Reviews for Sankhya-Sara: A Treatise Of Sankhya Philosophy (1862)

The average rating for Sankhya-Sara: A Treatise Of Sankhya Philosophy (1862) based on 2 reviews is 2.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2009-10-06 00:00:00 Dorian Khouri With this one, Rand really jumped the shark for me. I was willing to try her philosophical essays in The Virtue of Selfishness, and I read a couple of her novels as well. But, the zealous condemning of whole branches of art and literature, because it didn't fit with her idea of what art should do? Condemning Dostoyevski and embracing James Bond? Not that there's anything wrong with Ian Flemming, but still. To make it clear what I'm arguing AGAINST, let me tell you the thesis Rand is arguing in this one: Art should glorify mankind and relish in his good qualities. It shouldn't attempt to make us empathetic towards those who aren't righteous, because the dregs of society aren't a worthy subject of literature. If that's what she wants to read, I am fine with that. But I like the dregs! The dregs are so much more interesting! Because it is the imperfect characters that make us work as readers and as writers. Through meditating on imperfection, we are forced to confront our own. And, we are forced to be empathetic (at least a little bit) to characters like Humbert Humbert and Raskolnikov (however you spell his name). So, while we can all look up to that bitter, womanizing 007 for his pimpjuice and his manliness (they may be synonyms, but I'm not going to ask the O.E.D. or Nelly to find out), we can ALSO read about less idealized characters and be reminded that people are complex and most have a combination of good and bad in them. In sum, I believe that different sorts of art speak to different sorts of people, and equally intelligent people can read for very different reasons. (I know, I know. I've made fun of Twilight in at least five book reviews. But, that's just because it's inconsistent, sappy and perverse . . damn! There I go again. What I meant to say is, it's all in good fun.) So, I think it is remarkably silly for anyone to spend a whole book arguing why one aesthetic sensibility is more valid or morally sound than another. Says the guy who recommended Killer Crabs. . . .

Review # 2 was written on 2010-04-25 00:00:00 Jay Marshall I know a lot of people sneer at Ayn Rand and her admirers. But one would think the one thing they'd acknowledge is that she was a writer who knew how to tell a story. *thinks of reviews she's seen.* OK, maybe not. But even if I'm not an uncritical devotee, I for one do love her style, do, with some reservations, love her novels. And I think the core of her argument here is absolutely true--you can't write fiction without revealing your philosophy and values--even if you try. Ayn Rand is the one who above all made me aware of that. I don't care if you're talking about Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment or Mercedes Lackey's fantasy books about talking horses--I can tell you a lot about the values and worldview of the authors only from reading their fiction--ditto about even the most trite work in pulp romance. That doesn't mean I agree with all Rand's evaluations. Sometimes I think she argued backward to validate her own idiosyncratic tastes, and certainly there are plenty of works of "naturalism" I prefer over works of "romanticism" (I personally found Hugo's Ninety-Three, which I read on her recommendation, overwrought.) But Rand gets at something basic though: that in a lot of the books we love--that what we look for is our values reflected back at us. That's what resonates, in both low and high literature. And we look for, crave for, heroes. And the lack of them is what makes so many modern works arid to me. I think that's why I, and many others, love science fiction and fantasy so much--they're the last refuge of the hero.