Customer Reviews

Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature

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

 

 

The author offers a few worthwhile criticisms of Rand's philosophy, but there is far too much spite. He regularly claims her philosophy is vague and superficial, simply her subjective prejudices, lacks empirical support, and consists of verbalisms having little to do with reality. Despite this, he agrees with significant chunks of it! In the Introduction he says, "None of Rand's views on human nature, epistemology, history, ethics, or politics bother me all that much." Why then all the spite?

To a great extent the Introduction is one long rant and could be skipped or read after the rest of the book. Such a start undercuts the author's credibility and highlights his emotional dislike of Rand. Then there are his own flawed ideas. For example, he says there is no such thing as induction, yet repeatedly makes generalizations about Rand.

Chapter 1 - Theory of Human Nature

The author gives two basic conceptions of human nature - naturalistic and utopian. He considers himself an extreme naturalist and Rand a utopian. Are there no other alternatives? Rand was surely an idealist (ordinary sense, not the philosophical one). She thought the world could be a better place. If he completely disagrees with that, he is as much fatalistic as naturalistic.

He regards her philosophy not as the search for truth, but her means of projecting the ideal man. Her standard of human greatness is so unrealistic no man could ever meet it. Only her fictional characters could. Of course, some of them are near superhero status, but that doesn't imply real people can't be geniuses, rational, courageous, or have integrity.

The author says Rand's theory of human nature is based on the human mind having complete control over the body and will. Saying that a man must "create himself" is a lot like saying man has no given nature. This is a gross exaggeration. She held there are automatic mechanisms, which undercuts "complete control." She also had plenty to say about man's given nature. How did Nyquist miss it?

Rand says the ideal man has no "inner conflicts" between his reason and emotions. The author says this is wrong; conflicts are between different desires. This is a valid point for real people much of the time. I doubt that Rand would have disagreed. Nyquist has an "inner conflict" between his reason and emotions at least when it comes to Rand. Emotions aside, he finds much to agree with. Let emotion enter, and his antagonism overwhelms him.

He critiques Rand and her disciple Leonard Peikoff on the choice to think and innate emotions. Peikoff says there are no innate emotions and wrote some things I haven't found in Rand's writing, so it's hard to know if she would have agreed. In any case he makes some valid criticisms of their claims, especially on the choice to think. Peikoff claimed there is no `why', and Nyquist rightly jumps on it. On the other hand, he makes false or dubious claims and misrepresents them. For example, Rand wrote that man's emotional mechanism was tabula rasa. However, she also wrote that the physical pleasure-pain mechanism of man's body is automatic and innate, which Nyquist ignores. This undercuts his depiction of Rand's position. Also, "blank slate" does not mean "no slate."

He claims Rand could not bring herself to reject the fundamental impulses toward religion, man's spiritual salvation. She wanted to save men's souls, but instead of looking to God, thought she could do it herself.

Chapter 2 - Theory of History

Much of this is about Peikoff's theory of history. Rand wrote very little on the topic. The author rightfully criticizes Peikoff's theory for its exaggerated importance assigned to philosophers. He claims instead that history is driven by more practical matters like human sentiments and desires and their unintended consequences. A good example is money qua medium of exchange. He endorses Vilfredo Pareto's idea that desires and sentiments are the primary determinants of the social order.

The chapter is not without the author's own misconceptions. For example: "There is absolutely no reason to believe that ideas become more influential as their degree of abstractness increases. If anything, they probably become less influential. . . . How can principles so vague and indefinite possibly guide man's concrete actions?" He seems oblivious to the phenomena that "more abstract" extends the range of application. For example, in biological taxonomy genus is more abstract than specie. Genus applies to multiple species and thus more organisms.

Chapter 3 - Theory of Knowledge

He critiques Rand's claim about the significance of the problem of universals and Rand's solution to it, which rests heavily on her theory of measurement omission. I largely agree with the author's criticisms here, especially on measurement omission. It is not that measurements are never omitted, but that she grossly exaggerated their role and was inconsistent.

The author's comments on abstraction show his misunderstanding of it in regard to concept-formation. Abstraction is the selection of common characteristics of the referents and thus central. In contrast Nyquist says it is purely secondary and approvingly cites Santayana that "the abstract is what is less familiar to the speaker." Huh?

He misunderstands Rand's words or distorts them for polemical purposes. One of many examples: "Rand's most serious epistemological error is her assumption that all human knowledge is ultimately conceptual in nature and can only be formulated through a process of deliberate conscious reasoning." But in Rand's own words, knowledge is "a mental grasp of a fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation" (ITOE, 1979, 45).

He notes that Ayn Rand did not solve the "problem of induction" and he agrees with Karl Popper about it.

Chapter 4 - Theory of Metaphysics

The author says he detests metaphysics; it's too abstract, speculative, and non-empirical. I agree when the metaphysics is of somebody like Hegel, who gets Nyquist's attention. Moving on to Rand, he goes after her axioms and oft-repeated "A is A" as verbalisms empty of empirical content. (I think there is more to them than he acknowledges, when their meaning is elaborated.) He even agrees with them on some level, but criticizes the way Rand and other Objectivists use them polemically against other people.

The author's own view on logic is common but incoherent. On page 98, he says the following. "Reality is neither logical nor illogical; it just is. Logic is a quality that applies only to the realm of thought." . . . "Those who, like Rand, assume that reality is logical, are guilty of confusing our ideas about reality with reality itself." (I have even seen some who call themselves Objectivists express this view.) "Our thoughts about reality must be logical if they are to correctly represent reality." I must ask: How can thoughts -- logical or illogical -- be compared to reality if reality is neither logical or illogical (in his view)?

Chapter 5 - Theory of Morality

The author wholly agrees with Hume's attack on the so-called naturalistic fallacy, that one can derive an `ought' from an `is.' He contends Rand's morality is a complete failure, critiques her positions like `life is the standard of value' and the tension between bare survival and survival appropriate to man's nature, and altruism versus egoism. As an aside, this issue is often debated elsewhere as "survival versus flourishing." Despite all the criticisms, he believes there are some elements of truth in the Objectivist ethics.

One of several topics he undertakes is the dictum honesty is the best policy. After noting some exceptions given by Leonard Peikoff, Nyquist declares: "Once you admit that your moral principles do not apply `under all circumstances,' then you have, in effect, given yourself the right to break your moral principles any time you choose." Really? It's a policy, not a rule without exception. It may mean that the policy is a not quite as broad as expressed earlier. An exception to `all X are Y' leaves `some X are Y' or `most X are Y', not `no X is Y'.

Chapter 6 - Theory of Politics

He starts on the wrong foot. Citing Peikoff: "Politics, like ethics, is a normative branch of philosophy." Nyquist says: "No where is the basic problem of Objectivist theory of politics more aptly expressed . . . Peikoff is expressing the Objectivist view that political philosophy is primarily concerned, not with the basic facts of political conduct in the real world, but on how politics ought to be conducted." I disagree. Peikoff is saying a political theory, no matter whose, follows some ethical principles. For example, some would say "it's moral to rob Peter to pay Paul." Two pages later Nyquist in effect says the same thing: "the overwhelming influence of sentiment on political thinking".

Oddly enough, he concedes to Rand "her every normative claim about social, economic and political relations." Nevertheless, he can't resist inserting ridiculous comments. "She suffered from the delusion that political problems could be solved by manipulating conceptual constructions."

"It should be obvious that Rand and her followers have little if any, notion of how many real-life obstacles stand in the way of the implementation of their theory." And where is Nyquist's vaunted empirical support for this? I doubt he knows more than a handful of her followers, so he can't know what they think about this. Two obvious and enormous real-life obstacles are the prevalence of the sentiment that it's moral to rob Peter to pay Paul and business should be heavily government-regulated. I'd bet the vast majority of her followers would state these real-life obstacles instantly.

Chapter 7 - Theory of Aesthetics

Like he indicates in the Introduction, his fiercest antagonism towards Rand is inspired by her views on aesthetics. Reportedly Rand often inferred others' philosophical positions on the basis of their aesthetic valuations, and she had many negative ones. There was a lot of art considered great by many that Rand despised. Oddly enough, his antagonism to Rand's aesthetics is quite constrained in this chapter.

Chapter 8 - Final Thoughts

He tackles the question of whether Objectivist principles are harmful or beneficial to those who accept them. He believes beneficial in many cases. But they are "useless to those who know how to think critically or are familiar with the facts of history and the social sciences." What a non-empirical claim and subjective prejudice! How does Nyquest presume to know so much about so many people he doesn't know?

