Scan barcode
bittersweet_symphony's review against another edition
3.0
Unnecessarily long. One probably only needs to read this book until one can understand Rand's philosophy: Objectivism. If it takes you reading the entire book, then congrats you just finished an 1100 page novel. I have many conflicted views here, so a pro/con list seems to make the most sense.
Pros
-Contains some prophetic predictions that are certainly coming true, particularly the problems stemming from collectivistic and utilitarian mentalities.
-Provides a very intellectually rich novel, heavy on ideas.
-Examines topics that people should to consider deeply: morality, politics, epistemology, sex, power, corruption, free will, progress, human flourishing, and creativity (all through the lens of respecting individual rights).
Cons
-Lacks emotion or heart, with exception to the anger it evokes when one sees how much this dystopia is coming true.
-The length makes it difficult to maintain interest. Did we really need a 70 page speech?
-The characters are less like people and more like ideas embodied, making them seem non-human.
-Her prose feels equally as cold or metallic as her characters. It feels mechanical rather than poetic.
-In my opinion, while she may be right about the economic and political implications of ignoring individual rights, she arrives at them from a dissatisfying philosophy. Her philosophy may match with economic and political realities, but strays too far from personal moral and social realities. I definitely disagree with her views on the "ideal man".
-She gives other brands of libertarianism a bad reputation because of her distaste for some of the more universal morals found in other literature: love, sacrifice, and the beauty of "the unknown".
Without going too far into a criticism of her philosophy, I will say the following because it impacted my enjoyment of the book.
A) I disagree with her metaphysics: objective reality. Although I am mostly convinced an objective reality exists, I doubt human ability to directly access it. Additionally, I am inclined to believe that we are barred from perceiving that objective reality. We are locked inside our own subjective realities, and unlike Rand claims, rather than perceiving an objective reality, we create or invent one as we attempt to access an objective one.
B) I disagree with her epistemology: reason. While she puts all her faith in reason, she rejects mysticism and skepticism.
C) I agree quite a bit with her view that man has 'free will' and her rejection of determinism. However, my rejection of determinisms is much softer than hers.
D) I mostly disagree with her ethics: self-interest. While I agree with her Kantian claim that "every man is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others", I do not reject altruism in the same way she does. Self-interest may be the strongest motive in the human psyche, but it isn't the only motive.
E) I find myself in highest agreement regarding her politics: capitalism. I agree with her conclusion but arrive at it from very different premises. Capitalism is better than any other known system at promoting peace, tolerance, prosperity, individual sovereignty, creativity, technological innovation, and all sorts of human progress. Capitalism still may not lead us to utopia, but that is because utopia is not an option (maybe in a few million years, optimistically speaking).
I recommend Atlas Shrugged to people only for the agreement I share with her on politics. Otherwise, I believe her brand of libertarianism could learn a lot from other groups who value the ideas of liberty but take a more humane approach.
Pros
-Contains some prophetic predictions that are certainly coming true, particularly the problems stemming from collectivistic and utilitarian mentalities.
-Provides a very intellectually rich novel, heavy on ideas.
-Examines topics that people should to consider deeply: morality, politics, epistemology, sex, power, corruption, free will, progress, human flourishing, and creativity (all through the lens of respecting individual rights).
Cons
-Lacks emotion or heart, with exception to the anger it evokes when one sees how much this dystopia is coming true.
-The length makes it difficult to maintain interest. Did we really need a 70 page speech?
-The characters are less like people and more like ideas embodied, making them seem non-human.
-Her prose feels equally as cold or metallic as her characters. It feels mechanical rather than poetic.
-In my opinion, while she may be right about the economic and political implications of ignoring individual rights, she arrives at them from a dissatisfying philosophy. Her philosophy may match with economic and political realities, but strays too far from personal moral and social realities. I definitely disagree with her views on the "ideal man".
-She gives other brands of libertarianism a bad reputation because of her distaste for some of the more universal morals found in other literature: love, sacrifice, and the beauty of "the unknown".
Without going too far into a criticism of her philosophy, I will say the following because it impacted my enjoyment of the book.
