Scan barcode
A review by bittersweet_symphony
Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
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.