Product Description
This is an OCR edition without illustrations or index. It may have numerous typos or missing text. However, purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original rare book from GeneralBooksClub.com. You can also preview excerpts from the book there. Purchasers are also entitled to a free trial membership in the General Books Club where they can select from more than a million books without charge. Volume: 2; Original Published by: Houghton, Mifflin and co. in 1903 in 432 pages; Subjects: Philosophy; Evolution; Philosophy / General; Philosophy / History & Surveys / General; Philosophy / Metaphysics; Philosophy / History & Surveys / Modern; Science / Astronomy; Science / Cosmology; Science / Life Sciences / Evolution; Science / Philosophy & Social Aspects; ... Read more

Product Description
At the Objectivist Center's 1994 conference "Objectivism Today," four lecturers discussed different aspects of Objectivism, its progress, and its effects on our culture: "The Politics of Virtue" by David Kelley, Ph.D.; "Raising Good Kids" by Kenneth Livingston, Ph.D.; Structure and Meaning in Ayn Rand's Novels" by Kirsti Minsaas, Ph.D.; and "Rolling Back the Welfare State," by Stephen Moses. ... Read more

Product Description
The Essence of Objectivism is a six-lecture course, which provides a structured introduction to the key ideas of Objectivism -- the philosophy originated by the novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand. This course is intended for those who are new to Ayn Rand's work or have enjoyed her novels but are not deeply familiar with her philosophy. Here you will see how Rand's ideas fit together, how her philosophy is illustrated both in her fiction and in real life, and how Objectivism contrasts with philosophic and religious views that pervade our culture today.

Lectures include: ”Objectivism: Who Needs It?”; “Reason: Man’s Only Absolute”; “Living On Earth”; “Happiness: The Moral Purpose of Life”; “Productive Achievement: The Noblest Activity”; and “Capitalism as a Moral Ideal.” The course is accompanied by 48-page study guide, which outlines each lecture in detail with numerous visual aids and suggests topics for discussion and materials for further study. ... Read more

Product Description
A prolific writer, bestselling novelist, and world-renowned philosopher, Ayn Rand defined a full system of thought--from epistemology to aesthetics. Her writing is so extensive and the range of issues she covers so enormous that those interested in finding her discussions of a given topic may have to search through many sources to locate the relevant passage. THE AYN RAND LEXICON brings together all the key ideas of her philosophy of Objectivism. Begun under Rand's supervision, this unique volume is an invaluable guide to her philosophy or reason, self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism--the philosophy so brilliantly dramatized in her novels THE FOUNTAINHEAD, WE THE LIVING, and ATLAS SHRUGGED. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (27)

Not perfectly comprehensive, but a great resource
I often find myself frustrated by topics not included in this compilation. Still, I've used and enjoyed it for the better part of 10 years. It's been a great source of quotation, a way to get the undiluted "Objectivist perspective" quickly, and it's organization is commendable. If you've ever read Rand, you'll know what to expect in terms of the theme of the entries (they explain and promote Rand's principals). If you are new to Rand, this gives a great overview of a lot of topics, however I'm not sure that it is the best place to start simply because it isn't a single coherent narrative, but rather a reference book.

not a good starting place
I started reading this book, but it is about as interesting or informative as a dictionary or encyclopedia.
Because I didn't have a full view of what Ayn Rand was defining, it was too disjointed to make much sense to me.
However, that is more because I have just started reading her writings than because the book has no value.
It has a lot of value, but not without understanding/knowing what each item is within the Philosophy of Objectivism.As I progress through her other writings, this book becomes a valuable aid, but I wouldn't recommend it for a stand alone volume.

Awesome reference for both ends of the spectrum
If you're like me, then you are interested in Ayn Rand's philosophy, but not a full-blown Objectivist. This book presents a wide array of commentary by Ayn Rand for hundreds of different topics. It should be known that you can view all the material in this book (with certain exceptions) at [...]for free (and legally). I got this book so I could read the entries while I wasn't on the computer.

The main thing that is wrong with this book is that it contains commentary from a jackass named Leonard Peikhoff, the founder of the Ayn Rand Institute. He has been known to be an idiot and deviate from original, Objectivist philosophy. Other than that, this book is fantastic!

