jbgotmar

More oxford books @ www.OxfordeBook.com
RADICALS FOR CAPITALISM 193
to call it. She explained that she used the word as did the French philosopher
August Comte, to mean “self-sacrifi ce.” This usage was philosophically
precise, but potentially very confusing. Most of Rand’s critics took
the word in the more colloquial sense, as broadly meaning concern for
or caring about other people. This meant that Rand seemed to be attacking
even kindness itself. Once again, as she had with selfi shness, Rand
was redefi ning words to match her philosophical concepts. 8 It was not,
she thought, her fault that she was sometimes misunderstood, and in
any event she relished her iconoclastic persona. If her audience thought
she was violating all standards of human decency, so much the better.
Rand presented herself as a serious philosophical thinker and analyst
of American history, but could not fully escape her innate penchant for
provocation and emotional invective. Her high-minded discussion of
philosophy was punctured by colorful and occasionally bizarre metaphors.
She described contemporary intellectual discourse as “a sticky
puddle of stale syrup” and referred to “chickens hiding their heads in the
sand (‘ostrich’ is too big and dignifi ed a metaphor for this instance).” 9
Still, she effectively charged her readers with a world-historical task: her
New Intellectuals must challenge and replace the left-leaning supporters
of socialism and the welfare state.
For the New Intellectual drew a terrifi c blast from Sidney Hook in
the New York Times Book Review. Hook observed archly, “Despite the
great play with the word ‘Reason,’ one is struck by the absence of any
serious argument in this unique combination of tautology and extravagant
absurdity.” Like the reviewers of Atlas Shrugged, Hook focused as
much on Rand’s tone as her ideas. He granted that nonprofessionals
could write interesting work on philosophy, but not by “substituting
denunciation for analysis and mouthing slogans instead of considering
problems . . . The language of reason does not justify references to
economists with whom one disagrees as ‘frantic cowards,’ or to philosophers
as ‘intellectual hoodlums who pose as professors.’ This is the way
philosophy is written in the Soviet Union.” Hook could conceive of no
possible reason why Rand should be taken seriously as a thinker. Still,
his scorn did little to dent Rand’s popularity or the book’s sales. 10
Other reviewers made similarly vain attempts to stem the tide of
Objectivism. Gore Vidal seconded Hook’s opinion in Esquire, calling
Rand an unreadable novelist who “has a great attraction for simple
Fore more urdu books visit www.4Urdu.com