For the New Intellectual: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand

ISBN: 0451163087
ISBN 13: 9780451163080
By: Ayn Rand

Check Price Now


Ayn Rand Classics Currently Reading Fiction Non Fiction Nonfiction Objectivism Philosophy Politics To Read

About this book

This is Ayn Rand's challenge to the prevalent philosophical doctrines of our time and the "atmosphere of guilt, of panic, of despair, of boredom, and of all-pervasive evasion" that they create. One of the most controversial figures on the intellectual scene, Ayn Rand was the proponent of a moral philosophy--and ethic of rational self-interest--that stands in sharp opposition to the ethics of altruism and self-sacrifice. The fundamentals of this morality--"a philosophy for living on Earth"--are here vibrantly set forth by the spokesman for a new class, For the New Intellectual.

Reader's Thoughts


Yet another amazing book which details Ayn's philosophy - Objectivism. I swear if the DPS had students bright enough to read above a 4th grade level they should be required to read every single one of her books.


Kind of a funhouse mirror of the intellectual giants who came up with the social contract notion of philosophy. It's a bit like a petulant child, crying out that nobody understands anything but her. Reason is good, sure, and I'll even accept that the Attila and Witch Doctor dynamic is an interesting thread to run through the eponymous essay. I just think it's pretty horrendous to call out, in my mind, some of history's most interesting people -- like Hume, Marx, and JS Mill -- although, this being the fourth of her books I've gone through, I can't say I'm surprised.

Христо Блажев

Айн Ранд дефинира новия интелектуалец Произведенията на Айн Ранд определено ме въведоха в едно различно измерение на светоусещане и отношение към живота. Най-силно влияние ми оказаха, разбира се, романите й “Атлас изправи рамене” “Изворът” и “Ние, живите”, както и есетата от сборника “Капитализмът: непознатия идеал”. “За новия интелектуалец” е синтез на тезите й от горните произведения. Основната посока е дефинирането на досегашната човешка история като следствие от щенията на две фигури – Атила и Шамана, в чиито образи тя припознава военни/политически и религиозни лидери, които са налагали своята воля над обикновените хора или чрез сила, или чрез заблуди. А обединението между двете неща според нея е най-опасното нещо.


"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." There is a quality in Ayn Rand's writing that I find supremely attractive: the unflinching, unapologetic assertion of the sanctity of the individual human mind and that any system of thought, government, or economy which seeks to destroy the individual man's reliance on his own rationality is evil. Ayn Rand is not the first writer to speak of these things; Emerson, Thoureau, Nietzshce, and Steinbeck are all writers that I favor for a similar sentiment expressed. At points I vehemently contend with her, at other points I unreservedly agree - but that's the point isn't it, to think for myself. I took up Rand's book because I knew nothing about her writing except that most people who say something about her are almost angry with her and those who like her are angry at everyone else. For my part: I am not angry and I think that though there are merits to the philosophical criticisms of her shortcomings these do not eclipse the value of her work.


I am only basing my rating on the essay that opens the book. Since more than half is comprised of excerpts from her other books, I decided to hold off so I could appreciate them in their native context (and I've already read 'Atlas Shrugged').As someone who once was a bleeding-heart liberal (aren't we all during college?), reading Rand has certainly challenged some ideals I've held. After reading 'Atlas Shrugged' a few years ago, I came out with much to think about, but my one complaint was "it never considers the value in charity". And perhaps I overlooked the message when I read the aforementioned book, but this title directly discusses the concept and why she disagrees with its value. Again, I left the essay with much to think on, and that to me is the sign of a great read.


The best cannonfodder for debaters on the planet, I especially love her distaste for Kant. A part from these, a good spectrum of her devolopment of objectivism.

