| | Interesting review, which I was not aware of. Murray focuses on some neglected facets of Rand's novels, but surprisingly enough, appears not to understand some key aspects of her philosophy like greed and selfishness, arguing that Rand's novels reveal not the latter but a harmonious society in which people live and work together. In the very last sentence of his review, Murray writes: "The utopia of her novels is not a utopia of greed. It is not a utopia of Nietzschean supermen. It is a utopia of human beings living together in Jeffersonian freedom."
Of course, Rand didn't advocate a utopia of Nietzschean supermen. Where did Murray get that idea? From the fact that she was influenced initially by some of Nietzsche's writings? That's throwing out the baby and keeping the bathwater! And, of course, by a "utopia of greed," Rand does not mean "greed" in the sense of sacrificing others to oneself. She means it in "the virtue of selfishness" sense. It is astonishing that Murray doesn't understand this, especially since he says he's read Atlas Shrugged several times, a book in which Part 3, Chapter 2 bears precisely that title, "The Utopia of Greed." It is within the pages of AS (especially Galt's speech) that Rand defends her view of selfishness and greed. It is practically impossible to read that book and not understand where she is coming from and what she means by these terms.
Murray wants to distinguish the sense of life expressed in the novel from her explicit philosophy, which suggests that there are other areas of her philosophy that he also doesn't understand. For example, he writes, "Objectivism's epistemology is based on the capacity of the human mind to perceive reality through reason, and the adamant assertion that reason is the only way to perceive reality. In Rand's view, notions of intuition or spiritual insight were hokum." Does Murray think there is some other way to perceive reality? The sarcastic way in which he characterizes her view of reason leads me to think that he probably does.
Murray likes the vision of life portrayed in AS, but doesn't consider Rand's philosophy to be an essential part of it, stating rather pointedly that the philosophy was developed after the novel. It is true that the philosophy was expanded after the novel, but it was already present and explicitly stated within the 60 pages of Galt's speech. I know it's a long speech, Charles, but you might consider reading it or at least paying attention when you do.
|
|