An excellent research text on the basic principles of Any Rand's philosophy-Objectivism.
Having read all of Any Rand's work, and even took a few courses on Objectivism, I found this volume an excellent guide to the basic philosophical principles of Ayn Rand's Objectivism.As a individual who does not believe in ANY DOGMA, including Objectivism, I found this lexicon educational and informative.It helped to clarify numerous areas as it relates to the philosophy of Objectivism.This book is for anyone who is interested in Objectivism and is seeking a clairification on certain topics as they relate to Rand's philosophy.I personally do not believe ANY ONE PHILOSOPHY has all the answers; however, there are many areas in which the philosophy of Objectivism is right on target.One, the fact that collectivism and all its various forms (Communism, Socialism, Nazism, big government etc)are evil. Two, Capitalism is the best economic system, but it does need some over sight because of abuses by criminals.Three, Individualism is superior to any form of collectivism etc).In conclusion, whether you are an Ayn Rand follower or not, this is an excellent research tool.Rating: 5 Stars. Joseph J. Truncale (Author: Season of the Warrior: a poetic tribute to warriors, Monadnock Defensive Tactics, Use of the Monadnock Straight Baton, PR-24 Police Baton Advanced Techniques, Martial Art Myths, Never Trust a Politician).

Passing the tourch to the next generation
Theanswer the question Who needs philosophy to live byis, we all do. ... Read more

Product Description
A pamphlet that explains the need for a rationalphilosophical foundation in applying such concepts as mental healthand mental illness and in diagnosing and treating the psychologicalproblems of patients. ... Read more

Product 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

Product 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

Product Description
This digital document is an article from Encyclopedia of Philosophy, brought to you by Gale®, a part of Cengage Learning, a world leader in e-research and educational publishing for libraries, schools and businesses.The length of the article is 8591 words.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.Explores major marketing and advertising campaigns from 1999-2006. Entries profile recent print, radio, television, billboard and Internet campaigns. Each essay discusses the historical context of the campaign, the target market, the competition, marketing strategy, and the outcome. ... Read more

Product Description
Do we desire things because they are good, or are they good because we desire them?Objectivists answer that we desire things because they are good; subjectivists answer that things are good because we desire them.Further, does it make sense to account for moral disagreement by claiming, as the moral relativist does, that something might be good for one person but not foranother?Some essays in this book consider whether objective moral truths can be grounded in an understanding of the nature of human beings as rational and social animals.Some discuss the ethical theories of historical figures-Aristotle, Aquinas, or Kant-or offer critical assessments of the work of recent and contemporary theorists-such asMoore, Putnam, Ayn Rand, Philippa Foot, and Rosalind Hursthouse.Other essays ask whether moral principles and values can be constructed through a process of practical reasoning or deliberation.Still others consider what the phenomenology of our moral experiences can reveal about moral objectivity. ... Read more

Product 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

Product 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
This centennial edition of The Fountainhead, celebrating the controversial and enduring legacy of its author, features an afterword by Rand's literary executor, Leonard Peikoff, offering some of Ayn Rand's personal notes on the development of her masterwork, and a Reader's Guide to her writings and philosophy. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1052)

Loved IT
Rand is an amazing writer.This book is such a breath of fresh air.You don't see any story lines like this anymore.The people who do not like her seem to have more of a problem with her philosophy versus her story and writing.If you yell a lot about the rich getting richer then you're probably predisposed to dislike this book but I still highly recommend you open your mind and give it a shot.If nothing else maybe you'll understand your enemy's frustration.

Ayn Rand's solution to the problem of alienation
The individualist has always had an ambivalent relationship with the market. On the one hand, the market is an inevitable consequence of the individual right to own and trade property. On the other hand, the market is the physical embodiment of the opinions of other persons about how artifacts and activities are to be valued, and the individualist insists upon deciding these values for himself.

Ayn Rand's education in Soviet Russia made her intimately familiar with Marx's writings, including his theory of alienation. Her response to this theory is represented by the character Howard Roark in _The Fountainhead_, who insists upon maintaining a non-alienated relationship to his work as an architect. Roark is unwilling to compromise his artistic integrity and independence, even when his tenacity leads to dire hardship.

The joy of owning material things is small in comparison to the joy of genuinely self-directed creative work, of forming and developing one's own vision and bringing it to realization. To sacrifice the joy of self-directed work for the joy of ownership is a very imprudent--and yet also very common--decision. This sort of imprudence is represented in _The Fountainhead_ by the character Peter Keating. Keating recognizes the market as the highest arbiter of value. He does whatever it takes to bring in client revenue. The consequence is that he becomes extravagantly wealthy--and miserably unhappy.