Brent McCulley

Rand's For the New Intellectual consists of various philosophical examinations of her novels, as well as a philosophical historiography hitherto. Her analysis of history in light of her Attila the Hun / Witch Doctor dichotomy, albeit broad-brushing, certainly got my historical gears turning given the implications of Rand's own Objectivism.Her summary of Attila as the existentialists, the brutes, dictators, and demagogues is contrasted with the With Doctor--the moralists, priests, and shamans. Using this dichotomy, Rand paints the runs into a dialectal analysis of various philosophers from Aristotle up to the present, utilizing Attila and the Witch Doctor tags to gauge the swing of the pendulum as it alternates between the dichotomous two. There is, Rand unequivocally states, a better way than this false dichotomy.In short, an intriguing read, although if one has read Rand's novels, the extensive block quotations from her books to show the philosophy of each fiction work respectively is simply superfluous. Even still, Rand's historiographical analysis of the philosophical trends is still worth the read.Brent McCulley


Part III of multi-part review series.A greatest hits: introductory essay and selections from the four novels. Will reserve commentary on the novels for those reviews. Introductory essay develops two sets of binaries: Attila/Witch Doctor and Producer/Parasite. The latter is crass unexamined producerism--so it’s standard proto-fascistic aggressiveness.Preface proclaims that the volume “presents the outline of a new philosophical system” and a “new theory of the nature, source, and validation of concepts“ (vii). By the end, we see that, vanity of vanities, there’s nothing new under the sun.Introductory essay contains the master figure of her writings: “When a man, a business corporation, or an entire society is approaching bankruptcy” (10). This is neo-spenglerianism, tacitly admitted to be erroneous at the end of The Virtue of Selfishness. Nevertheless, “America is culturally bankrupt” (id.), whatever the hell that means. (Rand has no law, so the precise meaning of bankruptcy can’t be deployed here.) Worse than bankrupt, “America is a country without a voice or defense” (id.), a fundamentally odd proposition to utter in 1961, when the US was launching coups d’etat with impunity and issuing nuclear threats with sprezzatura. Her indictments of particular fascist states notwithstanding, we see the fascist roots of the doctrine here: “In times of danger, a morally healthy culture rallies its values, its self-esteem, and its crusading spirit to fight for its moral ideals with full, righteous confidence” (11). Mussolini wrote that--or could have, anyway, if he didn’t. Instead of rallying around objectivism, the US committed a “tragic error” by believing “the solution is to turn anti-intellectual and rely on some cracker barrel sort of folksy wisdom” (11). Ersatz epistemology in how humans must “integrate perceptions into conceptions by a process of abstraction,” but “he must perform it by choice” (14): “volition begins with the first syllogism” (15). None of this happens automatically as an apparatus of consciousness. Rather, one must choose as an act of volition to integrate two particular tall green & brown leafy things to achieve the concept of tree. Death-choosers apparently choose to evade the integration and therefore have no arboreal concepts. It’s odd: it seems for “choice” to be meaningful, even in the most naïve sense, the separate alternatives must be knowable, at least to a basic extent--and if the alternatives of “I’ll integrate the concept of treeness” or “I won’t integrate the concept of treeness” are available prior to the choice being made, it would seem that the point is mooted, as the concept must have been available when the rational mind evaluated the ramifications of the conceptual fork. So, yeah, it makes no sense in reality, but it probably makes a perverse sense in Randland. Nifty comment that Witch Doctor provides “an insurance against the dark unknown of tomorrow” to Attila, “to sanction his actions and to disarm his victims” (19). I regard this comment, like “folksy wisdom,” supra, to be entirely unintentionally self-reflexive in this volume.The text unravels completely when “it is not the case that Attila and the Witch Doctor cannot or do not think; they can and do--but thinking, to them, is not a means of perceiving reality, it is a means of justifying their escape from the necessity of rational perception. Reason to them is a means of defeating their victims” (19). This is odd when juxtaposed with the comments in VoS that humans are distinguished from animals by volitional thinking, equated with reason. That text then lays out the argument that capitalism, good governance, and whatnot arise out of reason. So: Witch Doctor and Attila use reason to beat their victims. Does the objectivist merely shrug away this tacit equivalence?Text thereafter develops as a reading of history from the perspective of the simpleton Attila/Witch Doctor binary. It’s very schematic and puerile. But: “the first society whose leaders were neither Attilas nor Witch Doctors, a society led, dominated and created by the Producers,” was predictably enough the US (24). Let’s back up for a moment: Attila “never thinks of creating, only of taking over. Whether he conquers a neighboring tribe or overruns a continent, material looting is his only goal and it ends with the act of seizure: he has no other purpose, no plan, no system to impose on the conquered, no values” (16). (This will of course be contradicted soon thereafter--“Attila herds men into armies, the Witch Doctor sets the armies’ goals. Attila Conquers empires--the Witch