Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical

Rating:
Summary: This book is Meta-Rand. It is applied Objectivism.
Review: "Little Ms. Rand

Took a bold stand,

By defining her morals and ways..."

For decades, philosophers have tried to dismiss the philosophy of Ayn Rand as being superficial and unworthy of attention. And for decades, philosophy professors have been continually consternated by students who insist that Rand's philosophy of Objectivism is unique and meaningful. Try as they might, "professional" philosophers just cannot convince the "common man philosopher" that Ayn Rand should be excluded from the pantheon of "serious" philosophers...

"But along came a spider..., (Oops, I meant Sciabarra!)

Who sat down beside her...

To trick her young fledglings away!"

The spider said, "Since we cannot extinguish Ms. Rand as a philosopher who stands OUT from the crowd, we will embrace and smother her as a philosopher who cannot be distinguished FROM the crowd."

And thus Sciabarra's book was born.

On the bad side, Sciabarra's book takes several hundred pages to "prove" nothing. This is several hundred pages of TEDIOUS details, side-issues, tangents, and irrelevancies...

On the good side, he uncovers some specific details about her life in Russia before she came to the United States. But these details are merely small curiosities, and do nothing to diminish the originality and value of her work.

Bottom line: this ponderous tome can be mind-numbing in its pretentious (and vain) complexity, but it does not succeed in diminishing the stature of Rand's works, except for those who disliked her already. If you have digested Objectivist philosophy for a few years, you might read this book to sharpen your critical reading "teeth." But unless you're a devoted "hater" of Rand, or a serious Objectivist with the time and money to wade through gratuitous and pretentious philosophical "muck," you shouldn't waste your money on "Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical." If your reading comprehension skills (and your emotional discipline) are above average, then by all means, take the time to sit down in a bookstore and spend a couple hours skimming through it.

But that's all it's worth. A good skim. Nothing more.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting Approach
Review: Chris Matthew Sciabarra has written an interesting book on the origins of Ayn Rand's thought. He argues that Rand is a "dialectical" thinker in the tradition of her Russian philosophy professors such as N. O. Lossky. Sciabarra presents historical evidence of this and also shows similarities between the thought of Rand and other thinkers in the dialectical tradition.

Ultimately, however, I'm not convinced. While there are interesting parallels, it seems to me that one can say the same thing with respect to all sorts of thinkers. It's easy to find similarities between thinkers and jump to the conclusion that one influenced the other, or that thinker B is "really" saying the same thing as A.

That being said, Prof. Sciabarra is an excellent writer with a tremendous grasp of Rand's thought and the relevant literature. Drawing on this, he provides one of the best discussions of Rand's philosophy. For example, the chapture "Being" is outstanding.

As Mr. Scott Ryan has noted, Rand's transcript has now been found. In addition, more of Rand's journals have been released. I hope that Prof. Sciabarra updates this valuable work.

Rating:
Summary: Interesting Approach
Review: Chris Matthew Sciabarra has written an interesting book on the origins of Ayn Rand's thought. He argues that Rand is a "dialectical" thinker in the tradition of her Russian philosophy professors such as N. O. Lossky. Sciabarra presents historical evidence of this and also shows similarities between the thought of Rand and other thinkers in the dialectical tradition.

Ultimately, however, I'm not convinced. While there are interesting parallels, it seems to me that one can say the same thing with respect to all sorts of thinkers. It's easy to find similarities between thinkers and jump to the conclusion that one influenced the other, or that thinker B is "really" saying the same thing as A.

That being said, Prof. Sciabarra is an excellent writer with a tremendous grasp of Rand's thought and the relevant literature. Drawing on this, he provides one of the best discussions of Rand's philosophy. For example, the chapture "Being" is outstanding.

As Mr. Scott Ryan has noted, Rand's transcript has now been found. In addition, more of Rand's journals have been released. I hope that Prof. Sciabarra updates this valuable work.

Rating:
Summary: A useful and serious interpretation
Review: I found this book a very pleasant surprise, a serious and largely successful attempt to separate the philosophical system of Ayn Rand from her personality and from the cultishness often accurately attributed to many of her proponents. Sciabarra finds some depth to Objectivism as a serious defense of "libertarian" ideals, worthy of more consideration than has typically been afforded the popular novellist and political theorist.

Sciabarra has to work hard to accomplish this task, and in the process resorts self-consciously to describing Rand's work in terms very different than she or most of her proponents would use. The author clearly recognizes that this will quite predictably alienate Rand fans. The book isn't neccessarily written, or most useful, for them.