In a world populated only by men like Peter Keating, free market capitalism might still be the most just way to organize society, but it would still be an aesthetically repulsive and psychologically disastrous way to organize society. It is the possibility of an uncompromisingly self-directed man like Howard Roark that vindicates capitalism in the aesthetic and psychological realm as well as in the realm of justice.

Ayn Rand is able to make an unequivocal recommendation for a universal free market because she believes she has solved the problem of alienation. It would seem, however, that although her recommendations for government policies of laissez-faire capitalism have had a not entirely insignificant political influence, the ethic of non-alienated work upon which this recommendation is predicated has had comparatively little influence. The leaders of contemporary commercial enterprises are unabashed in their insistence upon recognizing the market as the ultimate arbiter and director of all their decisions and activities. What should be recognized as a vice--spineless submission to public opinion as it is embodied in the marketplace--comes to be thought of as a virtue: to call an enterprise "market driven" is almost universally recognized as unequivocal praise.

The principle which Roark puts into practice is summarized in his maxim, "I don't build in order to have clients. I have clients in order to build." In other words, Roark's practice is not "market-driven." It is driven by his own need to realize his artistic vision.

One might question whether it would be possible for an individual employee in a contemporary commercial enterprise to adopt a self-realization-centered approach to his work when the primary goal of his employer is to fulfill market needs, which will certainly not always coincide with the employee's needs for self-realization. The inevitable conflicts might in the end make the employee who insists upon self-realization unemployable, consigning him to work in the rock quarry. But it also just might be the case that a tenacious perseverance and insistence upon doing his work in a manner that is fulfilling could eventually pay off--as it does for Roark in _The Fountainhead_.

Enlightening
I had just finished Atlas Shrugged and realized Ayn Rand had insight into the minds of social justice progressives unlike anything seen or read today.I ordered Fountainhead with one day delivery because I could not wait to read more on her philosophy.One week later I was done and ordered five more of her books.One cannot go wrong with Ayn Rand.

Why is the religious right pushing this book???
A couple of years ago when I read Rand's "Fountainhead" (it was the work that inspired my then hero Hunter S. Thompson as a young man so I wanted to check it out), I saw that like many of the works of Jack London (who I was also quite enthralled with at the time), there was a spirit of individual greatness woven within it and a perception of small, conformed souls to squash this greatness that really rang true with me.

But something always stuck with me, something God wouldn't let me forget---that these great figures of pure, individual freedom that Rand and London wrote about were NOT real! I could find no evidence of such men ever existing, even scholar of a wide range of history that I was. They were purely figments of the imaginations of their authors. Sure, I had personally known a couple who thought they were such kind of men, but then had always caught a glimpse behind their Wizard of Oz-like facades. I saw that they hurt and were ruled by the same realm of emotions and doubt that all the rest of us were. Even Hunter Thompson was a poster boy for this very thing. He convinced the world that he was the invincible, do-it-yourselfer, take-no-guff-from-these-swine, bully and pure individualist. He even appeared to be on the side against corruption and hypocrisy. But in the end, afflicted with disillusionment, doubt and despair, he put a bullet through his head and went to his master in hell. He IS the statue of the god-man that the reclusive, genius sculptor put in the temple Howard Roark erected in the Fountainhead. But it is a statue with a hole through the top of its head where the brains used to be, a fitting testament to the greatness of man...on his own, as master of the planet, king of the species, lord over all, god of himself. A fool among fools.

Look around you. Even as we are being told daily that we are the latest and greatest to walk the earth, that our technology is proof of our greatness--- what is the sum of all this "genius"? We are living in a world more divided and oppressed than ever before. A world where common sense is virtually non-existant and even the most elemental of problems are baffling to the "learned" men and women chosen to address them. If the past ten years on planet earth has shown me one thing, it is that we are a species (not just an economy) in recession. It appears that the evolutionists were right about one thing--- we are a species that is changing--- but they got the direction wrong. Devolution is what it is.

One really has to question the motives and intent of those that would push a book like "The Fountainhead" on the mediocre minds of the modern generation (such as what is happening in our "educational" institutions). What awful monstrosity of "civilization" will we breed when the blissfully (often willfully) ignorant, programmed and conformed become convinced that they too are little gods and goddesses in the vein of Howard Roark? When they believe (like they believe in their superheroes in the movies) that the outlandish fictions created by a fevered ego (to borrow a HST-ism) can be transferred into real life? What a dung heap we will be in then! O wait, you don't say? Why yessir, you are right, we ARE already there!