Doctor writes their laws” (2)--but never mind that.) The Witch Doctor “provides Attila with values” (16) and “preempts the field of morality” (17).So: the US, with its slavery, and genocide of natives, and coverture for women, and property qualifications for voting, and exclusion statutes, and domestic torture, and starvation, and interminable war on the frontier, and religious supernaturalisms, is led by neither Attila nor Witch Doctor. Gotcha. We are assured that “during the nineteenth century,” again, as in VoS, “the world came close to economic freedom, for the first and only time in history” (25). Nevermind all the slavery and poverty and whatnot. Instead, we get the bizarre inversion that capitalism “released men from bondage of their physical needs, has released them from the terrible drudgery of an eighteen-hour workday of manual labor for their barest subsistence” (27). Then comes the survey of philosophy, and it is a parade of sophomoric horribles, in which the summaries of others’ ideas is mendacious beyond measure:Descartes is ridiculed for “the belief that the existence of an external world is not self-evident, but must be proved by deduction” (28). This is dismissed merely as the Witch Doctor, no explanation. After all, the material world is obvious, no? Hume is mocked for seeing “objects moving about, but never saw such a thing as ‘causality’” (29). This is dismissed merely as Attila (with some confusion of Hume’s ideas with Berkeley’s). Kant is pooh-poohed for the noumenal/phenomenonal distinction (31) and the categories, which are dismissed, without refutation, as “preposterous,” a “pre-determined collective delusion” (id.); even if that correctly states Kant’s theory of ideology (and I’m not sure that it does), Rand has not refuted it. Rather, her dismissal is premised on a logical fallacy: “his argument amounted to a negation, not only of man’s consciousness, but of any consciousness, of consciousness as such” (31-32). I’m fairly sure that this is untrue, but the fallacy is argumentum ad consequentiam, i.e., she has argued that Kant must be wrong because otherwise consciousness is not true--and we can‘t have that. Hegel is dismissed in a sentence as he “proclaimed that matter does not exist at all, that everything is Idea […] and that Idea operates by the dialectical process” of contradiction (33). The presentation of Marx demonstrates conclusively the unreliability of this text:“While businessmen were rising to spectacular achievements [detail of achievements that looks as though it were lifted from The Communist Manifesto] (against the scornful resistance of loafing ex-feudal aristocrats and the destructive violence of those who were to profit most: the workers [!])--what philosophy was offering, as an evaluation of their achievements and as guidance for the rest of society was the pure Attila-ism of Marx, who proclaimed that the mind does not exist [error], that everything is matter [mostly error], that matter develops itself by the dialectical process of its own ‘super-logic’ of contradictions, and what is true today will not be true tomorrow [?], that the material tools of production determine men’s ‘ideological superstructure’ (which means machines create men’s thinking, not the other way around, and the seizure of omnipotent machines will transfer omnipotence to the rule of brute violence) [chain of error]” (33-34). It’s a litany of sleights of mind, misreading, silliness. I’d assume that it were plain dishonesty had I any confidence that the text of Marxism had been read--but as there are no citations, I suspect that this is reported second hand, mixed with incidental prevarication. Thereafter follows equally bogus discussion of pragmatism, logical positivism, positivism proper, utilitarianism, Nietzsche, Spencer. Very much textbook Dunning-Kruger on display. A revealing slip toward the end: “The intellectuals, or their predominant majority, remained centuries behind their time: still seeking the favor of noble protectors, some of them were bewailing the ‘vulgarity’ of commercial pursuits [who? no citations], scoffing at those whose wealth was ‘new,’ and, simultaneously, blaming those new wealth-makers for all the poverty inherited from the centuries ruled by the owners of nobly ‘non-commercial’ wealth'" (39). Here is a rare sense of historical effect in Rand. Rand will never give the Soviet Union the benefit of the doubt for inheriting a feudal economy and for being destroyed by world war and civil war and world war again. Nor will she give the individual worker a break. But here the industrialist can’t be blamed for the poverty under capitalism--that was all inherited. Or is the result of government interference. Or caused by shiftless proletarians. Whatever. It’s deplorable.Another tiresome refrain: “they [who? no citations] refused to identify the fact that industrial wealth was the product of man’s mind” (40). A silly idealism, buttressed by an even sillier idealist collectivism--as though no actual physical work was involved and capitalists dreamed up “wealth” ex nihilo, whatever that might mean. The lack of citations is a real problem; it is more in the style of streetcorner jeremiad, impugning the alleged evils of a decadent society, than rigorous, researched colloquy. That fits the trite good/evil moralism and the spenglerian sky-is-falling paranoia. Eponymous “new intellectuals” are revealed to be “any man or woman who is willing to think. All those who know that man‘s life must be guided by reason” (50). But isn’t Attila a thinker (supra)? Doesn’t the Witch Doctor use reason (supra)? A contender for one of the worst books ever written--but likely not the winner, as greatest hits collections are mostly forgettable.