By opening up the terminology a bit, and finding reasonably hypothesized general influences on Rand's life and thought, Sciabarra is able to reveal aspects of Objectivist reasoning and assumptions that those more familiar with other philosophers can now appreciate. This is not a small matter, because the ideas are potentially very profound.

With Sciabarra's efforts, Objectivist ideas may begin to be placed more realistically in an intellectual and historical context, rather than being treated as an isolated phenomenon that began and ended with Ayn Rand. Her work can be appreciated for its good ideas, as well as criticized for its potential mistakes.

This book is most fascinating for its unique and accessible description of the currents of often difficult Russian philosophy, its exposition of dialectic method, and its potential to translate Rand's own idiom into a form that can be compared with other philosophers in a clarifying way. It is also, as far as I can tell, quite true to what I have always felt was the "spirit" of Objectivist thinking, the passionate and broadly inclusive defense of the individual mind.

At the same time, Sciabarra almost manages the extraordinarily difficult task of separating out Objectivism from the foundationalist tendency it instills in its most passionate adherents to certify itself as infallibly true. Without that aura of insufferably dogmatic adherence, the ideas take on a new life.

One of the things that has traditionally left Rand scholarship out in the cold has been its isolationism from academic philosophy, an attitude that seems to be mutual. Sciabarra makes a serious effort to bring Rand scholarship into academic respectability, and to me he does a very credible job.

This book has three sections dealing with (1) historical context in Russian and European philosophy showing what aspects of her Russian heritage she absorbed and what she vehemently rejected and giving some possible insight into why, (2) the structure and content of Objectivism in terms of realism, individualism, and libertarianism combined with a radical dialectical method, and (3) Rand's approach to social criticism, Rand as a "Russian radical for capitalism."

I think it could easily be argued by both Rand critics and Rand proponents that this book is reading far more into Objectivism than it actually contains, but to me that is what made it so interesting. It deals with the implications of the ideas themselves rather than the individuals involved and their own personal interpretations, and that is what makes for lasting philosophical significance.

I'd characterize this book as a thorough non-critical analysis by someone not specifically part of Objectivist thinking but interested in its potential value. It serves as a very good translation guide to understanding Rand's ideas and their implications, but in many places it does not examine them quite as critically as I personally would have preferred.

Rating:
Summary: Ayn Rand and Dialectics
Review: I must admit, I thoroughly enjoyed this book; however, I did not agree with Sciabarra's thesis. What I enjoyed was the historical survey of Ayn Rand and the Objectivist movement. This much was superb, and makes the book worth reading.

Here is Sciabarra's description of what he argues dialectics is (from his website, not the book):

"First, I do not believe that dialectics is a synthesis of opposites. That is a view of dialectic that was put forth by Fichte, and is sometimes attributed (with some distortion) to Hegel. The dialectic is not a triad of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. It is a method that goes back to Aristotle and that is an orientation toward contextual analysis of dynamic, structured totalities. Because we are incapable of understanding an object from a god-like perspective, we are required to engage in an abstraction of vantage point. And by shifting our vantage point, over time, we may become aware of the fact that things which appear to be in opposition, are actually quite complementary. Dialectics, however, is not anti-dualism any more than it is anti-monism. It is pro-context. And because it cautions against context-dropping, it is in keeping with Rand's own contextual epistemology."

Sciabarra constantly refers to dialectics as the art of context keeping. Well, as the critics he cites in the above link point out, you could put a helluva lot of thinkers under that definition. But let us assume that it is a proper definition. He also argues that the historicism of Hegel and ilk is undialectic. So his charge seems to be that Aristotle had the proper definition and understanding of the dialectic process, making Rand and some other "libertarians" the true dialecticians, while Fichte, Hegel, and Marx are fake dialecticians. This really all seems to be an argument over semantics, then. I've been taught both in high school and college that "dialectics" is the thesis-antithesis-synthesis method of Hegel. Dialectics as a method, near as I can tell, is always attached to Hegel and Marx. It seems like Sciabarra's entire battle here boils down to this: Everyone is using the word "dialectic" wrong; Aristotle and Rand are the true dialecticians based on the original definition. So, my question is, assuming that he is right and the current understanding of "dialectics" is wrong, then isn't he really just fighting to get that word back from the likes of Hegel and Marx? So my ultimate question, assuming all of this, is: Is "dialectics" really a word we (Objectivists and pseudo-Objectivists) need to be fighting to keep?