A) I disagree with her metaphysics: objective reality. Although I am mostly convinced an objective reality exists, I doubt human ability to directly access it. Additionally, I am inclined to believe that we are barred from perceiving that objective reality. We are locked inside our own subjective realities, and unlike Rand claims, rather than perceiving an objective reality, we create or invent one as we attempt to access an objective one.
B) I disagree with her epistemology: reason. While she puts all her faith in reason, she rejects mysticism and skepticism.
C) I agree quite a bit with her view that man has 'free will' and her rejection of determinism. However, my rejection of determinisms is much softer than hers.
D) I mostly disagree with her ethics: self-interest. While I agree with her Kantian claim that "every man is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others", I do not reject altruism in the same way she does. Self-interest may be the strongest motive in the human psyche, but it isn't the only motive.
E) I find myself in highest agreement regarding her politics: capitalism. I agree with her conclusion but arrive at it from very different premises. Capitalism is better than any other known system at promoting peace, tolerance, prosperity, individual sovereignty, creativity, technological innovation, and all sorts of human progress. Capitalism still may not lead us to utopia, but that is because utopia is not an option (maybe in a few million years, optimistically speaking).
I recommend Atlas Shrugged to people only for the agreement I share with her on politics. Otherwise, I believe her brand of libertarianism could learn a lot from other groups who value the ideas of liberty but take a more humane approach.
whimsicalmeerkat's review against another edition
2.0
Much too long. I don't agree with most of Ayn Rand's philosophy; it seems to be primarily cited by people who are justifying selfishness in themselves. However, I liked The Fountainhead. This is just too much of an attempt to proselytize by a person who is not a good writer.
justin92's review against another edition
5.0
This book, though slow to start, became amazing. The characters, settings, and plot were well-developed. I began associating with the characters and Hank in particular. I would get upset when characters disappeared and truly wished that men and women like this existed around me.
Being in the Army, I could definitely apply this concept to it. There are always a few who strive to make the unit better, while others loaf and wait around. As the "Prime Soldiers" show they can accomplish mission, more and more missions are added to them until they eventually step back like those failures around them or ETS out.
The story was well wrote, the plot (as shown above) could be applied to any real-world setting, the characters mattered. You would feel with these people, you would scream at them to let go or scream at them to do it themselves.
Being in the Army, I could definitely apply this concept to it. There are always a few who strive to make the unit better, while others loaf and wait around. As the "Prime Soldiers" show they can accomplish mission, more and more missions are added to them until they eventually step back like those failures around them or ETS out.
The story was well wrote, the plot (as shown above) could be applied to any real-world setting, the characters mattered. You would feel with these people, you would scream at them to let go or scream at them to do it themselves.
nfassino's review against another edition
adventurous
mysterious
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.75
Interesting enough philosophical fiction in the first half. Spirals far into the realms of science fiction, fantasy, and just plain silliness in the second.
Just a taaaaad verbose too 😂
Just a taaaaad verbose too 😂
ptait3's review against another edition
dark
emotional
inspiring
reflective
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
5.0
I believe this is the best book I've ever read.
ingridbergman's review against another edition
it is exactly like the fountainhead.
chrizzo1's review against another edition
most boring book I've ever tried to read
draybaum's review against another edition
Oh no ! The poor billionaires are being oppressed after making all the jobs :’(. This author is literally insane and has absolutely no understanding of human nature, statistics, motivations or even an ounce of empathy for people with less than ideal circumstances. We are more than just greed, we are social animals. A main point of this book appears to be : follow logic and listen to data and yet the author ignores all data and makes ridiculous unfounded assumptions. Billionaires are allegedly the most brilliant of humanity and the uneducated are the ones to make scientific discovery but years of Vigorous tests confirms that title belongs to doctors, scientists, and mathematicians while the average iq of businessmen is startlingly low. The author claims that a government would insist on monopolies when that’s exactly the opposite of what they do, unbound capitalism and a free market automatically leads to monopolies as it is in the interest of the profits of the business to consume others and decrease competition so as to inflate prices (as we see today with insulin) . The author claims the great sufferers of society are the wealthy business owners and yet the people around them are starving and destitute and studies indicate a strong link to destitution and lack of motivation and when these people are given a head start their motivation changes (perhaps because they actually have hope and access to fair work conditions).