Kyle Thompson

I agree with what everybody else said about this book. The opening article/essay - the same title as the book - was very good. After that, though, it's just excerpts from her novels "We the Living", "Anthem", "Fountainhead", and "Atlas Shrugged." It's all the most important speeches/discussions from the novels; so it's kind of like a cliff notes of all the novels. I gave it 3 stars and recommend it just because of the opening "For the New Intellectual" essay; other than that, I would just recommend it to people who want a simplified, cliff notes version of all of Rand's novel.


Rand has carefully chosen passages in her fiction which illustrate key concepts in her philosophy. In this short collection, Rand introduces passages from We The Living, Anthem, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged. The opening chapter is a compelling essay outlining the philosophical struggle between those who support her philosophical conclusions and forces in our culture which contradict the truths she resolutely defends. I recommend this work for readers who are unfamiliar with Rand's writing and would like to understand her better before committing to her larger works.


The first 25 pages of this completely enthralled me. Rand's no-nonsense style deftly conveys a philosophy that seems both wise and clever. Her summarization of modern history places the center of an hourglass around the founding of America by the first "thinkers who were men of action." Current intellectuals have failed to keep pace with the advancements made by the producers in our modern world of the past 250 years. Humans are distinct from other animals because of our ability to conceptualize and we have a need to do so in order to survive in our world. The short history of the man includes an Attila class and a Witch Doctor class who eventually became obsolete with the advent of the business producer and the intellectual. As man learned to understand nature and science he also learned to use it, leading to rapid economic advancement. The Attila conquered without understanding the "somehow" of production. The Witch Doctor controls the Attila through the fear implied by alleged supernatural knowledge. "The first society in history whose leaders were neither Attials nor Witch Doctors, a society led, dominated, and created by the Producers, was the United States of America. The moral code implicit in its political principles was not the Witch Doctor's code of self-sacrifice. The political principles embodied in the Constitution were not Attila's blank check on brute force, but men's protection against any future Attila's ambition. The Founding Fathers were neither passive, death-worshipping mystics nor mindless, power-seeking looters; as a political group, they were a phenomenon unprecedented in history; they were thinkers who were also men of action. They had rejected the soul-body dichotomy, with its two corollaries; the impotence of man's mind and the damnation of this earth; thye had rejected the doctrine of suffering as man's metaphysical fate, tey proclaimed man's right to the pursuit of happiness and were determined to establish on earth the conditions required for man's proper existence, by the 'unaided' pwer of their intellect. A society based on and geared to the conceptual level of man's consciousness, a society dominated by a philosophy of reason, has no places for the rule of fear and guilt. Reason requires freedom, self-confidence, and self-esteem. It requires the right to think and to act on the guidance of one's thinking -- the right to live by one's own independent judgement. Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a fee mind and a free market are corollaries." My only reservation involved Rand's apparent view on religion.

Mariano Hdz

I think should read this book but once they have finished at least " The Fountainhead " and of course " Atlas Shrugged " it's a more profound book on Mrs. Rand philosophy.


This is basically a synopsis of the books "The Fountainhead", and "Atlas Shrugged". Rand discusses her philosophy, Objectivism, in terms of these two books. While this book would be helpful for someone to read in order to get a grasp on the philosophy behind these books (and perhaps understand the characters better) it is really not necessary as an end in itself. Either way, her two novels are well worth the read, with or without the aid of this book



Samson Blackwell

A great explication of Ayn's philosophy, and the primary reason I think she's an idiot.

Share your thoughts

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *