Book Description
In this panel discussion, four renowned contemporary thinkers -- Robert Poole, Robert James Bidinotto, Nathaniel Branden, and David Kelley -- bring their considerable talents and expertise to the discussion of the future of Objectivism as a philosophy and a movement, offering their views on the role Objectivism stands to play in society and individual life in coming years. ... Read more

Book Description
From the time Ayn Rand first set forth Objectivism as a philosophical system, a small set of ongoing questions has occupied the attention of people with an intellectual interest in her philosophy -- questions about core tenets; interpretations of certain principles; seeming conflicts and contradictions -- issues that resist easy resolution.

Perennial Questions of Objectivism is an advanced 6-CD course which examines five of these seminal questions. In each lecture, the issue is formulated, the arguments for each side put forward, and the strengths of the standard responses from Objectivist literature are considered and evaluated. Each session concludes with lessons on philosophical methodology that affect the discussion. The final lecture is reserved for a brief review integrating course material, followed by audience questions.

This ia an advanced course, presupposing a solid understanding of Rand's philosophical writings and the secondary literature on Objectivism. The course is accompanied by a study guide, which outlines each lecture in detail and suggests materials for further study.

Lectures include: "Reason and Emotion," "Virtue and Self-Interest," "Survival vs. Flourishing," "Government vs. Anarchy," "Free Will vs. Determinism," and "Concluding Thoughts and Questions." ... Read more

Book Description
The "Basic Principles of Objectivism" is Nathaniel Branden's original 20-lecture presentation of the basic principles of Objectivism -- the philosophy originated by novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand -- newly remastered onto 28 CDs. The complete set includes discussions on the role of philosophy, what is reason, the concept of God, self-esteem,the Objectivist ethics, reason and virtue, the economics of a free society, the benevolent sense of life, and much more. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Systematic Objectivism
Nathaniel Branden's course was the first systematic presentation of Objectivism and is an excellent review of (or introduction to) Objectivism. Branden is clear and engaging, although a bit melodramatic at times. He talks in detail about some neglected but useful ideas, including associational thinking and social metaphysics. He also covers a fair amount of psychology, most of which can be found in his later works. ... Read more

Book Description
A pamphlet that explains the need for a rational philosophical foundation in applying such concepts as mental health and mental illness and in diagnosing and treating the psychological problems of patients. ... Read more

Book Description
Freedom, Reason, and the Polis ... Read more

Book Description
This book takes a middle ground between the topical and historical approaches to Western ethics. The chapters are topically arranged, but preserve the flow of history in two ways. First, each chapter explains the historical development of the topic under consideration. Second, most chapters focus on a specific famous philosopher who championed a particular tradition, such as Aristotle, Locke, or Kant, and the chapters are chronologically ordered based on when these key philosophers lived. ... Read more

Book Description
This digital document is an article from The Psychological Record, published by Psychological Record on September 22, 1999. The length of the article is 7108 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.

From the supplier: The author examines the framework for understanding human expressivity. Topics include behaviorism, methodology, and cultural psychology.

Citation Details
Title: Q METHODOLOGY AS PROCESS AND CONTEXT IN INTERPRETIVISM, COMMUNICATION, AND PSYCHOANALYTIC PSYCHOTHERAPY RESEARCH.
Author: Irvin Goldman
Publication: The Psychological Record (Refereed)
Date: September 22, 1999
Publisher: Psychological Record
Volume: 49Issue: 4Page: 589

Distributed by Thomson Gale ... Read more

Product Description
"Ayn Rand embodied three extraordinary qualities: philosophic genius, heroic rationality and passionate man-worship. The result was the outstanding figure of the modern era--perhaps, of any era.These two lectures portray the essence of a world-historical figure who lived life with the passionate intensity and full consciousness of her greatest fictional heroes. (A printed chronology of Ayn Rand's life is included.)" ... Read more

Product Description
Audio book on 6 cassette tapes. 7 hours. Clamshell packaging. ... Read more

Book Description
Who needs philosophy? Ayn Rand's answer:Everyone.

This collection of essays was the last work planned by Ayn Rand before her death in 1982. In it, she summarizes her view of philosophy and deals with a broad spectrum of topics. According to Ayn Rand, the choice we make is not whether to have a philosophy but which one to have: rational, conscious, and therefore practical; or contradictory, unidentified, and ultimately lethal. Written with all the clarity and eloquence that have placed Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy in the mainstream of American thought, these essays range over such basic issues as education, morality, censorship, and inflation to prove that philosophy is the fundamental force in all our lives. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (40)

Ayn Rand 's Lectures/essays Put Into Print
Ayn Rand was no doubt influential.I still have friends ask me if I have read her "stuff" and we often debate the merits of her arguments.Like most philosophers, one does not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater - this is also true in Rand's case; however, she has left herself quite a legacy of disciples.Her novels have sparked movies as she weaves a super-egoism and capitalistic outlook showing that man's great end is man himself.

"Philosophy: Who Needs It", is really a compilation of her lectures/essays, etc., Ayn makes both insightful, valid comments often followed by simplistic misconceptions and logical errors.She really is a mixed bag.This will lead to both a fun, witty, and smart lecture as well as a banal, long winded one at the same time.For example in her lecture at West Point, with the same title as the book, makes witty comments quoting well known philosophical sayings and propositions that almost everyone takes for granted, to make a fine point that everyone in one way or another does philosophy and many a culture's belief(s) are due to the powerful ideas of those, both good and bad, philosophies that came before us.

Next, in the same breath, she can overly simplify the theories of Kant, calling his ideas a "booby trap" that once it is figured out, it is easily dismantled.Well, Ayn, maybe not.Why I have problems with much of Kant's work and his conclusions, there is a lot to be admired and that is still very sound even today.Like Ayn, Kant is a mixed bag.Ayn's Objectivism, combined with Aristotelian and super-egoism thought.One will discover positive thoughts such as realism, emphasis on reason and objectivity of truth.

But she also commits negative erros such as a materialism that really is the opposite of the same coin as the theories of Marx she so abhors.She prefers mind over matter, but in a naturalistic world that she professes, the mind is reduced to matter.Her arguments against altruism is often mis-guided and ultimately fails under her own weight of giving oneself for the greater good., because she likewise seems to assert an absolute moral duty.Instead of reviewing every Rand book I have read, I have jumbled my thoughts into this one book.She covers most of her ideas in these different lectures and if one finds an interest, they can get these same thoughts elsewhere with more depth in her other books. If one cannot take her, then this is a good book to end with as well.

What Can One Person Do?
This is the title of Chapter 17. Chapter 1 is that one that got me hooked on this book as it offered a clear structure of philosophical concepts and practical applications of them that we all experience. My father complains that he doesn't have the vocabularly to debate the socialists we all have to endure. I suggested to him that he has the vocabulary, but not the structure and gave him this book. I hope he reads it. I would suggest everyone read it before they read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged, now I have to read them again! Getting back to Chapter 17, part of the genius of Ayn Rand is her patience and how she stresses the absolute necessity of being able to communicate complex abstractions in common language. It's not all easy reading, but it's fascinating.

A great companion book while you're taking a college philosophy class!
It's amazing how much is packed into this one amazing book!In it, Ayn Rand gives answers to questions like:

1) Why philosophy is a crucial need of human life;
2) How to decipher what the other philosophers you're reading are really saying;
3) Why other so many students have no interest in philosophy or ideas;
4) What Immanuel Kant is really trying to accomplish;
5) What philosophy behind monetary inflation;

and many more.If you're taking or have taken a philosophy course and were completely mystified or turned off by it, this is a great book to help you see why philosophy is so important to your life, what modern philosophy has to say, and therefore why the world is in the state it's in.

Applying Objectivism
When discussing philosophy, I know of few better ways to get people worked up than by bringing up the name of Ayn Rand. Rand's personal history and her philosophy of Objectivism rarely fail to stir people's passions, whether in praise or denigration, an impressive feat for a philosopher. (How many people do you know who get worked up over Russell Kirk, for example?) That doesn't mean her philosophy is necessarily any better than that of lesser-known intellectuals, but when one considers the difficulty intellectuals face in getting the public to even discuss philosophy, Rand's success with Atlas Shrugged merits admiration for her ability to get her ideas into the public sphere, regardless of what one may think of her ideas.

Philosophy: Who Needs It is a collection of essays, speeches, and letters written by Rand in the 1960s and 1970s. Rand died before it could be completed, and so it is an anthology rather than a focused work.If the reader is looking for a book that will actually answer the title question, he might be well-advised to look elsewhere, as after the initial essay, Rand moves on to other topics. That initial essay (actually the commencement speech Rand gave to the West Point class of 1974) provides a very good overview of what philosophy is and why it is important to not only have one, but to consciously understand what it is.

The real value of the book, however, is in the later essays in which Rand comments on the state of society and her prescriptions for what should be done about it. As the United States has changed in many ways since the writing of those essays, reading them allows us to examine how well Rand's Objectivism did in assessing the problems of that time. In some areas, she appears quite prescient, while in others it appears that her assessments were not particularly accurate predictors of the future. Reading her views on events that are now part of the recent past are also interesting and entertaining because they remind the reader of many of the problems we did face at that time, and how certain patterns seem to repeat themselves in human history.

The essays are all relatively short, and Rand's prose is cutting and brief, laying out her views crisply and concisely. There are no John Galt-style speeches to be had in the book, a significant virtue as it allows the reader to focus on what Rand is saying rather than getting lost in the details. It is unlikely the book will convince many readers of the truth of Rand's philosophy in itself, but for those seeking more information about Objectivism will find the work a trove of information, as it shows precisely how Rand applied Objectivism to various situations.

If you're looking for simple entertainment, this book is definitely not for you. But if you're looking for examples of practical application of philosophy or just want to learn more about where Rand was coming from, Philosophy: Who Needs It is an excellent reference.

Good Psychotherapy
Philosophy who needs it - EVERYONE.A great antidote to the prevelant attitude of subjective morality that is so rampant today.Rand is a very good writer, explaining complex ideas in a concise, straight-foward way.She is great at berating the apathy of those who simply will not examine the foundations of their beliefs and/or behavior.I laughed out loud many times thinking of my futile attempts at meaningful debate with people who float through life according to unexamined cliches and norms - shifting their values willy-nilly.I laughed thinking of how so many people simply refuse to DECIDE anything.Her critique of "altruism" and Kant is hilarious and it almost brought tears to my eyes reading what I've thought for so long (expressed by someone so well).

As a freshman undergrad I was in a philosophy class on Marxism (well, know your enemies right?), with an openly Marxist professor.One day Rand came up in a discussion and an openly Marxist student went on a vague ten minute rant against her and the professor was giddy.Thats when I went and started reading her (fiction mostly) and I can certainly understand why these Marxist fools expressed so much ire for her.

To sum up, a short read packed full of wonderful ideas wonderfully presented.Certainly worth the short investment of time required (but of course, those who need it most probably won't like it very much). ... Read more

Book Description
"A fascinating and timely treatment of the objectivism versus relativism debates occurring in philosophy of science, literary theory, the social sciences, political science, and elsewhere."--Choice ... Read more

Customer Reviews (5)

Probing
Equipped with a synoptic point of view, Bernstein has long worked the difficult terrain between continental philosophy and its more positivist Anglo-American counterpart. Here he traces what he believes is a key movement away from the broad modern tradition characterized by Descartes and the perennial search for philosophical foundations. Not always self-consciously, this emerging movement (Gadamer, Rorty, et. al.) rejects the Cartesian search for absolutes as ultimately futile; yet refuses to accept relativism as the only remaining recourse. The book's burden is to show how a viable `third way' is in fact emerging from the overlaps in the movement. His discussion is stimulating, ranging from Aristotle to Kuhn to Habermas, Kant and Arendt. No doubt he has put his finger on an acutely felt issue of our skeptical age, one that lurks ubiquitously in the background of more narrowly framed topics. Yet, how effectively this third way manages to extricate itself from the either-or of objectivism vs. relativism is up to the individual reader to judge. Frankly, I was disappointed, feeling that the results were unduly vague and pointing in the direction of a sophisticated brand of sociological relativism. Be that as it may, the text includes not a single mention of post-modernism, which may date the work in the eyes of some. Still, the meta-philosophical issue Bernstein addresses can be discussed quite apart from those specific to post-moderns and their recourse to outright relativism. As always, Bernstein remains an important interpreter of international trends and is well worth the read.

The book offers no answer
Richard Bernstein's book suffers from one fault: he offers no answers. Moreover, he does not even try to offer answers.
Bernstein starts by saying "There has to be some way which is beyond objectivism and and relativism". Then he goes on to examine the works of other philosophers, saying what he is for and against. But then, in the end, he offers no solution. Not only does he NOT tell us what this way "which has got to be" is, but he never draws conclusions from his readings of other philosophers. Like a film, which does not want to tell the viewer what to think, Bernstein will not say much. The book, in the end, turns out to be a REVIEW of OTHER THINKERS on the subject of going beyond objectivism and relativism. So one gets some good summaries of other thinkers on a subject with little else. That is why other reviewers of his book, in no way, state what Bernstein believes.

As a book report, it gets 3 stars. As a book with an idea, it gets one.

His essays, in other books,seem to suffer from the same fault.

Toward a Deeper Understanding of Understanding
Richard Bernstein is one of the most balanced and deeply thoughtful Americans doing philosophy today.Thoroughly at home in several different schools of contemporary thought, he writes with exceptional clarity and generosity of spirit.This book is one of his most important.At a time when most Americans seem convinced that objectivism and relativism are our only options and that if objectivism is ultimately incoherent nothing remains but a relativism that ultimately makes conversation impossible, this book can be a life-saver!Respectful of what the physical and life sciences can do and contribute, Bernstein makes clear the limits of their methods and the reasonableness of turning to alternative ways of knowing and thinking for other realms of meaning, value, and reality.A careful reading of this book could save everybody years of wandering up and down blind alleys.This is philosophy written to communicate with others and to be helpful, rather than to inflate the author's ego and display sophistication. It can change the way you inhabit the world and put your feet on a path that takes you in the direction of hope and solidarity.

persuasive enough!
A perfect one-sided story carefully equipped with opinions of heavy-weighted thinkers elaborately designed to persuade, but one-sided nevertheless.

