The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand

Book Overview

"An excellent book that provides
a systematic account of Rand's work as a philosopher.... The Philosophic
Thought of Ayn Rand gathers contributions from professional philosophers
(some of them quite renowned) to tackle the various components --- metaphysical/epistemological,
ethical, and social/political --- of Rand's comprehensive system. All the
contributors demonstrate the particular genius of current academic...

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0252014073
• ISBN13: 9780252014079
• Release Date: September 1987
• Publisher: University of Illinois Press
• Length: 248 Pages
• Weight: 0.85 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.8" x 5.9" x 8.9"

Customer Reviews

A book for critical thinkers

This book, despite its occasional faults and shortcomings, nevertheless represented, at the time of its publication, a considerable leap forward in Randian criticism. While some of the essays (most notably, those by the editors and Tibor Machan) add little if anything to our understanding of Rand, most of the rest contain at least several important insights, and some contain scores of them. Wallace Matson, despite his odd desire to replace concepts with words and his fallacious remarks about the problem of induction, nevertheless has some apt things to say about the Objectivist axioms. "The subjectivists are not so obliging as to deny existence outright," he rightly points out. And his remarks about Rand's abuse of the "fallacy of the 'stolen concept'" are on the mark as well. Hollinger's essay, which, as far as I know, is the only critical examination of Rand's theory of history, is one of the best in the book. Wheeler's ensuing essay on Aristotle is helpful in pointing out various instances when Rand misunderstood or misinterprets the old pedant of Athens. The best essay in the book, however, is J. Charles King's masterful refutation of Rand's ethical theory. King shows that life cannot possibly be the ultimate standard of value because life is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Next we have Eric Mack's refutation of Rand's theory of rights. While it is true that Mack just skims the surface of the problem, Mack's treatment is still the best to date.Reviewers have been nearly universal in condemning Antony Flew's excellent essay on Randian selfishness, for reasons that I don't quite understand. (I suspect they were more interested in refuting Flew than in understanding him.) Flew, a distinguished British philosopher, contributes an essay of remarkable insight and good sense. He points out that Rand's moral ideas "could have been much better illustrated with the help of detailed accounts of paradigm lives, both good and bad." He aptly describes Rand's view that there can never be a conflict of interest between rational men as an "embarrassment of all concerned, reminiscent of the revelation in the Communist Manifesto that, in the upcoming utopia, 'the free development of each will be the condition of the free development of all.'" Flew proceeds to demolish the Randian view by pointing out that Rand's whole discussion of the matter involves "a constricted and factitious interpretation of the term interests." (Many of the problems in Rand's philosophy stem from "a constricted and factitious interpretation" of terms.) He ends the essay by showing how Rand's case for competitive capitalism can be bolstered by introducing ideas first developed by Adam Smith. In all, a very fine collection of essays; but worth reading only for those capable of understanding philosophical argumentation. Dogmatic, uncritical Objectivists had best stick with works recommended by Peikoff.

Still Valuable Collection of Essays

This collection of essays came out in 1984 and is a little bit dated in light of more recent work on Rand. While the collection contains a couple of clunkers, it contains at least one real gem: J. Charles King's "Life and the Theory of Value," the best refutation of Rand's ethics I'm aware of.

Range of opinion

This is an excellent compendium of articles on Rand by a range of philosophers. The close reader of Rand will note how Wheeler and Flew display the academic mindset of Anglo-american philosophy which reads nothing of what happens in other countries, particularly their hangups on how Rand ignores prepositional conventions typical to English in discussing epistemology.Yet these are the questions and issues brought up by intelligent persons who have trouble leaving their local judeo-christian mindset. Precisely this sort of discussion is required for her ideas to be absorbed by many. One hopes that as Rand's ideas are discussed in other countries, a follow- up volume with a more cosmopolitan range of philosophers will follow from the authors.

There are some cogent critiques in this volume.

The full title of this book should have been: What Some People Who Were Genuinely PHILOSOPHIC THOUGHT OF AYN RAND.And some of them didn't think much of her at all. Jack Wheeler, for example, tries to be nice but argues that she didn't really understand Aristotle very well. And Antony Flew, who has said elsewhere that he thinks her contribution to philosophy was 'zilch', makes mincemeat of her understanding of 'selfishness'.The essays in here aren't all negative (nor should they be; Rand wasn't *completely* batty). And they *are* all thoughtfully and carefully written. But Rand's 'philosophy' won't withstand fifteen minutes of careful scrutiny by anyone who knows anything about the field from any non-'Objectivist' source.If, as it appears, Rand is going to get some academic attention after all, then this volume should be kept handy. At least SOME of the attention should be negative.

Useful commentary on Rand's philosophy

This is the first book that examined Rand's philosophy from an academic perspective, and it has proven to be one of the most useful secondary sources on the philosophy. The essays by the editor, and all of the essays in the ethics section especially, or well worth reading. In some cases an academic gloss to Rand's work is provided, in others an academic critique. Should be of help to those who are looking for strong, well-developed arguments for and against Rand's theories.