To answer the title question: Because they are not of Christ but of the Great Deceiver. They are not true Christians but rather the wolves in sheep's clothing Christ foretold would come to mislead the flock. Beware your leaders, my well-intentioned-but-guillible friends! I guarrantee you that Glen Beck and Ron Paul both hold Ayn Rand in high esteem. Then again, so do ALL the freemason hierarchy which rule this world. It is a poorly-kept secret that this book, along with "Atlas Shrugged", are essential pieces in any of their libraries.

Don't let your friends read this garbage.
My friend recently read this book and went from easy going, relatively nice guy to full blown ass hole who can't take criticism, and thinks everyone who disagrees with him is Ellsworth Toohey. If your friend is reading this book, check up on them once in a while to make sure they are still in tune with reality, or better yet, don't let them read it in the first place.

Your success has nothing to do with disregarding others, it has to do with hard work and your own pursuit of knowledge, which, sadly, Ayn was more than willing to ignore, because she was delusional enough to believe she already knew everything she needed to know. Ayn was a poorly educated woman who managed to convince a large amount of stupid people that they were special or that she was right. Much like Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.

Beyond that, this book is horribly written. It's bloated with superfluous descriptions and poorly realized, unlikable characters who like to give speeches instead of talking like normal human beings, and these speeches are not THEIR speeches, these characters are merely vehicles for Rand's ridiculous ideas on living. This book is, in every conceivable way, a disaster, both literally and philosophically. ... Read more

Product 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

Product 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)

Epitome of ungracious
Mr. Ryan says he admires Brand Blanshard. In an online article he chides Ayn Rand fans to learn about graciousness from Blanshard. He does not emulate Blanshard with this book. He is the opposite of gracious to Ayn Rand. The book is full of derisive remarks like "Rand failed to consider ... ", "she carelessly thought ...", "she wasn't entitled to think ...", and all her ideas simply stem from a "fear of religion." He regularly and ungraciously misrepresents her, e.g. having her perceive an abstraction (p. 48). Witness the title. It's not 'Objectivism and Rationality'.

Much of the book is about the theory (or problem) of universals. Ryan brings up the topic repeatedly, beyond annoyance. He claims it is an ontological, not an epistemological problem. Wrong, it's both. He asserts Rand is a nominalist in ontology but a moderate realist in epistemology. How can that be if the theory of universals is only ontological? I offer two reasons. First he confuses the two aspects. Second, he portrays her that way to try to make her look ridiculous. He calls Ayn Rand's solution an "optical illusion."

He claims Rand didn't understand the problem. Given what Ryan writes about it, she understood it better than he does. He says he agrees with Blanshard on universals. However, Blanshard's position is far from Ryan's own confused one he calls "realist",and Ryan's use of "generic universals" and "specific universals" does not match Blanshard's. I think Ryan fails to understand Blanshard's theory.

Blanshard rejected the Platonic theory and the Aristotelian theory, both realist. He rejected "generic universals" (Reason and Analysis, IX, 28, 29, 34) and non-specific, qualitative universals for lack of sameness (RA, IX, 14). Ryan does not. Blanshard endorsed specific, qualitative universals, based on identity (sameness). Blanshard: "By a generic universal, I mean one whose instances are individual things or persons, for example, man, horse, or stone. By a qualitative universal I mean one whose instances are qualities or characters of one kind, for example, colour, sound, or shape. By a specific universal I mean a quality or character that is incapable of sub-division into kinds, for example, this shade of red or this degree of loudness in a sound" (RA, IX, 14). Note that Blanshard's distinction rests on different instances -- entities and generic attributes (like color or number, but not red or three) versus specific attributes (like red or three, but not color or number). Ryan's does not.

Blanshard largely agreed with John Locke about generic and nonspecific qualitative universals, based on resemblance (RA, IX, 34). Locke's theory is usually regarded as a conceptualist, resemblance one. It is anti-realist (contra Plato and Aristotle and Ryan). Indeed, it is much like Rand's. Strongly related to universals in nearly all accounts except Ryan's is essence, which he barely mentions.

Chapter 8 is about two views of reason. He starts with some quotes from Rand. Included are two versions:
1. Reason is the faculty that perceives, identifies and integrates the material provided by his senses.
2. Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses.