Required reading for contemporary philosophy!
Are we the measure of the all things or is truth independent of our beliefs and wishes?Bernstein begins tackling this question by observing that the real debate is not between absolutism and relativism butbetween...(well, read the title!)He claims that while few (philosophersanyway) believe that truth is eternal, many at least believe that it is notmerely about our own subjectivity.But the real question for Bernstein isWhy all the fuss?Is there a certain tone of anxiety present in thediscussion? Bernstein says that indeed there is and it's due to conflictsin concern between the need to believe in a stable reality and the fearthat rheified cultural schemes can become the basis of intellectual andsocial tyrany- Bernstein calls this a "pracical-moral concern"and manages to discuss it without presuming that there are no serioustheoretical issues involved.I'm an absolutist myself (what aphilosophical dinosaur I am!) and I found this book so enthralling that Iengaged in frquent, feverish marginal annotating (and in my schools, youdidn't buy the texts so you DID NOT mark them up).Whatever yourphilosophical persuasion, this book should bring some illumination alongwith many happy moments of reading.At this price, it's a bargain. GET IT! ... Read more

Book Description
Ayn Rand presented Objectivism as a philosophy of reason. But is it? That is the question Scott Ryan seeks to answer in this careful examination of the Objectivist epistemology and its alleged sufficiency as the philosophical foundation of a free and prosperous commonwealth. Sorting painstakingly through Rand's writings on the subject, Mr. Ryan concludes that the epistemology of Objectivism is incoherent and debases both the concept and the practice of rationality. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (11)

Amounts to A Critique of Originality Per Se
I am an Objectivist.

Other reviewers seemed to promise that this book would provide at least a chance at an exhilarating bit of "philosophical detection," at most a real challenge of my views. But I could not get through it. I gave up after the foreword, intro, and first chapter and a half. I encountered enough flaws in that short span of this book to warrant putting it down and proceeding to write this review. I shall state my findings, and you can decide whether my reaction was justified.

Perhaps some other Objectivist will find the time and patience to read this whole book and review its entirety. The main barrier to a full critique of this book is its labyrinth of irrelevant verbiage. One searches diligently for the real arguments, only to find them few and far between.

This book is full of context dropping, equivocations, and between-the-lines ad hominem attacks. In fact, after a while one is relieved to find a complete sentence that is both understandable and unequivocally true, especially as regards Miss Rand and her philosophy.

But one technique deserves special mention because it is subtle, but it is found literally dozens of times in just the fragment of this book that I read. I shall call it "the fallacy of the future proof." In this book Mr. Ryan often advances some postulate without proof by claiming that he will demonstrate its truth later. Based on the sections that I read, I find it highly doubtful that he attempts to prove all of these arbitrary assertions. And some claims are made without even a promise of future proof. For example, on page 38 he states: "Rand's reply to `Prof. D' is unsatisfactory but will not concern us here." This statement is not made in the context of a side issue; Mr. Ryan asserts that Prof. D's statement refutes some point of Objectivist epistemology, but then he simply dismisses Miss Rand's reply as unsatisfactory without support or explanation.

Now let us go through the sections I read.

There is nothing much to note in the foreword except various subtle ad hominem attacks.

The introduction consists mostly of arbitrary assertions with copious promises that proof will be forthcoming. First it tries to reconcile Mr. Ryan's contention that Objectivism is insignificant to serious philosophers with the fact that he has written a 416-page book that purports to be a serious philosophical refutation of it. I found his reasoning incomprehensible, but I did not spend much time on it because I was eager to find the real "meat" of his arguments against Objectivism. After that, the introduction boldly asserts a great many supposed deficiencies of Objectivism and promises that this book will prove them all in due time.

One such assertion is that some of Miss Rand's ideas flow not from reason but from a "fear of religion." Astute readers may recognize this as a case of the "genetic fallacy." On page 16 Mr. Ryan accuses Miss Rand of attempting to "combine a more or less `religious' outlook on life and humanity with an explicit philosophy of secularism, materialism, nominalism, empiricism, and naturalism." By "more or less `religious' outlook" he evidently means her views of man as heroic and her "benevolent universe premise." But these can hardly be called religious in the sense implied here, and the Objectivist ethics is strictly antithetical in essence to nearly all religious belief systems. Here Mr. Ryan is accusing Miss Rand of covertly pilfering ideas from religion, but the opposite is really true: Most religions (especially Judaism and Christianity), when practiced in modern western cultures, must smuggle in ideas that their moral systems strictly proscribe such as individual rights and the value and efficacy of man's mind. And anyone who knows much about Objectivism will find the claims that it is materialist, nominalist, and empiricist to be incredible.

Mr. Ryan also briefly describes his own personal philosophy in the introduction. It is worth repeating here because it supposedly forms the philosophical foundation of this entire book. He states: "I am a theologically liberal panentheist, in the same philosophical camp as Spinoza, Royce, and Timothy L.S. Sprigge and spiritually at home among Emerson, Thoreau, and Whitman; I share Blanshard's essential views of reason; and among traditional religions my primary loyalties lie with Judaism."

The main premise of chapter one seems to be that Miss Rand failed to understand the "true" problem of universals. Mr. Ryan resolutely maintains that it is, and can only be, an ontological (i.e. metaphysical) problem. But anyone familiar enough with Objectivist epistemology should easily see through this argument. Miss Rand was fully aware that the classic formulation was metaphysical. This formulation, cut off from epistemology, entails the long-entrenched realist/nominalist dichotomy. Miss Rand saw what was needed to escape this dilemma, namely an epistemology that describes how human concepts actually refer to aspects of reality. Their referents are not Platonic archetypes or some less extreme substitute such as essences, nor are concepts arbitrary human constructions as the nominalists and conceptualists claim. Concepts are essential units of human understanding that refer to reality in complex ways. The fundamental question is not, What real entities do concepts refer to? That is a loaded question. The only possible answers are "things" (realism) and "nothing" (conceptualism and nominalism). The fundamental question is really, How do concepts refer to reality? It is obvious that a proper answer to this question renders the classic problem of universals of no importance. It is also obvious that this is an epistemological question.

The onus of proof falls on realists for the existence of so-called universals, and they generally attempt to prove their point by invoking the false realist/nominalist dichotomy (which is exactly how Mr. Ryan, a self-avowed realist, proposes to do so). Miss Rand, by refuting nominalism with her epistemology, also thoroughly undercut the case for realism.

Objectivist epistemology simply assumes that the problem of universals was originally formulated based on a misunderstanding of the nature of abstractions and how they refer to reality. By explaining how abstractions really do refer to reality, it validates this assumption and simultaneously escapes the classic dilemma. Miss Rand's solution was not realist, nominalist, or conceptualist. It did not even set out to answer the same question that those ontological views address. It was an entirely new system, Objectivism. What Mr. Ryan denounces in chapter one as its naïveté is precisely its novelty, so it is ironic that he simultaneously denounces its claim to originality.

Readers familiar with Objectivist epistemology may find it incredible that this book, which supposedly aims at refuting it, does not advance any serious attempt to demonstrate that Miss Rand's formulation of the problem was logically flawed. It merely postulates the classic formulation as beyond question and focuses on the fact that Miss Rand's solution does not conform to it while simultaneously suggesting that her solution was not really novel. (These two attacks are obviously mutually contradictory. If Miss Rand was copying some academic philosopher, she would have had to address the old ontological formulation.) One hesitates to ascribe such a barrage of slipshod quarrels to a lack of philosophical acumen on Mr. Ryan's part, but the only other alternative is to suggest, especially in light of the transparent tone of revulsion against Miss Rand evinced by this book, that Mr. Ryan's is simply lashing out against her. In this regard the key statement of chapter one, the one that may shed some light on Mr. Ryan's motivation, is found on page 23: "Before one announces to the world that with half an hour of introspection one has solved a philosophical problem of some two thousand years' standing, it is advisable to make sure one has correctly understood the problem one is supposedly trying to solve." It should be clear to anyone who understands Objectivist epistemology that Miss Rand, in full possession of the relevant facts, deliberately formulated the problem of universals a certain way; yet Mr. Ryan advances no stronger argument against her novel formulation than that it breaks with a tradition that spans two millennia. Without any serious discussion of her unique solution (but not for a lack of verbiage), he comes across in the end as simply incredulous of her audacity.