He turns to the question of what effect Objectivism will have on the future. With intrigue like that, I will make my final comment. For those who might be tempted to throw the book in the trash after encountering a few criticisms of Rand and her philosophy, they will at least miss some food for thought.

In search good supplement to my continuing rehabilitation from my Ayn Rand addiction, I looked to this book. I wanted a solid rebuttal of some of the contradictions I had gleaned off of Rand's writing. As Greg will tell you, academic philosophers have largely ignored Rand, and he promises to clear all that up. Needless to say, I was excited to read this book, because as much as I respect Rand's philosophy, I haven't heard any criticisms. Maybe I was just being sucked in to the infamous Randian cult lifestyle, I wanted a complete picture.

However, I was let down. There are points worth noting, some mistakes of Rand that are elucidated, some knowledge to be had from this book... But most if not all of it, I feel, was gone about in an unbecoming to a philosopher and sometimes childish manner. As far as tackling Ayn Rand goes, I was expecting Nyquist to show her up on her own ground. That is, clear and unambiguous discourse on errors in thinking Rand had committed. Not so. My expectations were shattered.

This book is littered with personal slander of Ayn Rand that supposedly discredits objectivism. Constant misrepresentations of her philsophy, either through ignorance by Nyquist or maybe he thought the reader wouldn't notice. Appeal after appeal to a "that's just how people are, everyone says so". Ayn Rand probably knows best of all that her philosophy and "people" don't match the best, as you can tell from her fiction. Often Nyquist simply stoops to generating controversy by using a word in a different sense that Rand has.

More often was a pulling my hair in intellectual agony than picking out any tidbits of worthwile criticism. I want my money back Greg. Paypal me.

Before getting started, would like to make a small request. Besides dealing with controversial topics and itself being controversial, Rand's work covers a wide range in terms of breadth and depth while introducing ideas original to public discussion. It is difficult and intimidating under the best of circumstances for people to merely adjust to such novel ideas. We can relax a bit and realize that there is no need to figure everything out instantly or with rancor, and there is no requirement that anyone else adopt our chosen beliefs. That having been said, let's proceed.

A long-term "student of Objectivism," I welcome books which offer an intelligent, fair, unbiased evaluation of Rand's ideas. Rand herself said, "Think!" Thinking is good for everyone, and that is just what Nyquist has done. As background, he has undertaken the strenuous initiative of seriously studying a great many prominent thinkers and philosophers who wrote work relevant to this book. Perhaps because he has maintained a website featuring critical discussion of Rand's work, he has drawn fire in some of the book's reviews. Some have thought that his book is little more than a personal attack on Rand. Some have dismissed him out of hand. While there are passages and words which are going to be inflammatory in this book, I personally chose to ignore all of these and focus on only the reason and supported conclusions herein presented.

It seems that Nyquist studied Rand quite well, though, perhaps not exhaustively. I say that because I believe in one or two places, he missed Rand's meaning or intent. But overall, it is a good representation with references, albeit many times quotes of Leonard Peikoff written after Rand's death. At points, it appears as if Peikoff is clarifying or even extending Rand; yet it seems true that now, for most people, Peikoff speaks fully and finally for Rand. These days, even the new edition covers of her novels indicate they are authored by "Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff."

This book begins by noting that Rand's works make her one of the most widely read philosophers of the twentieth century and one of the most enduring writers of any generation, yet Rand's work has not been subject to a genuinely intelligent and penetrating criticism. For me, the books of Albert Ellis and Jeff Walker are intelligent as well as penetrating; yet I agree with author that there are really few books which fully challenge Rand from the standpoint of traditional academic philosophy, and at the same time define all of their terms. In other words, for many Rand readers, no study of philosophy has been pursued beyond the works of Rand, yet some books critical of her seem to assume a philosophy degree. Nyquist attempts to bridge this gap by explaining the meaning of concepts he uses in terms the average person can follow.

Essentially, Nyquist believes that man/woman has a certain, rather regrettable, nature and that he/she has always behaved accordingly and will not change on Rand's account. Strength, force, manipulation, even deceit, trump empathy, reason, negotiation, honesty. This is the given character of man, who is doomed to exist in a confusing world of selfish and conflicting desires, sentiments, passions, emotions.