Ryan exploits this difference. I believe Rand was a bit sloppy including "perceives" in the first one. Her perceptual/conceptual division and other common ones like senses/intellect and sensation/reflection justify its exclusion.

He describes Blanshard's view of reason and judges it far better. He says somebody may judge the two views have a lot in common, but Ryan insists such a judgment is far amiss. His arguments are flimsy. One is that Blanshard wrote more than 200 pages on perception and Rand very little! The key element in Blanshard's view is to grasp necessary connections. Ryan sees hardly anything in common between Blanshard's "grasp necessary connections" and Rand's "identify and integrate". Indeed, Ryan's book barely recognizes Rand's frequent use of "integrate" (and its cognates) and the great importance she gave to integration.

Ryan devotes Chapter 11 to "primacy of existence" versus "primacy of consciousness." Throughout he treats it as only an ontological question -- the existence of God, idealism versus materialism, and the mind-reality connection. But Rand also presented it as a choice regarding a person's mental functioning, as a person's epistemological orientation. Ryan even extensively quotes Rand to that effect on p. 267. Even more can be found in Rand's writing to support said orientation that Ryan does not include. Ryan's commentary evades all of them.

Contra the evidence that Rand's position on primacy of existence is far more than atheism versus theism, Ryan claims it is simply "fear of religion." I suggest the reader consider the opposite -- Ryan's philosophical motivation is simply "fear of atheism."

One more awful attribute of this book is it lacks an index. This is compounded by Ryan often referring to what he writes elsewhere without saying where or even indicating what he allegedly said.

I reluctantly say I did agree with Ryan infrequently, e.g. on measurement omission and some on the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. Most of the latter is based on an essay by Leonard Peikoff, not Rand herself, but I guess they pretty much agreed.

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

Product Description
In The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand, philosopherDavid Kelley analyzes the conflicts that led him to break ranks withorthodox Objectivists and create an independent branch of themovement.Originally published in 1990 as the manifesto Truth andToleration, this new and expanded edition is an engagingintroduction to the Objectivist movement, its core ideas, and itscentral fissures. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (12)

Ayn Rand for the rational - and tolerant!
A number of the reviewers here of Kelley's book are water-carriers for the ARI and their curious claim that NOBODY (except them, of course!) can speak for Objectivism and the legacy of Ayn Rand. Echoing Leonard Peikoff, they claim that Objectivism is a "closed system" that is perfect, complete, above criticism, and comprises ONLY the writings of Ayn Rand or those she endorsed (although ARI tries to ignore the Brandens' pre-1968 writings that Ayn Rand herself, endorsed). Ironically, this means that not only is Peikoff's own book on Objectivism excluded from the "canon" (as Peikoff admits in his Preface), BUT SO ALSO IS EVERYTHING ELSE THAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN ABOUT OBJECTIVISM, PRO OR CON, SINCE RAND'S DEATH! So even the Ayn Rand Institute's authors cannot claim that their writings are "Objectivist."

However, this attempt to stifle or disqualify any critical commentary on Ayn Rand's remarkable contributions to philosophy is doomed to failure, as has been repeatedly demonstrated in the history of ideological movements. The early followers of Saint-Simon, Auguste Comte, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud (to name a few examples) all tried to limit or disqualify any criticism or revision of their founders, but to no avail. In fact, such attempts inevitably lead to even more criticism, more revisions and additions, and the proliferation of schools of thought, all claiming that only they have found the "true" interpretation of what the original philosopher "really" meant.

Sadly, the ARI people just don't get it. I guess we will just have to let history teach them. For everyone else who has read Ayn Rand and are looking for a deeper understanding of her ideas and their implications, I suggest that they read this revealing book by David Kelley (-AND Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, AND the Objectivist Center/Atlas Society authors, AND Leonard Peikoff and other ARI authors, among others) and then, judge for yourself as to who is more true to Ayn Rand's vision of reason and individualism.

You can't lose for trying...but....
I first read this work when it came out in 2000. At the time, I had been quite a believer in objectivism but completely irked by the Peikoff-style iron fisted approach to philosophy (that Rand was indubitably a part of). Objectivism was not much better, it seemed, than the very religous dogma it rebelled so much against. Then I read Kelley and decided that one could actually have a more tolerant and open objectivism. Unfortunately, as objectivists say, A is A - Objectivism is Objectivism (still with a capital "O") and my new found optimism only lasted about another six months. The "movement" will never change; it never could; the intolerance Kelley wants is built into the fiber of Rand's philosophy. Despite Kelley's efforts, I decided to quit.