It is also worth noting that Mr. Ryan's remarks in chapter one are directed against Miss Rand's extemporaneous utterances transcribed and published posthumously from a workshop discussion. Mr. Ryan sets out here to prove that Miss Rand did not clearly understand the problem of universals, but not by quoting her official statements on the matter. Instead, he chooses material that, in IOE, is prefaced with remarks to the effect that it is just extemporaneous discussion with specific people in a specific context. Though he claims, on page 25, that he "shall therefore not base any arguments directly on it at this point," he goes on to ignore that promise and to raise arguments against various word choices and turns of phrase.

The first half of chapter two is more of the same. We get more equivocation, context dropping, promises of future support of arbitrary assertions, blatant misrepresentations of the nature of Objectivism, and then a dogmatic reaffirmation of the inescapability of the realist/nominalist dichotomy. On page 41, under the heading "Is There a `Third Way'?" he concludes, yet again: "But in fact, the problem as she has posed it is insoluble. There are precisely two basic solutions to the genuine problem of universals: realism and nominalism." This is where I stopped reading.

Mr. Ryan obviously either does not understand Miss Rand's views or else deliberately misrepresents them in nearly all cases. But the puzzle of his motivation remains. Suppose that Mr. Ryan had even a rudimentary understanding of Objectivist epistemology along with what he considered to be good reasons for thinking that it is false. If that were the case, the arguments in this book would be in a whole different league than they are. We would find Mr. Ryan attempting to construct an apposite refutation of whatever deficiencies that he supposed existed. Instead we find an elaborate insinuation of Miss Rand's philosophical naiveté. On the other hand, what if Mr. Ryan simply did not understand Objectivist epistemology? In that case, assuming he was intellectually honest, we would not expect him to write a book attempting to refute it. Rather, we would expect him to either ignore it or investigate it in order to determine its truth or falsehood. That only leaves two possibilities: (1) Mr. Ryan does understand Objectivist epistemology but opposes it not because he has good arguments against it but for some other reason. (2) Mr. Ryan does not understand Objectivist epistemology and has some reason for opposing it without even trying to understand it. This book's introduction provides another strong clue to this puzzle.

On page 17, quite out of the blue, Mr. Ryan suddenly quotes: "'The time is long past,' Royce remarked over a hundred years ago, `when really intelligent thinkers sought to do anything outside of intimate relations to the history of thought. It still happens, indeed, that even in our day, some lonesome student will occasionally publish a philosophical book that he regards as entirely revolutionary, as digging far beneath all that thought has ever yet accomplished, and as beginning quite afresh the labors of human reflection.... [Y]ou will always find them either ignorant of the history of the very subject that they propose to revolutionize or incapable of reading this history intelligently...."

Here is this book's underlying premise stated plainly. In this book Mr. Ryan is quite transparent in his deep repugnance toward Ayn Rand and Objectivism. Moreover, on careful consideration we can see that he consistently rails against various aspects of her individualism. Mr. Ryan seems to hate Miss Rand because she had the audacity to denounce the entire field of academic philosophy, significantly ignore the work of her contemporaries, and singlehandedly devise a truly original philosophy of her own. She broke established scholarly traditions. She wrote in plain English and only used philosophical terminology when necessary. She believed philosophy was a province of the masses and addressed them with her writings. She presented her philosophy chiefly in works of fiction. She was an authentic creator of something authentically new. Objectivism sprung, not gradually from the annals of academic philosophy, but spontaneously from the brilliant mind of one person, Ayn Rand.

Of course, it is true (statistically speaking) that most significant academic accomplishments, especially in the physical sciences, are not achieved in such isolation. But, contrary to Royce's assertion, that fact does not constitute proof that all truly original work automatically evinces incompetence. Nonetheless, the main thrust of Mr. Ryan's arguments generally comes down to the fact that Miss Rand did not do things the way everybody else does them.

A bit further back in the introduction, on page 15, Mr. Ryan states: "Moreover, despite her railings against other philosophers, Rand herself was (as former Objectivist George Walsh somewhere puts it) not much of a reader of primary sources." He simply fails to recognize that Miss Rand *was* a primary source.

Mr. Ryan's critique of Objectivism, so far as I read it, simply amounts to the claim that it cannot be true because it is original.

Very good - and NOT about Rand's "life"
I'm bewildered by the suggestion that this book takes a derisive tone toward Ayn Rand or tries to tear apart her entire life. In fact it treats her far more respectfully than she probably deserves, and its sole focus is on her philosophy - and only on a part of that (epistemology and, to a lesser extent, ethics).

Author Scott Ryan specifically states at several points that he likes some of Rand's fiction and is himself politically libertarian. He repeatedly acknowledges that some of her *personal* opinions reflected genuine insight. But he doesn't think her *philosophy* is sufficient to carry the weight of those insights; following her philosophy by itself is therefore a recipe for trouble.

This all seems perfectly straightforward to me, and the vast majority of Ryan's criticisms hit their philosophical marks. (I don't agree with all of them but they're carefully thought out - generally much more so than Rand's own views were. Ryan is also a very good writer.) I cannot imagine how someone who actually *read* the book could come away with the impression that Ryan devotes much attention to Rand's personal life. This book is not in any way about Rand the person.

Nor can I understand how anyone who *read* the book could think Ryan sees no need for a philosophical foundation for a free society. In fact Ryan says right up front that he thinks absolute idealism *is* the proper philosophical foundation for a free society. As Ryan himself states repeatedly (and I agree), the reader need not accept his views in order to find his criticisms useful. But I don't see how he could have insisted any more clearly that the free society *does* need a philosophical foundation (and that Objectivism isn't it).

Of course, if those comments are just part of an Objectivist attempt to taint the book's reputation, they become much more understandable. But in that case, they're really arguments for *reading* the book, aren't they?

Ryan's Corruption of Objectivity
I bought this book with the hope of descovering an interesting and innovative view of Ayn Rand. But after reading it, and researching Ryan on the web, I can find no reason to recommend this book to anyone, novice or advanced practioner.

Rather than a critical analysis of the work of a great author and philosopher, Ryan seems intent on anihilating every aspect of her life, or as a previous writer coments, deconstructing Ayn Rand. Even more, I found his mocking, disrespectful tone toward Ayn Rand to be unnecessary and childish, and his use of the omniscient voice--in replication of Rand--to be without the requisite talent, ability, and great experience she had in the world.

Further more, he attempts to defeat Rand by use of the negative, which I find very revealing in a psychological sense--one choosing to spend so much time trying to expose negatives rather than creating a positive vision of one's own. Also, by not identifying with her fight against the prevailing culture, he doesn't seem to understand what she was trying to do in the world, and doesn't understand the entirely hostile culture she had to fight against and the enormity of the battle, something that would effect anyone at anytime.

Yes, Ayn Rand made mistakes, and when you accept that, one can appreciate the world-moving vision she gave the world, and her unrelenting defense of the individual's right to live his or her life by their own rational vision. Like many libertarians, Ryan refuses to accept the need for a philosophical foundation for a free society, and his attempted defense of altruism by defining it, as helping others, shows a reluctance to understand what Ayn Rand was saying in regards to altruism as the foundation for communism, fascism, and religious fanaticism, as we see with Al Queda.

One of the big problems with this book, is that Ryan is very hard to understand. Unlike Ayn Rand, who writes clearly and distinctly, Ryan lacks a concrete and graphic style, andtends to use abstract terms that are open to different interpretations so as to leave the reader, many times, not sure of what he is referring to.

