Ayn Rand, the militant atheist, taught that selfishness was a virture. Her sophomoric philosophy - objectivism - does not ring true with human nature, and no society could even be built upon it.
I agree completely. Although a "Fountainhead" fan in my younger years, somewhere along the line I thankfully came to realize that her humanistic point of view is immature at best.
I made the mistake of reading "Atlas Shrugged" in the dead of winter right after I'd been dumped. It was not an uplifting influence on me, to say the least : ) Ayn Rand did a great job of showing the disastrous consequences of socialism and big govt, but she takes it too far with her "selfishness as virtue" stance. Her political philosophy is fine, but her personal philosophy is repulsive. Sadly, many liberals I know think that all conservatives are Randians - not caring about anyone but themselves.
I'm too religious to accept the elements of Ayn's Objectivist philosophy that preach putting what's good for oneself above doing what's good for others. My strong sense of personal charity and Christian will to aid and protect those less fortune than I keep me from accepting such selfish reasoning at face value. However, I'm far too much of a believer in the validity and strength of the free-market economic system and capitalism in general to dismiss all her teaching out of hand. In some ways, the supply-side economic policies championed so eloquently and successfully by President Reagan in the 1980's owe a lot to the Randian philosophy.
Basically, I'm of two minds on the matter, unless I can pick and choose from Randian philosophy at will. Either way, Ayn is to be appreciated for her clear vision and strong (and quite lonely) battle against communism and it's inherent repressive tendencies at a time when so many good novelists and poets fell for it's false, deceptively humanistic promises (example: Eugene O'Neill).
With the spectres of Communism, National Socialism (fascism), and the New Deal society, her work was perfectly tailored in reason for the 20th century.
Unfortunately, her major novels were works of fiction, and must be dismissed as such, along with 1984, Brave New World, and every other melodrama that's based on one author's absurd fantasies of utopia and dystopia.
In Atlas Shrugged and to a lesser extent The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand perfected the novel, and anybody who wants to write a grander, more sweeping, all-encompassing novel, is really out of luck. They have to try a different genre.
However, as much as I like her novels and think they are unsurpassable, I find her writing on Objectivist philosophy unreadable. She's really the greatest novelist that's ever been. As for her philosophy by itself, it's just unreadable -- like reading Chomsky. He'd be dangerous if he could write.
Who is John Galt?