This is NOT to say that Kelley doesn't put forth a noble effort. In fact, for those that admire Objectivism, this is really a great book and you should read it. In it, Kelley's main target is objectivism's assertion that as all ideas are moral to some degree, we as right thinking people should always - ALWAYS - condem those who hold "immoral" views - whether it be Kant, Marx, your co-workers, or your college professor.

Kelley tries very hard to draw a distinction between when it is appropriate to morally condemn and write off, and when it is not. Unfortunately, his argument is pure rhetoric and fails to do much except, as another reviewer nobley said, belabor the obvious. The problem, as that same reviewer said, is that intolerance is simply built into the system of objectivism.

So as to explain only enough not to bore the reader, there is an odd and unresolved tension in Kelley's simultaneous view that (a) "there is no dichotomy between fact and value" and (b) his dislike of the belief that things have intrinsic values discovered through Reason (natural law and the like). He correctly notes that it is a hard line to keep straight, but fails to mention that he doesn't ever actually draw the line. When one believes that values are a form of fact and that those facts can only be discovered through reason, one is - no matter how one sells it - a believer in the very intrinsicism one is preaching against.

Secondly, Kelley talks of toleration as, to a decent degree good, because 'there is a difference between error and evil.' We tolerate others because they (he never says 'we') have a right ot err. That is not tolerance that anyone wants; it is rather like a heterosexist tolerating her flaming gay cousin or someone tolerating a buzzing fly. That is not tolerance; it is condescension in 'tolerance's' clothing.

(And if objectivism isn't supposed to be Leonard Peikoff's religion anymore, then why does Kelley still capitalize the "O"?)

What Kelley, I think, doesn't realize is that, as Greg Nyquist below writes, the moment one suggests that there is no dichotomy between fact and value - between is and ought - the tendency will always be to suggest that "since I'm right and you're not, you should go my way; or I could just tolerate you by silent condescension."

Read the book. See if it makes sense to you. I cannot tell you what to do (as I have given up those Randian pretensions). But for my money, Kelley is running against a current that is so fast and strong that while he might feel he is making good speed, he will still do nothing but lose ground.

Wide Open Mind
Kelley endorses a concept of "tolerance" that includes the "toleration" of the comprehensive dishonesty of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden. A "Big-L" Libertarian is almost by definition one who uncritically embraces the Brandens or Rothbard in their dishonest slams on Ayn Rand, just as Kelley has now embraced the Brandens.
Politically, the valid concept is "rights." Morally, the concept of "tolerance" is meaningless. Debating, discussing or working with someone depends on having an honest colleague or rival to do it with, whatever you agree or disagree about. Nothing positive can come from cooperating with the dishonest. "Tolerating" the dishonest, in any non-political sense, means endorsing it -- voluntarily giving it the very credibility it does not deserve. Would Kelley debate flat-earth advocates or those who deny the Holocaust, if he found in a particular case, he wasn't totally sure whether the advocate was evading or not...?

Why is this so hard to understand?
Objectivism is the name that Ayn Rand gave HER philosophy. If you change it's fundamentals around, it's no longer Objectivism. If I want to change Objectivism so it includes religion, or astrology or faith, that new philosophy I created is no longer Objectivism. Kelley wants to do just that. Change fundamentals, but still get away with calling it Objectivism. That's about as dishonest as you can get.

If you want to understand Objectivism, read Ayn Rand's books.

If you want to learn about Kelleyism, read Kelley's books.

But do not confuse the two.

Rand is Not for the Morally Squeamish
Immoral conduct has something to do with what used to be called "bad character." Rand knew that beneath it all, our habits, emotions, and characteristic attitudes are largely the result of our thinking or failure to think. If Rand was right -- if thinking is a volitional choice -- then, of course, EVERY idea one believes is either honest or dishonest (taking into account the context of available knowledge, of course.) EVERY belief is, therefore, moral or immoral -- no matter how difficult this may be to determine in a particular case. Dishonest thinking is morally bad even BEFORE it is acted on, precisely because it helps shape behavior. ... Rand believed that intellectual dishonesty of this kind is the result of volitional choices and that intellectual dishonesty of this kind is causally related to bad behavior. It is, all by itself, a bad thing. One might even say that the simple-minded confusion between political "tolerance" and moral "tolerance" by smart people is likely to be dishonest. It also shows just how much damage the Popper-Hayek crowd has inflicted on the libertarian capacity to think. Another bad result of bad thinking, hmmm ... ... Read more

