I’ve been reading articles and listening to podcasts in the mises institute website, LRC, and FreedomanRadio for two years now. I’ve read ‘‘Economics in One Lesson’’ and ‘‘How and Economy Grows and Why it Doesn’t’’. I’m wondering if I can derive any value from reading Ayn Rand books considering the knowledge I have learned. If so, which Ayn Rand books are valuable?
I’m thinking:
Fountainhead
Atlas Shrugged
Return of the Primitive
Yes,
Yes, but I suggest with the shorter works first. Start off with Anthem and We The Living. You could finish Anthem just lounging around. It’s short, but amazing.
this
I am reading Atlas Shrugged, and I’m glad that I decided to pick it up.
In a word, YES
Atlas Shrugged and Anthem are the only things of hers that I have actually read, but Atlas Shrugged was fantastic, best book I have ever read. Anthem was ok but probably worth a read considering its size.
I liked Rand, by and large I agree with much of her philosophy and ideals, although I don’t concur with all of it even in principal and I felt that when focusing on the real world she became a total bitch, but her works are some of the only quality libertarian works out there.
Atlas Shrugged along with a few other influences at the time lead me down the road of libertarianism. I don’t think that anyone should die without reading Atlas Shrugged… Seriously.
Ayn Rand, through both of her novels, sparked my interest in Libertarian philosophy. She opened my eyes to the beauty of the free market, and to the inherent evils of the State. She inspired me to learn more.
Although I am grateful to her for this, it is about all that I can say in her favor. Her philosophy (epistemology in particular) is terrible, and provides no foundation for a true defender of the freedom to stand on.
Since it sounds like you’ve already been inspired by Libertarian ideas, I don’t think that there is much that Ayn Rand can offer you, philosophically speaking. That being said, her novels are excellent stories, and I would still recommend them if this is the sort of thing you are looking for.
P.S. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal is her best book, in my opinion.
I have to agree with this assessment. In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I have an extensive background in philosophy. Specifically, I have a B.A. and an M.A. in the subject, and I spent three years in a Ph.D. program in philosophy before leaving to become a lawyer. I’ve also taught undergraduate courses in logic, ethics, and the history of philosophy. Although Rand does indeed deserve great credit for being a champion of liberty and thereby leading many people to libertarianism who might otherwise not have found it, her technical work in philosophy is amateurish, clumsy, and uninformed. The image that always came through to me while reading her work was that of a cocky freshman holding forth with supreme self-assurance on matters that were in fact far beyond her actual level of competence.
Aaron Spurling
I’m sure objectivism would tell you that it’s the most rational thing to do.
Always thought of Anthem as being a summarized version of 1984 but with a less depressing ending.
I dunno… I absolutely hated 1984. It’s dreary and even the comparatively “happy” moments in the novel are horribly disfigured. I think Rand does a much better job of capturing the joy of life and the motivation of the protagonist. I also think that Anthem’s length is a great asset, because you can read it in literally one sitting if you’re determined enough. Not every story needs to be long.
I agree 100%!!!
Of her fiction, I’d recommend: Anthem, Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged.
Of her non-fiction, I’d recommend Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal, Virtue of Selfishness, the New Left, and Philosophy: Who Needs it. I would be cautious with The Romantic Manifesto. I find her ‘Intro to Objectivitist Epistimology’ hard to get into, and her later works a bit too bitter.
Why is her epistemology terrible?
Well, to begin with, she was a dogmatic empiricist. She believed that ALL human knowledge had its origins in sensation — a myth that didn’t fool Mises.
If this were her only sin, I could forgive it, but what really frustrates me is the fact that she never bothered to explain why her empiricism was true. Ignoring about 2,500 years of philosophic thought, she seemed to think that empiricism was self-evident. She thought that it followed logically from the self-contradictory nature of skepticism. Obviously this is not true. Just because it is contradictory to say “I have no knowledge,” this does mean that it is contradictory to ask “how is knowledge obtained?” All of her work in epistemology consisted of her trying to trick her readers into believing that the only possible answer to this question is ‘empiricism.’ It is not the only possible answer. She never gave an argument for why her theory of knowledge was better than the other ones.
Without being insulting I’d say not really.You might get some interesting perspectives on philosophy but I think many austrian and general libertarian ideas are better.I used to be an objectivist for a number of years before coming to libertarianism and I’ve realised now it held me back. I agree with some bare ideas of rand’s philosophy but found much needed to be built on with my own thinking and reading especially from austrian thought.I think her ideas on art were dead wrong.She was a quite pro war despite claiming she loved peace.She had a bad personality and could act like a cult leader.Her rabid anti religious atheism lead to an ignorance of a lot of religious thought like taoism ,the scholastics or thomism.She set up false dichtomy of helping others vs egoism .
I think it could only be a regression to go back to objectivism now.
I could be wrong but I think if you look at her and other objectivist writings it’s far too simplistic ,too self assured,too polemic and very little on history,philosophy ,politics etc unlike your average article by say Rothbard or Lew rockwell or Walter block.
The austrian tradition and libertarianism in general is so rich , much more than objectivism.In austrianism we have pro constitutional minarchists, anarchists,feminists… there’s just so much diversity.That’s one of the best things about it
On atlas shrugged: When I was objectivist I thought of it like my bible.Once I gave up on rand I looked over it and found it empty.I don’t mean to discourage you from reading you if you really want to but I found the characters wooden and unrealistic especially John Galt,it’s far too drawn out and the philosophy in if far too hyped.
I’ve never read the fountainhead or return of the primitive.
Her fiction is pretty decent for people who have no experience in libertarianism, but your time is still better spent elsewhere.
Her non-fiction is absolutely useless and you should not bother with it.
I agree with all of this, even the best book. [B] [Y]
No. There is no value in reading her books.
Value is subjective.