Rating:
Summary: Major Virtue Overlooked
Review: In my opinion, the other reviewers have neglected to mention the chief virtue of this work: its recontextualization of Rand's thought. I use this word, "recontextualization," not as a synonym for any of the species of vicious post-structuralist truth-twisting, but in its literal sense. Sciabarra shows that Rand should not be understood - historically, at least - as the woman who came to fix the systems of Locke and Bacon, the woman who came to answer Hume and Kant. Instead, she should be understood as a thinker at the intersection of two traditions: Russian literary-philosophy as practiced in the 'kruzhoks' of the late 19th Century, and American (emigre) libertarian thought of the early 20th Century. The method and content of Rand's philosophical work has much more in common with Tolstoy and Chernychevskij, Nock and Paterson, than it does with the various Greek and enlightenment thinkers who she so admired. I recommend this book to anyone interested in cultural history, Russian Studies, or the formal features of Rand's own system of philosophical analysis.

Rating:
Summary: A much needed book
Review: It is refreshing to see at last a critical review of the philosophical thought of Ayn Rand, since her philosophy is sometimes described as "naive", and, perhaps just as troubling, as the greatest philosophy ever to appear in print. The author of this book has given the reader an honest and in-depth analysis of one of the most controversial figures in twentieth-century philosophical thought. Rand was not an academic philosopher, and this, coupled with her frequent vitriolic attacks against many philosophical schools of thought, induced many to speak out against her, and they typically did so with a degree of vituperation unmatched as yet in public debate. Fortunately the shouting and name-calling typically accompanying discussion of Randian philosophy is not included in this book. Also not included is any blind, uncritical allegiance to Randian philosophy, for this can also accompany discussions of it. Rand has made some interesting contributions to philosophical thought, and her theory of ethics is I believe unequaled, and one can find a very thorough discussion of just how she arrived at this theory throughout this book. However Rand, like every other philosopher, cannot remove herself from history and cultural influences, and view the world from a detached, apodictic point of view, for that is the nature of human learning. One builds on what has been done before, and with careful thought and unique insight, some original ideas can then be developed, which will hopefully extend what has been done before, and nontrivially. The author of this book clearly shows the historical origins of Randian thought, those origins have their place in the Russian university that Rand attended.

The author sees the problem for Randian scholarship as predominantly arising from her public persona, and thus scholars need to differentiate Rand's personality from her philosophy. Her intransigence, intolerance, and general mean-spiritedness must be ignored if one is not to collapse into psychologism, argues the author. Scholars must also he argues, attempt to find out what actually defines her philosophy and makes it distinctive. This has been a source of contention in recent years, with different "schools of thought" established, each claiming to represent exclusively her philosophy.

Another virtue of this book is the author's insistence on using a hermeneutical approach when analyzing Randian philosophy.The information content of an idea, he argues, includes myriads of unforeseeable non-trivial statements, this being similar to what happens in mathematics. It is well known to those who practice mathematics that a large number of problems and concepts can be generated from a particular area of it. These problems can go way beyond the intent of the mathematicians who created this particular area. Many advocates of Randian philosophy, as the author points out, like to think of her philosophy as a "closed system". Without actually defining it, one can only make educated guesses as to what this really means. If it means a deductive system where each statement can be derived from others within the system, and no further development is necessary, then this is problematic. The example of mathematics again shows that a deductive system can be extended greatly depending on the ingenuity of the researcher.

Rand herself was a poor scholar, only infrequently quoting works of philosophy that she deemed worthy of inclusion. Considering her confidence in the originality of her ideas this is not surprising. However every claim about another scholar's ideas should be given textual support. Indeed, Rand's criticism of Immanuel Kant is unrelenting, but her analysis of his philosophy lacks the depth needed to judge his philosophy from her vantage point. Luckily the author assists the reader in the understanding of just why Rand objected to Kant so vociferously.

Hopefully this book will be the first in many that will put Rand in the historical context of twentieth century philosophy. Rand is a fairly good example of what can be produced outside the academy if one has the cognitive discipline and the large amounts of time needed to develop systematic philosophical systems. The information age has brought publishing strategies that Rand did not have when she was alive. The doors are thus open for most anyone to express their ideas and have them accessible to a world-wide audience. Critical works of philosophy can thus be produced both inside and outside the academy.