Product Description
An essential guide to the life and works of Ayn Rand, the book chronicles and summarizes her writings, presents information about her national and global impact--and the response to it--and provides the most comprehensive bibliography published to date. Written by an independent scholar who is not part of either the Ayn Rand establishment or the Ayn Rand detractor camp, The New Ayn Rand Companion builds on the foundation of the original. New materials about Rand's poshumous publications, the latest biographical information, and summaries of books and articles about Rand, published since her death, have been added. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

SCHOLARLY?I THINK NOT
Scholarly?I think not.I looked up a reference to myself on page 19: and this alleged "scholar" did not trouble to ask herself how a French-Canadian politician born in the 1930s, Maurice Champagne-Gilbert, could have authored a French children's adventure story first published in 1914 ("La vallee mysterieuse," which I translated).(In fact the story was written by Maurice Champagne, 1868-1951.) If she makes a careless mistake like that (which could have been avoided by simply reading the front cover, or opening the book and glancing at the front matter), what other mistakes has she made?

That she relied on the "assistance" of either Nathaniel or Barbara Branden hardly inspires confidence.The Brandens are about as objective about Ayn Rand as Hitler was about the Jews; though fortunately their unscholarly pseudo-histories have been fully exposed in James Valiant's "The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics."

There may be some value in compiling a list of absolutely everything that's been written about an author.But I doubt it ... especially in this case, given that most of Ayn Rand's critics either have an ax to grind, or don't think there's an objective reality.

A "must" for all serious Ayn Rand fans and scholars.
Now in a completely revised, updated, and expanded edition, Mimi Gladstein's The New Ayn Rand Companion continues to be a critically important, essential guide to the life and works of author/philosopher AynRand. Gladstein chronicles and summarizes Rand's writings, presentsinformation about her national and global impact (and the response to it)and provides the most comprehensive bibliography published to date.Gladstein is neither an Ayn Rand enthusiast or detractor and thereforetakes a scrupulous, scholarly, methodical, and emotionally neutral approachto her meticulous research as she covers the complete Rand corpus. Newmaterials about Rand's posthumous publications, the latest biographicalinformation, and summaries of books and articles about Rand published sinceher death have been added to make The New Ayn Rand Companion a"must" for all serious students of her writings.

The Definitive Guide to Things Randian and Objectivist
The first edition of this book was published within a couple years of Rand's death, so there is much updating to be done (although that earlier edition did benefit from a preview of Barbara Branden's biography of Rand,then still in progress). In addition to The Passion of Ayn Rand, many ofRand's private journals and letters have now been published, and a numberof important secondary sources as well, such as Chris Matthew Sciabarra'sfull-throttle philosophical and historical study Ayn Rand: The RussianRadical. Almost every work of significance pertaining to Rand is describedor at least mentioned, making this volume a reference of first resort forRand studies.

What's covered here? Let Gladstein answer: "Theorganization of this Companion follows a logical heuristic: Who? What? andSo what? 'Who is Ayn Rand?' is the question answered partly by the briefbiographical chapter. The main body of this book, however, responds to thequestion, 'What has she written?' That is covered in the chapters on herfiction, her nonfiction, and in the compendium of characters. 'So what?' isthe question that calls for critical reaction and that is provided in thechapter on criticism."

The author also provides a comprehensivebibliography of works by and about Rand. Even such obscure pieces as DavidM. Brown's hitherto unheralded survey of "The Critics of BarbaraBranden" (published in the May 1988 issue of Liberty magazine) areincluded.

Gladstein has much that is both positive and on-point to sayabout Rand's character, her fiction, her nonfiction, and the variouscritical assessments of her work. She doesn't shy away from negativejudgments when such are appropriate, either.

On Rand Herself:"Regardless of what pressures were brought to bear, regardless of howmany of those in power told her that she must change her style, regardlessof what obstacles she found to 'doing it her way,' Rand remained true toher purposes in writing." "Intellectually, she could best anyonein argument.... Bennett Cerf concurred, 'You can't argue with Ayn Rand.She's so clever at it, she makes a fool out of you.' " Rand's personalshortcomings are mentioned, as well as the troubling circumstances thatsurrounded the Objectivist Crackup in 1968; but Gladstein does not dwell onsuch matters. Of course the works cited, the most important of which is ThePassion of Ayn Rand, tell the whole story of Ayn Rand's often triumphant,sometimes tragic life.