Then, too, ironically like many orthodox Objectivists to whom he refers to contemptuously, he tends to conceptualize, not from the facts of reality, but from his own need to prove Ayn Rand or wrong, and thus misinterprets much of what she says. This comes to light with his treatment of Ayn Rand's essay, "The Metaphysical Versus The Man Made." Here, Ryan misinterprets what she says, offers his own version of her words, and then goes on to argue his point, using his misinterpretation rather than what Ayn Rand was saying.

Along with this Ryan states that Ayn Rand often reified her views of the world, meaning she transformed abstracts into concretes--one's conceptualizations of events into metaphysical concretes. I find no problem with this assessment, but then so what?--Ryan repeatedly does the exact same thing in his writings, especially with Ayn Rand, going as far as to refer to her as a "looter and a speed freek" in one of his comments on Amazon, as well as to make undeserved and contemptuous comments about people associated with the traditional school of Objectivism.

Furthermore, I have to be skeptical of anyone who leaves out the benevolent and very positive aspects of Ayn Rand's life and philosophy. She was a giant of a women who achieved great things in the world, and blazed a frontier path for all those who want to live in the world. To Ryan, it is all negativity, and he oftens falls into the trap of comparing the philosophy of Objectivism with some of the less than positive behavior of people who practice the philosophy of Objectivism, two very different concepts. As with all great social movements that challenge the world, people make mistakes, and people are wounded and damaged, and Objectivism is no exception. Yet, in Ryan's view there is no room for acclaim and respect, nor does he give space to the great amount of independent people, who live their own lives in the way they see fit, but yet have enormous respect and admiration for Ayn Rand.

Excellent philosophical critique
What bizarre reviews appear on this page! If they are genuine reviews at all, they have surely been submitted by disgruntled Objectivists who don't want this book to be read.

No wonder, either. Mr Ryan has delivered a powerhouse philosophical critqique of Objectivism in this work. I'm not at all surprised that Rand's followers are having trouble refuting it (in part because it's written well over their heads; Ryan is considerably more expert in real philosophy than Rand was, let alone her acolytes).

Ryan demonstrates consistently, time after time, that Rand's explicit philosophy depended implicitly on unacknowledged premises that were at odds with it. In summary, and with an irony not at all lost on Ryan, Objectivism itself is a huge "stolen concept."

Ryan is not Rand's enemy; on the contrary, he expressly states that he enjoys much of her fiction and agrees broadly with her political philosophy. He just doesn't think she was much of an epistemologist. Any unbiased reader of this book will come to agree, after watching Ryan deconstruct and decimate her theories on page after page of careful exposition and analysis.

There aren't very many competent philosophical critiques of Objectivism in print. This is one of the best. Its detractors either don't know what they're talking about, or just don't want you to read it, or (most likely) both. Don't let them turn you away.

Scott Ryan Cuts Rand Down to Size with Style to Spare
(...) Scott Ryan, previously best known for his work "In Refutation of Newton, A Mathematician's Assault on Calculus," steps into the world of philosophy swinging full on. His critiques are incisive but vitriolic, and in the end I got the feeling that Scott Ryan holds a bitter grudge against Ayn Rand, or maybe just Russians in general (maybe still a bit mad about Stalingrad perhaps?)? Who knows? Overall it's a good book if you like to speak ill of the dead.

-Ray ... Read more

Book Description
This brief text assists students in understanding Ayn Rand's philosophy and thinking so that they can more fully engage in useful, intelligent class dialogue and improve their understanding of course content. Part of the "Wadsworth Philosophers Series," (which will eventually consist of approximately 100 titles, each focusing on a single "thinker" from ancient times to the present), ON AYN RAND is written by a philosopher deeply versed in the philosophy of this key thinker. Like other books in the series, this concise book offers sufficient insight into the thinking of a notable philosopher better enabling students to engage the reading and to discuss the material in class and on paper. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (18)

Mediocre Introduction to Rand
Allan Gotthelf is a philosopher and a follower of the ideas of philosopher/novelist Ayn Rand. He is associated with the Ayn Rand Institute, which advocates the "Official Objectivism" of Leonard Peikoff.

Generally speaking, ON AYN RAND is reliable introduction to Rand's thought. On the other hand, it's of the strangest books I've read in terms of its "construction."The endnotes take up an unusually large percentage of the book.For example, chapter 4 is 5 pages long and the endnotes almost 3 full pages.In addition, much valuable information that is contained in the endnotes belongs in the text.The discussion of her first novel, WE THE LIVING, takes up one paragraph in the text, but there are three paragraph length endnotes that tell you much more about the novel.This is highly unusual for any book, particularly an introduction.It's almost as if the book was put together from two separate sources.And, although the book is 97 pages long, the section on Rand's politics is one page long!Simply put, this is not a book that will grab the attention of those new to Rand or those who know her mostly through her novels and politics.

What is most troubling about the book is its partisan tone, which at times approaches agitprop.There is not a single word of criticism of Rand, and Gotthelf's praise is overboard.We read about the "poignant and beautiful lines" of one of her books, how her theories are "remarkable" and "original," and how her theory of concept formation would change the world if only we would let it into our heart.There is also a deliberate attempt to downplay the influence of Nietzsche (or any other thinker) on her thought.But what I found most irritating is that 100% of the time she is referred to as "Ayn Rand."A huge flaw is the failure to mention any books on Ayn Rand not written by Official Objectivists.Indeed, when he mentions in a footnote that Barbara Branden wrote a memoir/biography of Rand, he doesn't even name the book (although he insists that it's riddled with errors).He claims that there is no evidence that Rand's philosophy professors in Russia influenced her - an obvious reference to Chris Sciabarra's book AYN RAND: THE RUSSIAN RADICAL - but he doesn't mention Sciabarra or the book's title.The bibliography mentions only books by Rand, with the exception of Peikoff's OBJECTIVISM: THE PHILOSOPHY OF AYN RAND.

Although Rand has been the subject of considerable interest of late, there is still no completely satisfactory introduction to her thought.The best introduction remains Tibor Machan's AYN RAND.

A good gloss-over of Rand
This book is good for someone who wants to understand Rand but does not yet want to dive into the endless books by and on Rand.It is a good overview of her philosophy and life, but certainly not complete.

Those liking this book will also like "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Leonard Piekoff

A good short summary of Rand's errors
Allan Gotthelf has written a decent little book here. Aside from a couple of annoying verbal habits (e.g. always writing out Ayn Rand's full name every time he refers to her) and a couple of unpleasantnesses (e.g. some nasty remarks about the Brandens and the existing secondary literature on Objectivism), this is actually a pretty well-written and well-organized brief overview of Rand's thought. (Of course -- heh heh! -- you shouldn't expect to understand it all _right away_. It takes _many, many years of serious study_ to learn that Rand was absolutely correct in every single particular.)

The presentation is orderly, if occasionally skimpy. Gotthelf devotes a couple of short, fawning chapters (well, all the chapters are short -- and fawning, too, come to think of it) to Rand's sinless life and then proceeds to take the reader on a guided tour through the main features of her thought in metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Political theory gets short shrift, but that's okay; while it was undoubtedly the strongest (or at any rate the least vulnerable) portion of Rand's philosophy, it was also by far the least original (which, actually, is _why_ it was the least vulnerable). Aesthetics doesn't get much attention either, which is sort of too bad, but maybe Gotthelf doesn't want to give away too many of Rand's propaganda techniques.