I would pause here to note that this characterization of the nature of humankind is not new but has its roots in a very ancient doctrine which is heartily endorsed by Judeo-Christian theology, holding that man's very nature is sinful, that humans are born sinful, that no amount of good acts are sufficient to convince the deity and his earthly church representatives otherwise, and that it is by the grace of the deity alone that they are accepted for "salvation," provided of course that they keep faith with the churches. Rand very critically examined this doctrine at length and I would most highly recommend what she had to say about it; I will go into more detail below about the problems with theology; but suffice to say for now, that this doctrine of original sin and sinful nature, besides being an unproven matter accepted on faith alone, has had countless derivative, corrosively destructive, effects on the human spirit down through the centuries to the present time.

Nyquist contradicts Rand's assertions that man's life as man is the proper standard of value; that happiness is life's purpose; that honesty is the best policy; that sex is an expression of one's highest values; that evil is ultimately impotent; that reason is one's only judge of values or one's only guide to action. Rand's philosophy is "Utopian to the core;" little historical or current empirical evidence exists to support her propositions; and she has grossly overlooked formulating any intelligent discussion of the issues grappled with by thinkers such as Burke, Weber, Michel, Schumpeter, Pareto, or numerous others.

Nyquist posits that Rand is centrally wrong or at best, half-right, about the nature of man; and that, in turn, her theories of knowledge (epistemology), metaphysics, morality, politics, history, and aesthetics are either confused, corrupted, or both, and must fall. Intellectuals in general are pretty useless for the most part. That man has risen to dominate the planet, not on the basis of size or strength, large teeth or claws, but by using his brain, known as "thinking" seems to be of too little import to be worthy of mention. A notable failure on Rand's part, says Nyquist, is what he terms her emphasis on empty verbalizing, especially in the empirically important area of metaphysics. He demonstrates a level of validity here; on the other hand, he himself quotes numerous writings of philosophers; could not any similar criticism be leveled at those others as he levels at Rand?

In epistemology, there is a well-known problem with inductive reasoning. The scientific method rests not only on induction to develop a premise, but also deduction, to test that premise to find where it fails to describe reality. Thus has physics, for example, progressed from Newton to Einstein to quantum mechanics to string theory, and it continues to test. Rand, on the other hand, relies exclusively on induction and abstraction, and her approach fails to solve the inductive problem of "how many cases are enough to prove a point?" Here I would observe that, in some instances, statistics and induction are useful in scientific investigation, for one example, double blind studies used in medical research; statistics used in areas of research such as sociology, politics, marketing.

More significantly, Nyquist relies on some broad assumptions about man's psychology, advising that ideas have relatively little to do with causing emotions, motivations, and behavior. This is in marked contrast to the emphasis given thinking (cognition) by modern psychology. Albert Ellis, in his book "Is Objectivism a Religion," admits to having been either first influenced or in early accord with Rand's concept of thoughts as an important (not the only) cause of emotion and his derivative Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) accords with this recognition. Ellis has been in clinical practice some 60 years and is one of the world's most respected psychologists and prolific writers of books on human behavior.

The research and writings of Aaron Beck, M.D., David Burns, M.D., Matthew McKay and many others; as well a voluminous body of research and clinical evidence, accord with this recognition that thinking and common thinking errors are important in determining emotional health or illness and corresponding motivation. Today's gold-standard treatment is cognitive-behavioral therapy.

Nyquist, it seems, would equally exclude influences of environment (for example he says that children learn language due to an inborn drive to do so, presumably instead of modeling language), for which he offers little authority.

Nyquist posits that action-directing emotion is nearly always a function of frustration or fulfillment of objectives and not of philosophies as Rand claims. In these assertions, he hopes to prove wrong a central tenet of Rand's, namely that men and women can build character and live successfully and happily by the judicious use of their minds. For his behavioral theories Nyquist offers few references, and this is disappointing in view of his insistence that we must back up our claims and assertions by solid evidence. I think that on this point Rand was more correct than Nyquist gives her credit for.

Please however take into account that this endorsement in no way extends to Rand's subsequent ideas of "psychology," of which she had no known formal training, and which were largely speculation. Recognizing that thoughts do affect emotions and behavior is not the same thing as formulating a system of psychology from the armchair. Dr. Ellis, mentioned above, wrote an entire book delineating the many differences between his REBT system and elements of Rand's system ("Is Objectivism a Religion?")

Many psychologists would have grounds of disagreement with ideas Rand claimed followed from her main premise. And well they would disagree, as they make their living working with real people; if Rand's entire system of "psychology" were to be used for this purpose, as it was during the days of Nathaniel Branden Institute, it would be expected to have the same disastrous results it did then. In this regard, please see the books of Ellis and Walker. Walker is not a psychologist, but he has assembled hundreds of quotes from people who were in Rand's inner circle. The books of the Brandens also are relevant concerning Objectivist "psychology."