On Rand's Fiction: "Rand's major literaryworks follow similar plot patterns. In each, an exceptionally able andindividualistic protagonist battles the forces of collectivism andmediocrity that are threatening or have destroyed the nation or theworld." "Rand's heroes are tall, straight and strong. As withtheir feminine counterparts, defiance is a keystone to theircharacters." "The major theme of Rand's fiction is the primacy ofthe individual. The unique and precious individual human life is thestandard by which good is judged." Mention is also made of suchleitmotifs as "recurring whip imagery" and "romanticizedrapes" that are "symbolic of the head-on clash of two strongpersonalities." (Gladstein is quick to add that readers of"raised consciousness about the nature of rape might find thissymbolism unpalatable," but neglects to state clearly that thevigorous sexual encounters in Rand's fiction cannot be taken as actualrape-not if the text itself is to be admitted in evidence.) Gladstein'ssummaries of Rand's stories are uniformly excellent.

On Rand'sNonfiction: "Montaigne, author of the book Essais which created thegenre of the essay, defined the essay as 'an attempt,' a brief discussionas opposed to a thesis or dissertation. [The essays of The Virtue ofSelfishness] are just that-compressed discussions, forays into theirsubjects. As such, they are appealing to interested nonacademic ornonspecialist readers as well as to the more serious student ofObjectivism." "Rand says capitalism is the only moralpolitico-economic system in history, a system that has been a great boon tohumankind [TDO thinks Gladstein means "mankind" here].... Herpurpose [in Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal] is to clearly identify thebenefits of capitalism while also exposing the nature of its arch enemy,altruism." "One of Rand's greatest gifts is her ability to cut tothe heart of a contemporary event or issue and analyze its philosophicalimplications." "The specific referencts of [The ObjectivistNewsletter] were events of the early sixties. What makes themintellectually satisfying today is that the basic premises Rand uses tocriticize government, education, or literature apply now as they didthen."

The chapter on "Criticism of Rand's Works"includes a summary of every work about Rand that has been published, andmentions a great many of the critical articles. As you can imagine, thecriticism is a very mixed bag, as assessments of Rand run the gamut in toneand objectivity. To her great credit, Gladstein's sensibility incriticizing the criticism is almost infallible. Any palpable blunders inThe New Ayn Rand Companion? One or two.In the introduction the authorstates that Rand "presented herself as representative of her fictionalideal: rational, objective, uncompromising, unswerving. Her followers canfind no imperfections. This tends to create a situation in which all whoare not fully in accord with Rand are seen as part of the opposition."The gist of the observation is correct, but some qualification should havebeen made. Elsewhere in the book Gladstein herself documents the growth ofmore tolerant wings of the Objectivist movement, including the birth of TheInstitute for Objectivist Studies (now The Objectivist Center) and thepublication of David Kelley's Truth and Toleration. (Alas, the Companionwent to press just around the time The Daily Objectivist was being founded,so TDO's rapid ascendancy as the premier arbiter of non-orthodoxObjectivist thought, displacing Kelley's organization, is not mentioned atall. Hopefully this omission will be rectified in the thirdedition.)

Another little glitch we could mention appears in thedescription of Hank Rearden. "Although [Rearden's] feelings forFrancisco d'Anconia are strained by Francisco's superficial public image,their friendship grows until Rearden finds out that Francisco had beenDagny's lover." But in fact the great breach in the friendship occursearlier in the novel, when Rearden realizes that Francisco had had themeans to prevent a disaster from befalling Rearden Steel but chose not toprevent it. The discovery of Francisco and Dagny's past romance onlyincreases but does not inaugurate the tension between the two men when theyfinally next encounter each other in Dagny's apartment. Anyone who has readAtlas Shrugged a million times cover to cover would be familiar with thissequence of events.

However, these points are trivia. Ninety nine pointnine nine percent of the time Gladstein is completely accurate, not tomention astonishingly concise given the wealth of information she presents.She acknowledges the assistance of a number of major figures in theObjectivist movement, including Chris Matthew Sciabarra, Nathaniel Brandenand Barbara Branden, Peter Saint Andre, Michelle Marder Kamhi and LouTorres. Anyone with any serious interest in the work of Ayn Rand and itsgrowing influence on our culture should own a copy of The New Ayn RandCompanion.--David M. Brown, Editor, The Daily Objectivist(www.dailyobjectivist.com) ... Read more