I especially enjoyed the tour; it's always a pleasure to encounter a book that one has completely refuted before it was even published. The reviewer from Austin is right: Rand _wasn't_ really a very good philosopher. And Gotthelf's accurate-but-uncritical summary of Rand has been a tremendous help to me in rewriting, for publication, my critique of Rand's epistemology (still available in an earlier draft form on my website); he confirms and recommits every error I pick on her for, and may even introduce one or two new ones of his own. (For example, at one point he seems to imply that the "primacy of existence" premise commits him to materialism.)

You may well imagine that critics of Objectivism (of whom I am obviously one) receive lots of silly e-mails telling them they've gotten this or that point entirely wrong (usually from people who don't seem to be able to read all that well themselves). So I'm happy to say that at numerous points I have been able to use Gotthelf's handy little text to confirm (yet again) that I was reading Rand correctly after all, and that she was just as wrong as I said she was. Now that I've taken account of his work in rewriting my own, the result is a much clearer critique. (Which just goes to show, I suppose, that Objectivists and libertarians _can_ cooperate in a good cause.)

And I'm not kidding about the quality of Gotthelf's work; this _is_ a fairly well-executed introduction, although it will probably be a bit hard to read for anyone completely unfamiliar with Rand's work. For the most part (but not entirely!) this little book reads like a precis of Leonard Peikoff's _Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand_ (which is, by the way, one of the few items of "secondary Objectivist literature" about which Gotthelf has anything good to say). As such it will make a helpful companion to that volume, whether Peikoff likes it or not. (And as I hinted, if you read carefully you'll find a few points at which Gotthelf disagrees with Peikoff and the ARI mainstream. For example, did Rand think her ethic was founded on an "axiom"? Compare Gotthelf's remarks with David Harriman's in the _Journals of Ayn Rand_.)

It will also be helpful to anyone -- Randie or otherwise -- who wants a quick and dirty summary of what Objectivism is all about. Love it or hate it, here it is.

All of Rand's Sins, None of Her Virtues
Gotthelf's book is probably the worst introduction to Rand yet written.

The book is clear to a reader only if that reader is already highly familiar with the idiosyncratic semi-technical vocabulary of Objectivism. Indeed, not only does Gotthelf express Rand's thoughts in Rand's rather obscure way of speaking, he typically lets her speak for herself - literally. Most of the main ideas are introduced by way of quoting Rand, at length. This might be okay were Gotthelf to then elucidate Rand's strange formulations, but he takes it for granted that the quotations are clear.But, when cut from context, the quotations lose most of their original flavor. This means that Gotthelf has managed to replicate all of the problems with Rand's unclear and inconsistent language without replicating any of her energy and lively style.

Gotthelf has a skewed approach to the question of how much of the book to use on a given subject. He devotes quite a bit of it to deeply a adoring account of Rand's biography, without citing the unauthorized memoir and biography by Rand's closest companions or even the authorized biography written by Barbara Branden in the early 1960's. He does cite Leonard Peikoff's biographical essay on Rand. It is appropriate that Gotthelf, who fails to display much concern with the truth about Rand's life, should cite Peikoff: Peikoff concludes that essay by explaining that our wishes determine what kind of a person Rand was.

One could tolerate hagiography if it at least included some relevant information about the development of Rand's philosophy. But this one does not. The well-articulated and strongly defended theory that Rand's philosophical development was much influenced by her immersion, in the Russia of her youth and education, in the dialectical methodology characteristic to the approach of virtually all academics in virtually all subjects on virtually all sides of virtually all questions. That is, Gotthelf manages to spend about a third of the book celebrating Rand, without mentioning the one and only fact about her personal history that is at all interesting from a philosophical point of view: that she may have taken elements of her philosophical methodology from the educational system in which she studied.

Gotthelf's skewed sense for what is worth including is displayed elsewhere, in his decision to spend about 40% of the book on Rand's metaphysics; primarily her theory of concepts. This leads him to shortchange Rand's politics, dealing with Rand's most well-known theory on a single page.

But, since Gotthelf spends so much of the book on Rand's metaphysics, and uses quotations from Rand to do most of his explaining, we must ask whether this book is a more efficient introduction to Rand's metaphysics than just reading Rand. Rand's work on metaphysics is about 100 pages long; more if you count the appendices, which help to elucidate but add little that's really essential. So now we're wading through 35 pages of hagiography and 40 pages of metaphysics to get not just the same old explanations but quotations that one could have found in Rand in a book that's only about 25 pages longer.

The discussion of ethics is similarly problematic. Rand's meta-ethical argument is deeply obscure. One cannot, by reading her essay on the subject, discover what are its premises, what are its conclusions, and how one infers the conclusions from the premises. All of the various interpretations of this argument that have been offered have been subjected to serious criticism. Gotthelf neither explains the argument (more quotations) nor even tries to show how it can deal with the criticisms that have been offered.

Rand was not a really very good philosopher; her programmatic, mostly methodological, insights require a total reworking from the bottom up. One wonders whether she'll ever acquire a scholarly following capable of doing this, or if the poor woman will be forever cursed with unconstructive, admiring sycophants on the scale of Gotthelf.

Very Hard to Read
I found it extremely difficult to get through each page.This is a very poorly written book. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (5)

These Folks Needed To Get Outside More Often
It's obvious that Ayn Rand's immediate inner circle spent FAR too much time and energy analyzing and re-analyzing the living daylights out of every single minute facet of their existence-- they spent so much paralysis-by-analysis time mulling over life, that they didn't HAVE much genuine life.And as things turned out, the true living in which they bothered to engage got fouled up beyond belief.I have never encountered a situation not involving crime/violence that was as much of a pluperfect MESS as Ayn Rand and Nathan Branden (abetted by their spouses) made of their lives.

It it, however, a fascinating tale, if you only lightly skim the occasional bouts of psycho-babble in which Branden engages.I speak not with disdain or ridicule, for I buy into objectivism about 96 percent -- it's not at though, like many others, I denounce objectivism due to the personal problems Ayn Rand caused herself.Her work was marvelous, and it generated thinking that completely changed (upgraded) my view of the world -- but Good Grief, she certainly did botch her personal life, and she dragged young Nathan (and his wife, and her husband Frank) right down into the mud with her.

Nathan spoke with odd affection for a softball game the Collective played one time, how they simply played baseball for awhile and avoided philosophy completely.They should have engaged in such activities more frequently, they should have gotten out more... and really enjoyed life (in addition to getting some much-needed physical exercise).

Inside the Objectivist cult
How did Ayn Rand affect your life?Are you infatuated with her infallible logic, or are you repulsed by her cold-hearted nature?Did her novels inspire you to greatness, or did they make you retch?Have you embraced her philosophy, or have you sworn to destroy it?Was she someone you wanted to emulate, or was she someone you wanted to kill?

Whether or not you agreed with her, Ayn Rand was a woman who provoked extreme reactions.And no matter how much she affected your life, she had far more impact on the life of Nathaniel Branden.

Earlier, I tried to read a couple of Branden's other works, but couldn't wade through all the Objectivist head-shrinker jargon.He wrote like someone who spent too much of his life in college.

However, Judgment Day is surprisingly readable.Though he's sometimes a bit wordy, Branden uses plain English for a change.Most of his psychologizing is kept down to a paragraph or less at a time, and these explanations are generally helpful.

Branden writes from personal experience, and usually goes into detail.He concentrates mostly on the 18-year association with Ayn Rand that dominated his life, as she progressively became his mentor, friend, lover, and business partner.While he still defends her philosophy, he also provides a full account of her erratic personality.