I’m convinced she is psychopathic and demonizes empathy, the only characteristic that has kept humans from destroying ourselves with the nuclear bombs we possess
My boss (who makes 10x what I make) told me to read this and I sincerely regret it especially the 90% of it that is repetitive circular arguments that can be made by a 14 year old and easily refuted with dozens of peer reviewed studies . A pathetic dated McCarthyism shitpile. They act as though business owners (not bound by any moral duties to the people in any official capacity) are the ones who are moral while the careers founded on morality and the general interest of humanity, are immoral and corrupt with absolutely no evidence to back up the claim. Every single scientific advancement that leads to increased profits is undoubtedly out through and the verification process by experts in their fields and spent years of study are necessary for the safety of consumers.
It’s pathetic that this book totes logic but the author is unable to use actual data and follow logical conclusions to their end point.
While a professor might say “ everything is relative and nothing has meaning” it is not a literal fact and is always followed by “there is objective rules we have tested and devoted our lives to learning and adjusting for the benefit of humanity” but she leaves this part out because it implodes her ridiculous circumstances and arguments.
The key ingredient missing in her utopia is that there are no billionaires or industrialists who have any capability to do any of the skills of those that they employ let alone to do dishes or build a house or even do their own laundry without the help of servants. The winners of capitalism are those who know how to skim from the top or exploit those with actual skills that is why the average scientist makes a fraction of a fraction of what a stockbroker makes. This idea that the mind attracts money ignores the corruption of capitalism and the logical path of exploitation to profit. This is why government accountable to people (which corporations are not ) has the duty to skim this fat they take and insert it back into the economy and rule out corporate corruption and excess greed. So unfortunate all of these people don’t critically think when reading this book and compare her ideal with real facts and logic.
So pathetic that people are stupid enough to gobble this up without actually looking at facts data and figures as the protagonist claims to do.
I’m convinced she is psychopathic and demonizes empathy, the only characteristic that has kept humans from destroying ourselves with the nuclear bombs we possess
My boss (who makes 10x what I make) told me to read this and I sincerely regret it especially the 90% of it that is repetitive circular arguments that can be made by a 14 year old and easily refuted with dozens of peer reviewed studies . A pathetic dated McCarthyism shitpile. They act as though business owners (not bound by any moral duties to the people in any official capacity) are the ones who are moral while the careers founded on morality and the general interest of humanity, are immoral and corrupt with absolutely no evidence to back up the claim. Every single scientific advancement that leads to increased profits is undoubtedly out through and the verification process by experts in their fields and spent years of study are necessary for the safety of consumers.
It’s pathetic that this book totes logic but the author is unable to use actual data and follow logical conclusions to their end point.
While a professor might say “ everything is relative and nothing has meaning” it is not a literal fact and is always followed by “there is objective rules we have tested and devoted our lives to learning and adjusting for the benefit of humanity” but she leaves this part out because it implodes her ridiculous circumstances and arguments.
The key ingredient missing in her utopia is that there are no billionaires or industrialists who have any capability to do any of the skills of those that they employ let alone to do dishes or build a house or even do their own laundry without the help of servants. The winners of capitalism are those who know how to skim from the top or exploit those with actual skills that is why the average scientist makes a fraction of a fraction of what a stockbroker makes. This idea that the mind attracts money ignores the corruption of capitalism and the logical path of exploitation to profit. This is why government accountable to people (which corporations are not ) has the duty to skim this fat they take and insert it back into the economy and rule out corporate corruption and excess greed. So unfortunate all of these people don’t critically think when reading this book and compare her ideal with real facts and logic.
So pathetic that people are stupid enough to gobble this up without actually looking at facts data and figures as the protagonist claims to do.
quasario's review against another edition
3.0
Paul Krugman: "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
mhumby123's review against another edition
5.0
This book changes you...these kind of the books are the best kind. “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"