One of Rand's major, and to me, most valid, points is the following. Heretofore, most major philosophies and systems of morality have been intricately tied to religions. The majority of Americans claim to be religious. Presumably they believe the central teaching that commandments have been received by revelation from a deity to a few chosen men and women who went on to assemble them in writings which have been spread widely among humans usually as bibles. These claims of seeing and hearing deities have been taken on faith. Thus, for example, on our currency is printed, "In God We Trust."

To these writings of revelations were added more accounts and stories over generations; some of these were notably edited out, for example by the early Catholic church, to suit later purposes. The end result is a system, such as Christianity, in which we have stories of the creation, the garden, the fall of man, the flood, heaven, hell, coming of the messiah, etc.; lessons; commandments; institutions; and rituals.

While the moral imperatives may be perfectly valid, people tend to be skeptical and rightly so. Some thinkers will believe the complete system by the letter; others might believe that the deity exists but that he did not speak to those who claim revelations; others may say he did not specify all or some of those particular commandments; others could feel that the commandments are fine but that there are hardly enough of them to cover all situations and they are too vague; others will ignore the whole, the alternative being those human desires, wishes, whims, and emotions leading to aggression, manipulation, deceit, the behavior author describes. Rand sees this as the reason the history of humankind has been bloody, and her assertions are credible. She felt that religion was better than no morality at all, but she saw the weaknesses in it and the need to take morality from religion to reason.

I believe that what Rand recognized about this was world-changing and fundamental. She said that the burden of proof is not on those who dispute the existence of a deity, but on those who claim a deity exists. This was Rand at her best. And as long as churches come up with rationalizations but no proof, the unproven elements and mysticism and the basic reliance on faith will always weaken the credibility of the entirety. Rand also recognized that we are all unique individuals who, if we have any hope of resolving our differing interests, need morality. Her concept of inalienable rights correlates with our U.S. Constitution - can you imagine America without the Constitution? - and rights call for a supporting morality. She discussed the principle of trade as most appropriate for human beings; trade, to succeed and continue, requires morality.

Besides resting on yet-unproven precepts and containing vague commandments, religions have propounded the idea of a speculative eternal life after death; Rand would have morality assist us, not in some unproven eternal life, but rather in the life we all know we have, the one here on this earth for a specific time. Many people, she pointed out, squander the one and only life that is proven, this one, because they count on tales of a life after death, a contradiction she said, without evidence.

As to formulating a secular morality, that should not be insurmountable. Work on this has already been underway for centuries in the development of common law, enactment of legislation by elected officials, and enforcement of laws by means of civil or criminal damages, fines, community service or other enforcements. Our common law comes from England; other countries have civil law, which is a secular system which differs in some respects. Legal systems rest on the recognition that morality is both right and necessary.

This does not necessarily mean larger government; it does mean that more people should know what is expected of them and what they can expect from others and what results will follow for specific behavior. Thus, for example, Rand proposed that people should get the idea that no one has the right to deliberately take the life of another yet continue to live their own life; killing is making a choice that carries consequences. You can readily see the difference here between the bible commandment "thou shall not kill", which seems like preaching and has done little to stem killing, and Rand's concept of education, voluntary choice, and corresponding consequences.

Please note that this is not the same thing as agreeing with Rand as to all of the further specifics she prescribes. Rand negates altruism as a fundamental tenet of her suggested morality, claiming it is an evil precept. On this I believe Rand offered no proof. The author points out that Rand's view of altruism categorized it as evil:

(quoting Rand): "It was the morality of altruism that undercut America and is destroying her." (1961,62) "Altruism is incompatible with freedom, capitalism and individual rights. One cannot combine the pursuit of happiness with the moral status of a sacrificial animal." (1964b,95)

In this regard, understand that Rand used certain words in a sense very different than those words are used commonly. As defined by the American Heritage Dictionary New College Edition (1980), sacrifice is defined: "The act of offering something to a deity in homage, especially the ritual SLAUGHTER of an animal or person for this purpose; the forfeiture of something highly valued, as an idea, object, or friendship, for the sake of someone or something considered to have a GREATER VALUE or claim; a relinquishing of something at less than its presumed value." Altruism is defined: "Concern for the welfare of others, as opposed to egoism; selflessness."