Rand could patiently discuss all sorts of worldly topics, but would lose her temper at the most trivial annoyances.Jammed locks, missing buttons and broken toasters conspired against her.She never learned to drive, and had a hard time mastering any real technology, despite writing extensively about it.

Branden entered Rand's life while she was writing Atlas Shrugged.He soon persuaded a few relatives and close friends (including Alan Greenspan) to join her inner circle.They met weekly in her apartment to read the ongoing manuscript, and jokingly referred to themselves as "the Collective".In exchange for letting them into her life, Rand demanded total allegiance and unquestioning loyalty.

Over the years, the Collective became increasingly cult-like.A follower who was charged with some treasonable offense, like associating with the wrong people or not adequately defending Ayn Rand, would be brought before the whole group to be tried, with Branden acting as prosecutor.If the charge was serious enough, the defendant would be banished.

Rand did nothing to discourage these dictatorial tendencies; if anything, she enhanced them.Nobody was immune to her self-righteous moral condemnation.She couldn't trust anyone who didn't share her artistic, musical, literary and theatrical tastes.She was quick to judge people by their looks, even before getting to know them.She was coolly ruthless when dealing with the feelings of others.The Collective was a very emotionally repressed group, though she was free to lose her temper at any time.She boasted that she could rationally explain every emotion she had.

Branden writes about the good times too, and there were plenty of those, though they happened less frequently after the affair ended.Still, he evaded the inevitable confrontation for over 4 years because he didn't want to relinquish his position as the "intellectual heir" to Ayn Rand.

While Branden admits his past mistakes and seems apologetic for many of his actions, the old arrogance is still there.For instance, he brags about the breakthroughs he's made in psychology.Shouldn't his peers in the field, or perhaps independent studies, determine whether he was a great innovater or an ineffective experimenter?

He commits a few errors, too.He calls anarchism a political philosophy when it should be defined as the absence of politics, much like atheism is the absence of religion.He misrepresents Murray Rothbard as an anarchist because he claimed to be one, when Rothbard actually advocated mob rule.

Branden's role in founding the Objectivist movement seems to have gotten lost among the protests, riots, assassinations, wars, cultural upheavals, and other events of the 1960s.This book may be his attempt to claim a spot in that era, since he often relates the feeling that he was participating in history.Nathaniel, you don't work for a cause because you think you'll be remembered, you do so because it's right.

The front of Judgment Day's dust jacket is perhaps the most striking summary of Branden's life:no matter what he does, says or thinks, Ayn Rand will always be lurking in his background.

Provides good insight into two remarkable individuals
This book gives keen insight into the minds of two people who have influenced many through their writings, philosophical and otherwise. As the author reveals in extreme detail, their relationship was an extremely intense one, and this is not surprising given the capacity and power of their intellects. Their eventual separation was bitter, and even before this book came out, in fact long before, those who are familiar with their early writings could sense that something very bad had happened between them. Their break however did not affect their productivity and in spite of the pain they no doubt felt after it, both of them still exhibited a brilliance that is still being felt today through their writings.

Some who read the book may say that it is the age difference between Rand and Branden that exacerbated their problems. This no doubt played a factor, and the author acknowledges this also, but as the book reveals, there were other things that aggravated such a relationship between two intellectual powerhouses as these are (were). Rand would like to say that it is the rational intellect that serves as the glue for a lasting and true relationship. Her limited definition of rationality though results in a narrow bandwidth that limits any alternative notions of love and friendship from getting through to her. The aesthetic quality of two people can play a large role in their attraction, and this should cause no surprise if one thinks of it in the context of human evolution. In addition, two people can be quite at odds philosophically and still have a satisfying relationship, a notion though that Rand would not be able to entertain.

One can only imagine the pain that the spouses of these two individuals felt during their affair, which, interestingly, was known and revealed to them beforehand. The 'rational' decision that all four of them agreed to, namely that such an affair was 'meaningful' given the context, and to be shouldered lightly by their spouses. But such adventures, no matter how sophisticated the morality that brings them about, can be a heavy burden to those that decide to engage in them. Rand herself spoke of the proper identification of the facts of reality in order to live a successful life, but she had no prior experience in the affair she decided to participate in. Its consequences, and the feelings brought about therein, were not, and perhaps could not, be predicted by the moral system that all parties believed in at the time. It is easy to engage in the thinking about such systems; it is quite another to give them empirical content, and to show that they indeed are the ultimate guide to human conduct.

In the beginning of the book, the author, in spite of their break, still expresses deep feelings for Rand, and deep regret at the announcement of her death. One can only wonder if Rand herself, after their break, ever, in the privacy of her thoughts, missed the author and the times they spent together. Anger takes much concentration to sustain itself, and is contrary to the natural human state of optimism, the latter both Rand and the author arguing well for. But these two individuals, through their personal interactions with each other, and via their writings, have had an enormous influence on many individuals, both positive and negative, but mostly positive...indeed overwhelmingly positive. In spite of the pain brought to others and themselves because of their affair, this influence is something both of them should be proud of.

CONSIDER THE SOURCE...
Ayn Rand, author of "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged," discovered more important philosophic truths than any other thinker of the 20th century.She held that morality is derived from the facts of reality."Good" doesn't mean following the orders of an incomprehensible God or the whims of society."Good" means "good for life."And since men can only survive by thinking and discovering what is needed for survival, she named rationality as the primary virtue.Recognizing that you can only prosper by thinking for yourself, constitutes the virtue of independence.Recognizing that you have to work for a living constitutes the virtue of productiveness.Being true to facts as a matter of principle, is the virtue of honesty.Being true to yourself is the virtue of integrity.Being rational in judging other men is the virtue of justice.And recognizing that you're able to live as a rational being and worthy to live, constitutes the virtue of pride.

During the 1960s Nathaniel Branden, who at that time was a brilliant thinker, formed a lecture organization to help spread Ayn Rand's ideas.I was one of the students who attended his courses on philosophy and psychology.No one suspected it at the time, and there was no independent confirmation of it until years after Miss Rand's death in 1982, but she and Nathaniel Branden had an affair.All relationship between them came to an end in 1968, when Miss Rand discovered that Branden was not practicing what he preached.

This is Nathaniel Branden's version of their relationship-or rather, one of his versions, for he's changed his story several times.Branden has never heard the adage "a gentleman never tells."Or perhaps he doesn't mind not being considered a gentleman.

This is a long book; but the reader should not lose sight of an essential fact.Branden confesses, on page after page, that he lied to Miss Rand and to others-not once, but repeatedly, for a number of years.His excuse-"she made me do it"-rings hollow, coming from a man who lectured on the virtues of honesty, integrity, and independence.

After confessing his prevarications and being so "candid," Branden expects us to believe what he's saying now.Instead, I suggest we ask the question:"How do we know you aren't still lying, given that you've had so much practice?"

who annoys a philosopher annoys a lion
The charming Dr. Branden explains in this sympathetic and heart-wrenching memoir how he was going to bed with three fantastic women simultaneously--his teacher, his wife, and his girlfriend--and, despite thecomplaisance of the husband of the teacher, and his own wife, and making anexciting living for everyone, and his own notable psychological acumen,simply blew it, and but good.Anyone who wishes to make like the Latin Lovershould read this instruction manual of taking a simple matter to FUBAR--andbeyond--with care.

Still, would those who laugh at Branden and Rand'sromantic difficulties been cheered if it had all worked out? No, they wouldhave been denouncing Rand and her menage a cinq as a threat to dullmarriages everywhere, that's for sure.

