Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.09 AVERAGE
3.09 AVERAGE
I just love it how she only cites herself and quotes lines of her own fictional characters.
This book is giving me mixed signals. The Mental Health versus Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice by Nathaniel Branden is amazing, a wake up call for those who backward-rationalize and distort reality, and a warning to those who do not. But Ayn Rand's unwavering statism, regardless of the fact that it contradicts the basic principles of individualism, is a betrayal to the rest of the book.
informative
inspiring
reflective
informative
reflective
slow-paced
She gave me the impresion that she uses to believe that people sharing her ideas and values were useful to society as she wanted it to be and who thinks different were stupid and disposable ones
It might have been two years ago when my a friend told me that Ayn Rand's philosophies are dangerous. Being someone who doesn't solely rely on others' judgments, I sought for myself what ideologies she embraced; what convictions she held.
I read Anthem. I found nothing threatening about it. Then I read this, and I finally understood what my friend meant: Ayn Rand's philosophies are dangerous (and ridiculous) to a mind destitute of reason. Her wisdom echoes the absurd only to the irrational.
Ayn Rand is one of the least understood philosophers/writers of the 20th century. Her mouth is not for the average ears.
I read Anthem. I found nothing threatening about it. Then I read this, and I finally understood what my friend meant: Ayn Rand's philosophies are dangerous (and ridiculous) to a mind destitute of reason. Her wisdom echoes the absurd only to the irrational.
Ayn Rand is one of the least understood philosophers/writers of the 20th century. Her mouth is not for the average ears.
"За ирационалиста битието не е нищо повече от сблъсък между неговите желания и желанията на другите; понятието "обективна действителност" за него е нещо недействително" (Това не е единственото изказване на Натаниъл Брандън, което сякаш е написано за Айн Ранд, но това е смисъл, който почти със сигурност той не е искал да вложи в него.)
За човек, който гръмогласно възхвалява рационалността и познанието, Ранд е написала рядко нелогична книга, пълна с неверни от правна и историческа гледна точка твърдения, които свидетелстват явна липса на образование (свещеното право на кралете е пример за алтруистично-колективистка етика? Капитализмът е сложил край на робството в САЩ?? Не съществували философски опити да се намерят рационални основи на морала???).
Книгата е написана в духа на псевдо-научната литература: недобре аргументирана, вътрешно противоречива, лишена от реални цитати и източници за нещата, които критикува, но пък пълна с цитати от собствени трудове ("Атлас" беше цитирана като Библията).
Доста разочароваща книга. Очаквах повече рационалност, по-добра аргументация.
За човек, който гръмогласно възхвалява рационалността и познанието, Ранд е написала рядко нелогична книга, пълна с неверни от правна и историческа гледна точка твърдения, които свидетелстват явна липса на образование (свещеното право на кралете е пример за алтруистично-колективистка етика? Капитализмът е сложил край на робството в САЩ?? Не съществували философски опити да се намерят рационални основи на морала???).
Книгата е написана в духа на псевдо-научната литература: недобре аргументирана, вътрешно противоречива, лишена от реални цитати и източници за нещата, които критикува, но пък пълна с цитати от собствени трудове ("Атлас" беше цитирана като Библията).
Доста разочароваща книга. Очаквах повече рационалност, по-добра аргументация.
My advice would be to spend your time on a more useful endeavour...
Ayn Rand was not afraid of turning conventional wisdom on its head. For millennia, one of the few ethical principles that prevailed across cultures was the value of altruism, i.e. , giving up your life for the benefit of others. Rubbish, writes Rand.
Rand was as anti-community and pro-individual as anyone I have ever read. Adamantly opposed to coercive state and religious power, she built a philosophy, Objectivism, on rational thinking and reason. She became too dogmatic and rigid for my taste in later years; nevertheless, she has some very interesting things to say.
"Every human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others and therefore, man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself." I find this statement profound in its implications; if it were to be adopted everywhere, wars would cease. It's only because we have bought into the principle of sacrificing oneself for the greater good that armies can survive, yet the reason is so others can accumulate or obtain what you should be able to.
In her philosophy, the happiness of the individual is paramount. Religious types will find her philosophy more than unsettling, because as an atheist, she values the present and current life above everything else. Whether you like her or not, several of the essays are well worth the time to read, particularly "Collectivized Rights" and "Man's Rights." One's gut response is to say that she has rejected charity and helping others. Not at all. It's just that helping others should not be at one's own expense, e.g., spending a fortune to cure one's wife of a disease because the wife is important to oneself would fit nicely into her worldview. Love is entirely selfish.
An important book no matter where you stand.
Rand was as anti-community and pro-individual as anyone I have ever read. Adamantly opposed to coercive state and religious power, she built a philosophy, Objectivism, on rational thinking and reason. She became too dogmatic and rigid for my taste in later years; nevertheless, she has some very interesting things to say.
"Every human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others and therefore, man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself." I find this statement profound in its implications; if it were to be adopted everywhere, wars would cease. It's only because we have bought into the principle of sacrificing oneself for the greater good that armies can survive, yet the reason is so others can accumulate or obtain what you should be able to.
In her philosophy, the happiness of the individual is paramount. Religious types will find her philosophy more than unsettling, because as an atheist, she values the present and current life above everything else. Whether you like her or not, several of the essays are well worth the time to read, particularly "Collectivized Rights" and "Man's Rights." One's gut response is to say that she has rejected charity and helping others. Not at all. It's just that helping others should not be at one's own expense, e.g., spending a fortune to cure one's wife of a disease because the wife is important to oneself would fit nicely into her worldview. Love is entirely selfish.
An important book no matter where you stand.