The sense in which Rand commonly used the word "sacrifice" accords more with the words "masochism" or "immolation," diagnosable mental illnesses; and the sense in which she used the word "altruism" accords more with the words "codependence" or "neuroticism," diagnosable mental illnesses.

Example of common usage - sacrifice (relinquishing at less than presumed value): Businesses often make sales at "sacrifice" prices because the item did not sell and room must be made for new merchandise
Example of common usage - altruism (selflessness): Mothers and fathers are often selfless in caring for their young
Example of common usage - sacrifice (sake of greater value or claim): Rand declared that she would step in front of a bullet to save her husband Frank because he was that important to her
Example of common usage - altruism (concern for welfare of others): Working in teaching, firefighting, law enforcement, nursing, psychology, military; not because these careers make one rich, but because of the satisfaction derived from assisting with the welfare, safety, healing, or education of humanity

Ellis' book covers in more detail Rand's tendency to exaggerate toward the negative. This is a classic habit of persons with who have emotional illness such as depression. (Beck, Depression, 1967) Accepting Rand's advice regarding altruism as evil will not only make people unhappy as she herself was (B. Branden; Walker) but the widespread use of such advice could lead to larger scale problems and handicaps for our country and threaten its security and its position of leadership in the world.

I do not feel that her unbridled capitalism is viable in the absence of a controlling system of rational morality which she was the first to say we don't have yet.

I particularly liked Nyquist's analysis of Rand's theory of history. First, was Christianity responsible for the Dark Ages, as Peikoff wrote? (1982, 338) Many facts are given which cast doubt on this particular theory; reference is well made to Weber and his Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism, in which Weber posits a strong connection between religious morality and productive enterprise.

Also in that chapter, author asks "Was German philosophy responsible for the rise of Hitler and the Nazis?" Peikoff avers that Plato, Kant and Hegel more than any others were the intellectual builders of Auschwitz (1982,37) It so happens that the German psychiatrist, Alice Miller, in her book "For Your Own Good," carefully establishes the connection between the German psyche, Hitler, Nazism and the harsh disciplinary childrearing practices common in Germany at the time. Hitler's own story was compelling in this respect. What Plato, Kant and Hegel had to do with these ruinous practices is yet to be explained by Peikoff.

To conclude, this book opens up many of the leading ideas of Rand to investigation. As her works are increasingly being used in universities, I can see such books as this one also having a future there as fuel for thought and discussion. Still, I would differ with some of his major premises. To be absolutely fair to him, however, I read Rand for some twenty years, while I have only just recently read this book and will be revisiting it again.

Suggested Further Reading:
Thoughts and Feelings by McKay, Davis, Fanning
Depression by Aaron Beck
Reason and Emotion in Psychotherapy by Albert Ellis
Is Objectivism a Religion by Albert Ellis
For Your Own Good by Alice Miller
Thou Shalt Not be Aware by Alice Miller
The Ayn Rand Cult by Jeff Walker
When Anger Hurts by McKay, Rogers, McKay
Anger by Carol Tavris

Thank you for reading, and comments are welcome.

In short: Nyquist's book is a pretty good critique of Randian Objectivism, although overly polemical in tone and without giving any acceptable solutions to the identified problems. Furthermore, it lacks a detailed table of contents. So here it is for your convenience:

AYN RAND CONTRA HUMAN NATURE
--- By Greg S. Nyquist ---

Expanded Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Theory of HUMAN NATURE

Introduction -- 1
(1) Motive of Rand's Philosophy: The "ideal" man -- 3
(2) Rand's Theory of Human Nature -- logical criticism of theory -- 10
(3) Empirical criticism of theory -- 23
........1. Do innate predispositions exist? -- 24
........2. Are emotions entirely the product of thinking? -- 31
........3. Is it possible for men to subject every aspect of their lives to the dominion of reason? -- 38
(4) Practical criticism (i.e., what would happen if people believed it to be true?) -- 41

