Customer Reviews

Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Those unfamiliar with the history of Ayn Rand may wonder about the widely divergent reviews *Russian Radical* has received at Amazon and elsewhere. My own view is that Sciabarra writes with superb scholarship and penetrating insight. His book is the main reason for my renewed interest in the ideas of Rand.

The critics of *Russian Radical* fall into roughly three camps. The first consists of those who appreciate Sciabarra's scholarship but disagree with his application of "dialectics" to Rand's thought. This is an honest and mostly friendly disagreement. Many of these critics are associated with the Objectivist Center of New York.

The second camp consists of Rand's "true believers" who take adoration of Rand to a near-cultish extreme. Such people, often associated with the Ayn Rand Institute, regularly attack scholars not officially sanctioned by Leonard Peikoff, Rand's heir. If you hear ad hominem attacks directed toward Sciabarra, chances are they're coming from this camp.

The third camp of critics consists of those who feel an irrational hostility toward Rand and who take out this hostility on anyone who sympathizes with Rand's beliefs. Rand, after all, advocated egoism and capitalism, making her an arch-enemy of big-government advocates and religionists.

Of course, there are also thousands of readers, me included, who appreciate Sciabarra's work and agree with it substantially. In my view, *Russian Radical* is the single most important book on Rand's ideas ever written. - Ari Armstrong

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.

First let me say that this book is a difficult read. Having said that, it is a must read for any serious student of Ayn Rand's "project."

Chris Sciabarra makes a strong case for the dialectical nature of Rand's philosophy. He looks at how her work might have been informed by her Russian roots and the early experiences of her life and how she developed a philosophy that attempted to integrate all aspects of Objective Reality. Objective Reality as Rand saw it is not inherently fragmented. A philosophy based on Objective Reality would of necessity integrate all aspects into a cohesive whole.

Apparently, some who regard Rand as a mystical goddess, take offense at the sharp focus that Sciabarra puts on her work. This seems odd, given that this book demonstrates a profound respect for her intellectual accomplishments.

Rand often said in her own writing that each person had a right to act in his own rational self-interest, and with that right came a moral obligation to actively seek the truth (Objective Reality) as a prerequisite of rational choice. In essense, Sciabarra has used Rand's most fundamental principles to attempt an objective analysis of her analysis. This makes his effort a moral one. Yet to some he has committed the original sin by eating from the tree of knowledge and must be cast out of the Garden of Eden for it.

My only criticism was that this book does not critique her failures or attempt to explain her tyranny toward those closest to her. But that subject has been covered in other books by those who knew her personally and is well beyond the scope of this book.

Sciabarra's thoroughly researched RUSSIAN RADICAL will remain an important contribution to Rand scholarship for many years to come.

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.

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.

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.

Chris Matthew Sciabarra had to know that in writing this book he was bound to irritate the Rand-worshipping dogmatists of orthodox Objectivism. Thank goodness that didn't deter him.

He propounds some controversial theses in this work; I myself have grave misgivings about regarding Rand as a practitioner of "dialectical" methods and I suspect Sciabarra overrates some of the academic influences on the young Rand. But Sciabarra's scholarship is thorough and his presentation clearly argued -- and there's certainly nothing wrong with raising controversial theses about a figure too long protected from criticism.

It's also a joy to watch the Peikoff crowd respond to this book: they already know what's wrong with it even though they refuse to read it themselves, which makes their criticisms of e.g. Sciabarra's advocacy of the "mind/body dichotomy" wonderfully risible to anyone who _does_ trouble to read it. One would think a work that might help to render Rand academically respectable would delight her hard-core supporters, but perhaps academic attention is exactly what they're afraid of.

Sciabarra has chosen a very worthy and difficult goal in writing this book. Just for trying and actually getting it published he deserves kudos. I think Sciabarra has two main goals. First, there is his stated aim of reclaiming the dialectical method for libertarianism instead of marxism. Second, the introduction of Ayn Rand's Objectivism into the world of academic philosophy. The first goal relies on the validity of his thesis and there is much controversy about that. The second goal is much tougher and will take many more books, hopefully Sciabarra's book will be the first of many. I am drawn to his thesis and his arguments for it. There is much I disagree with or at least I'm not certain about, yet he presents his arguments in a very convincing way. I would highly recommend this book to those interested in Objectivism, its possible roots and influences, and its place in the intellectual history of our time. There is much to argue about and take issue with, but that doesn't make it any less worthy of study. This shouldn't, however, be the first or only book you ever read about Objectivism.

Sciabarra's excellent scholarly overview of Ayn Rand's thought will not appeal to semiliterates who write, e.g., that this book is "not objectovist in principal." (Boy, if there were two words you'd expect an Objectivist to be able to spell, they'd be "Objectivist" and "principle.")

If you need to be persuaded that this book is worth reading, just scroll down and look at the negative reviews. 'Nuff said.

Readers of this book will be interested to learn that the author, Chris Matthew Sciabarra, has gotten hold of Rand's original university transcripts and made them available in the very first issue of the _Journal of Ayn Rand Studies_. In Sciabarra's view, the transcripts tend to confirm (though not conclusively) his suggestion that Rand was a student of N.O. Lossky, and they certainly confirm that she was exposed to a good deal of "dialectical" philosophy at the University of Leningrad (which she attended during 1921-24). Visit _The Daily Objectivist_ for a review of this excellent journal, and follow the links for information about how to receive it.