Rating:
Summary: A much needed book
Review: It is refreshing to see at last a critical review of the philosophical thought of Ayn Rand, since her philosophy is sometimes described as "naive", and, perhaps just as troubling, as the greatest philosophy ever to appear in print. The author of this book has given the reader an honest and in-depth analysis of one of the most controversial figures in twentieth-century philosophical thought. Rand was not an academic philosopher, and this, coupled with her frequent vitriolic attacks against many philosophical schools of thought, induced many to speak out against her, and they typically did so with a degree of vituperation unmatched as yet in public debate. Fortunately the shouting and name-calling typically accompanying discussion of Randian philosophy is not included in this book. Also not included is any blind, uncritical allegiance to Randian philosophy, for this can also accompany discussions of it. Rand has made some interesting contributions to philosophical thought, and her theory of ethics is I believe unequaled, and one can find a very thorough discussion of just how she arrived at this theory throughout this book. However Rand, like every other philosopher, cannot remove herself from history and cultural influences, and view the world from a detached, apodictic point of view, for that is the nature of human learning. One builds on what has been done before, and with careful thought and unique insight, some original ideas can then be developed, which will hopefully extend what has been done before, and nontrivially. The author of this book clearly shows the historical origins of Randian thought, those origins have their place in the Russian university that Rand attended.

The author sees the problem for Randian scholarship as predominantly arising from her public persona, and thus scholars need to differentiate Rand's personality from her philosophy. Her intransigence, intolerance, and general mean-spiritedness must be ignored if one is not to collapse into psychologism, argues the author. Scholars must also he argues, attempt to find out what actually defines her philosophy and makes it distinctive. This has been a source of contention in recent years, with different "schools of thought" established, each claiming to represent exclusively her philosophy.

Another virtue of this book is the author's insistence on using a hermeneutical approach when analyzing Randian philosophy.The information content of an idea, he argues, includes myriads of unforeseeable non-trivial statements, this being similar to what happens in mathematics. It is well known to those who practice mathematics that a large number of problems and concepts can be generated from a particular area of it. These problems can go way beyond the intent of the mathematicians who created this particular area. Many advocates of Randian philosophy, as the author points out, like to think of her philosophy as a "closed system". Without actually defining it, one can only make educated guesses as to what this really means. If it means a deductive system where each statement can be derived from others within the system, and no further development is necessary, then this is problematic. The example of mathematics again shows that a deductive system can be extended greatly depending on the ingenuity of the researcher.

Rand herself was a poor scholar, only infrequently quoting works of philosophy that she deemed worthy of inclusion. Considering her confidence in the originality of her ideas this is not surprising. However every claim about another scholar's ideas should be given textual support. Indeed, Rand's criticism of Immanuel Kant is unrelenting, but her analysis of his philosophy lacks the depth needed to judge his philosophy from her vantage point. Luckily the author assists the reader in the understanding of just why Rand objected to Kant so vociferously.

Hopefully this book will be the first in many that will put Rand in the historical context of twentieth century philosophy. Rand is a fairly good example of what can be produced outside the academy if one has the cognitive discipline and the large amounts of time needed to develop systematic philosophical systems. The information age has brought publishing strategies that Rand did not have when she was alive. The doors are thus open for most anyone to express their ideas and have them accessible to a world-wide audience. Critical works of philosophy can thus be produced both inside and outside the academy.

Rating:
Summary: The best book yet written on Rand's thought
Review: Those reviewers who have noted that Mr. Sciabarra understands Rand better than Mr. Peikoff are not far off the mark. Under Sciabarra's pen, Rand's philosophy of Objectivism ends of coming off as more sophisticated and subtle than it does under either Peikoff or even Rand herself. And yes, Sciabarra does give to Objectivism an aura of academic respectability - if that were important. What about Mr. Sciabarra's thesis that Rand is an unwitting practitioner of Hegel's notorious dialectical method? Well, in a technical and literal sense, Sciabarra is wrong about this, for the simple reason that there is no such thing as the dialectical method. No one has ever, in the strict sense of the word, thought dialectically, any more than they have omitted measurements in the formation of their concepts (as Rand claimed). However, if instead of interpreting Sciabarra in a strict technical sense, we merely interpret him figuratively, then we must admit that there is an element of truth in his thesis. Especially insightful is Sciabarra's discovery of similarities between Hegel's method of thought and Rand's. What both these thinkers had in common is that they attempted to determine matters of fact through the manipulation of logical, moral, and rhetorical constructions - in other words, through what Karl Popper has called "verbalism." The "dialectical method" is merely a rationalization of this verbalism - as is, incidentally, Rand's defense of the validity of concepts. What you get when you read these two philosophers is a lot of verbiage and very little evidence. If you go through either Rand's or Hegel's writings, you'll find assertion after assertion supported, if at all, by purely verbal arguments. Rand claims, for instance, that human beings create their own personalities out of their own "free will" (whatever that means!). This extremely controversial view she fails to back up with a single shred of scientifically validated evidence. Rand often urged people to check their premises. Someone should have urged Rand to check her facts. Facts are prior to premises, as an (supposed) empirical-realist like Rand should have known.