furthermore, it holds that the individual has a right not to conform to the whims or desires of the collective, that he doesn't have an obligation to do his work as others wish him to and that he has a right to earn money for his work and not give any part of himself away for the benefit of others.
The dramatic story in Atlas Shrugged brings this philosophy to life.
An altruist would not enjoy this book. But if you read it with an open mind, you will appreciate the philosophy behind the words. You may or may not agree with the philosophy and you may not enjoy the book. But if you're in business, you should read the book. A business person who is not basically an Objectivist, is not a good business person but a slave.
By the way, Alan Greenspan, famous former fed chairman, was part of Ayn Rand's inner circle when he was very young. He still considers himself a libertarian Republican. Rand's philosophy is an important one and should be read and studied by all who care about human production and human value.
|
|
|
5 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Those who preach selflessness do it for selfish reasons, August 11, 2007
In today's political clime Rand's writing is must reading. We are currently experiencing a resurgence in the war on the individual, with Hillary Clinton dropping quotes right and left that sound remarkably similar to statements made by Stalin and Lenin. Enough is a enough. Those who preach collectivism are trying to subjugate you. Those who preach altruism typically have their hand in someone else's pocket. As Rand says in Atlas Shrugged, "public welfare" is the banner that looters hide behind. Here Rand argues that capitalism is the ONLY just political system. The problem with many conservatives, as Rand saw them, is that though they defend capitalism they usually ground their defense in some vague notion of "God-given rights." Since religious beliefs are not rationally defensible this move greatly risks placing reason on the side of the anti-capitalists. No, Rand said, we must do what's right because it's right and not because we are told to or want to get into heaven. We must defend capitalism not because of some bizarre notion of being mandated by a supreme being but rather because it is the only political system that allows man to rise to his potential, to choose for himself, to bargain with others freely and to exercise his volition. Liberals who defend "minorities" (all the while ignoring that in one out of three of the most populated counties in America today whites are actually the minority) while engaging in collectivist attacks on "the cult of the individual" and "egoism" must contend with Rand's statement that one cannot claim to defend minorities while attacking individualism, for the smallest minority is ALWAYS the individual. People always act with selfish reasons. In order for charity to even be of any help the recipient must selfishly accept the charity. Bad competition, which levels the playing field by inhibiting the performance of rivals, drags achievers down to the mean. All the good such achievers can do for society as a whole is then eliminated, as in the "Anti-dog-eat-dog" agreement in this book. Good competition, in which people compete by perfecting their own skill and knowledge, improves everyone. Even if you are beat by someone else you are left more knowledgeable and able. I only have one question: Where is Galt's Gulch? I would like to move. This novel, originally entitled The Strike, is brilliant. The Fountainhead was about the individual vs. the collective, and this is about the producers vs. the parasites. What if the reviled "rich," those who produce the amenities others take for granted or expect the "government" to pay for, all went on strike? What then? By the way, if you like this book you will probably also like a book called Camp of the Saints. Check it out.
I love the party scene in this book. Rand perfectly points out the ultimate irony of parties: A party is supposed to be a celebration, but those who have done things worthy of celebration typically are not the kind of people who find any enjoyment in parties, whereas those who love partying are not the kind of people there is anything worth celebrating about!
The point of this book was ably made by Jon Hanson, author of a nifty little book called Good Debt, Bad Debt. The point is this: NEVER in history has there been a society that was socialist BEFORE it went capitalist. This has never happened because it would be impossible. It can only be the other way around. FIRST capitalists must BUILD and MAINTAIN a society BEFORE socialists can come and leech off of it parasitically. Socialists don't build or produce anything. They only appropriate. This is why socialism can only follow capitalism. Further, if the last remnant of the capitalist elements of society completely disintegrate, the entire structure collapses. It's not the socialists that keep things going, they just feed off of open sores.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