What went wrong? I am reminded ofthe Spanish saying--repeated in the Dorsai series--that who annoys aphilosopher annoys the lion in the den. The lioness got annoyed,particularly given her regimen of medicine that made her quiteirritable.

Branden tells the tale better than expected of people whohandled living a fantasy or perhaps a dream better than most. And anyonewho has been torn by divided loves, and yet tried to make things work, willbe with him. The rest was rotten luck and tuesday night quarterbacking. ... Read more

Book Description

Customer Reviews (5)

Comprehensive, But Not Deep
In recent years, we have witnessed what has aptly been called a "Renaissance" in Ayn Rand scholarship. In 1995, Chris Sciabarra came out with AYN RAND: THE RUSSIAN RADICAL which (although controversial) placed Ayn Rand in the context of the history of philosophy and filled in a few gaps in her biography as well. After that work, the Ayn Rand Institute published lengthy collections of her diaries and letters (although I'd like to see the originals). In 1999, the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies began publishing, which gives Rand's ideas serious attention. Finally, we recently saw the publication of Scott Ryan's critical OBJECTIVISM AND THE CORRUPTION OF RATIONALITY, which surpasses all previous criticism of Rand.

In light of this high quality work and the increase in primary sources available, one might expect that a scholar would come out with a concise 150-200 page book providing a solid and up-to-date overview of Rand's work, dealing with all the major areas of her thought. Unfortunately, such a book is lacking.

The above digression brings me to Ron Merrill's THE IDEAS OF AYN RAND, published in 1991 and therefore before the "Renaissance." There are some good things about this work. First, it is comprehensive. Mr. Merrill provides the reader with an overview of Rand's life, the plots of her novels, an introduction to her philosophy, and her place within the conservative and libertarian traditions. Second, there are a few interesting observations about the influence of Nietzsche on Rand and also some Jewish imagery in Rand's novels. Third, Mr. Merrill appreciates Rand and lets the reader understand why many people are so absorbed by her ideas. Fourth, the discussion of the novels is extensive. Fifth, the work includes a discussion of the Objectivist "movement."

On the other hand, as a guide to Rand's philosophy it leaves a lot to be desired. As an example, the discussion of axioms (so central to Rand) is given 4 lines. However, the "analytic-synthetic dichotomy" is given over a page. And it is presented exclusively in the context of Peikoff's misleading article of the same name. In any event, I don't see how Mr. Merrill's pointing out that W. V. O. ("I espouse a more thorough pragmatism") Quine also objected to the "analytic-synthetic dichotomy" helps his case that this concept is flawed [p. 170, n. 8]. (For a defense of how - contrary to Peikoff - a priori knowledge provides knowledge of "facts of experience," see Brand Blanshard, REASON & ANALYSIS, pp. 249-307, esp. pp. 303-04.) While I'm in the midst of another digression, how can Objectivists reject this dichotomy when - as Mr. Merrill perceptively notes - they have not provided a criterion to determine what is "certain" versus what is "tentative"? [p. 92.] (Actually, in the same year that THE IDEAS OF AYN RAND came out, Leonard Peikoff published "OPAR" and did discuss that issue. Whether Peikoff's pragmatic "contextual certainty" is the same as "certainty" I leave to others to decide.)

The best introduction to Ayn Rand remains Tibor Machan's work, AYN RAND (1999). Although the quality of the work is higher, it is somewhat uneven in the space given to topics (too much on ethics and politics; not enough on epistemology and metaphysics; aesthetics is mostly ignored). In any event, that work should be supplemented the above-mentioned works by Scott Ryan and Chris Sciabarra.

An excellent compact overview of Rand's views
Long before she died, Ayn Rand was praised as a goddess, and damned as a devil.In all the fuss, her actual ideas and views were generally shoved to one side, to the point where she said in her _Playboy_ interview that she could sympathize with Karl Marx(!) toward the end of his life, when he said that he was not a Marxist.The rather abrupt end of the organized Objectivist movement in 1968 was also the end of a great deal of her influence, and she became a figure more of legend than history long before her death.With this book, Merrill gives us a view of Ayn Rand's actual beliefs, as opposed to those attributed to her by the Usual Suspects, and some background as to how she came to the conclusions she did.It's disappointingly short, but Rand scholarship is evolving constantly.

Objective Book of Objectivism's founder
Free of the subjective rehashing that tainted the summations offered by Leonard Peikoff and the Brandens, this book is a fair, albeit much too brief, representation of Ayn Rand's history, ideas, and continuing legacy. Merril, a true student of Objectivism, is fair and balanced in his book. It is a mistake to rely solely on the admittedly worthy and remarkableworks of Peikoff and/or the Brandens without using this book to reconcilethe arguments put forth by the three of them in their own accounts.Readthis work and make up your own mind.

Nice book
This is a nice work in independent commentary and interpretation, something Peikovians cannot stand.And yes, the book has useful commentary.

Disappointingly superficial.
Given the publisher of this book, I had hoped to find a systematic presentation and evaluation of Ayn Rand's ideas. Unfortunately, both the presentation and evaluation were superficial.The author failed to motivate Rand's ideas by a central theme, and his evalutions were ad hoc and disintegrated.

The book's strongest potential virtue was to delineate Nietzsche's influence on Rand's philosophy.Yet while the author claims that Rand's writings were influenced by Nietzsche, he provides little documentation for any early influence and no evidence for any lasting influence. His claim that Rand derived her critique of Kant from Nietzsche, for example, was never documented.A substantial revision of this section of the book, particularly in light of recent publications, would be warranted--without such a revision, the book has little to recommend it.

Finally, the author's narration of recent scholarly interest in Rand--both inside and outside academia--was also disappo! intingly superficial.His treatment was marred by his conflation of these intellectual developments with much non-scholarly (and uninformative) interest in her personal life and the lives of her self-proclaimed admirers.

With the publication of "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand," "Letters of Ayn Rand," and "Journals of Ayn Rand," the current volume has been entirely superceded.Save your money. ... Read more

Book Description
Ayn Rand is one of the most influential writers of the twentieth century. As the author of two best-selling novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and numerous nonfiction works, Rand has influenced a generation of readers with her controversial ideas about reason, atheism, egoism, and capitalism. Rand's ideas have penetrated every level of society, and her influence has not diminished since her death in 1982. She continues to have an impact on contemporary culture, and her ideas are now experiencing a second renaissance.

Like many of Rand's admirers, Michael B. Yang was influenced by Rand's writings as a teenager and adopted her philosophy of Objectivism. However, as Yang completed his undergraduate work at The Johns Hopkins University and embarked upon his studies at Harvard Medical School, he discovered a number of inconsistencies in Rand's writings. These problems prompted him to reexamine her philosophy and ultimately led him to discover a different source of truth.

Reconsidering Ayn Rand tells the story of how an ordinary person who once believed in the philosophy of Ayn Rand ultimately came to understand differently. It considers Rand's fiction from a critical point of view exploring the themes of self-esteem, human worth, productive work, and romantic love that permeate much of her writings. Finally, Reconsidering Ayn Rand is a comprehensive analysis of Objectivism. It covers the entire spectrum of Rand's philosophy from reason and reality to morality, government, science, and theology.

Reconsidering Ayn Rand is self-contained. It includes a valuable synopsis of Rand's two major novels and a brief survey of her philosophy. The book accommodates the beginning as well as the seasoned reader of Rand.

With the recent resurgence of interest in her ideas, it becomes clear that Reconsidering Ayn Rand is a vitally important contribution to the growing body of works on the fiction and philosophy of Ayn Rand. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (14)