Chapter 2: Theory of HISTORY

Introduction -- purpose of Rand's theory of history -- 48
(1) Exposition of Rand/Peikoff's theory of history -- 51
(2) Logical criticism of theory - analysis of key premises -- 64
........1. Man's character is the product of ideas -- 64
........2. Human beings are the product of philosophical ideas -- 64
........3. Man must formulate the abstract ideas through a process of deliberate conscious reasoning -- 66
(3) Empirical criticism of theory -- study of three factual claims -- 69
........1. Did Christianity cause the Dark Ages? -- 70
........2. Did altruism cause American statism? -- 81
........3. Did German philosophy cause Aushwitz? -- 85
(4) Pragmatic criticism - how Rand's theory of history prevents the study of the evolution of social phenomenon -- 89

Chapter 3: Theory of KNOWLEDGE

Introduction -- purpose of Rand's epistemology -- 99
(1) Exposition of Rand's solution to problem of universals -- criticism -- 103
(2) Rand's theory of "automized" knowledge -- logical and empircal criticism -- 125

........1. There is nothing in the subconscious besides what you acquired by conscious means -- 134
........2. The conscious mind is always able to know about subconscious integrations -- 135
........3. The subconscious has no purposes or values of its own -- 135
(3) Four prominent verbalist fallacies in Objectivism -- 137
........1. Fallacy of unsubstantiated assertion -- 138
........2. Fallacy of restating the assertion in different terms -- 140
........3. Fallacy of reasoning on the basis of indefinite terms -- 145
........4. The fallacy of over-generalization -- 158
(4) Rand's theory of "contextual" certainty -- criticism -- 166

Chapter 4: Theory of METAPHYSICS

Introduction -- criticism of metaphysics -- 179
(1) Exposition of Rand's primary axioms -- 183
(2) Criticism of Rand's axioms and the use Rand makes of them -- 186
........1. Existence exists -- 186
........2. Consciousness -- 187
................a. Philosophical idealism -- 188

................b. Monotheistic creationism -- 190
........3. A is A -- 193
................a. Causality -- 194
................b. Reality as logical -- 195
(3) Examination of the idealist premises in Rand's metaphysics -- defense of critical realism -- 199
(4) Criticism of Rand's use of the tautology "A is A" -- 203

Chapter 5: Theory of ETHICS

Introduction -- the is/ought gap in morality -- 206
(1) Rand's theory of moral value -- 210
(2) Criticism of Rand's "man's life qua man" principle -- 218
(3) Empirical criticism of Rand's view that reason is man's basic means of survival -- 223
(4) Criticism of Rand's view of egoism and altruism -- 233
(5) Criticism of Rand's view of happiness -- 247
(6) Criticism of Rand's solution to the problem of evil -- 254
(7) Criticism of Objectivist defense of honesty -- 258
(8) Criticism of Rand's theory of sex -- 265
(9) Conclusion -- the extreme vagueness of Randian virtues -- 270

Chapter 6: Theory of POLITICS

Introduction -- defense of naturalist politics -- method of argumentation following in this chapter -- 272
(1) Exposition of Rand's political theory -- 276
(2) Practical criticism of Rand's theory of rights -- Rand's view contrasted with V. Pareto's -- 282
(3) Rand's view of force and the problem of class circulation -- 296
(4) Empirical criticism of Rand's ideological view of capitalism -- 300
(5) Criticism of Objectivist strategy for increasing freedom -- 314
........1. Social conditions -- 316
........2. Objectivist leaders must formulate strategies -- 318

Chapter 7: Theory of AESTHETICS

Introduction -- 329
(1) Rand's theory of sense of life -- 330
(2) Rand's phillistinism -- her hatred of most great art that realistically portrays the human condition -- 333
(3) Conclusion -- vacuity of Objectivist art -- 343

Chapter 8: Final Thoughts

Introduction -- brief summary of argument -- 345
(1) To what degree is Objectivism useful as guiding ideology? -- 348
(2) Objectivism's future prospects -- 356
(3) Concluding assessment -- 362

Bibliography -- 369

If you are an Objectivist, you may want to read this and attempt to write a book refuting his arguments. I don't agree with all of Greg's arguments, but many of them are devastating, especially his scientific arguments. Just as bad for Rand's supporters, he shows that much of her reasoning is based on fallacies. He basically points out that she abandoned reason in the name of reason. Please don't comment on what I said, until you read the whole book. You can't fully understand his critique by just reading one chapter.

According to Ayn Rand, "[Man's] spirit, that is his own essential character, must be created by him. In this sense, it is almost as if he was born as an abstraction . . . but he must make himself concrete by his own effort, he must create himself." [Nyquist, Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature, p. 10 quoting The Journals of Ayn Rand.] Given this "man as his own god" view of human nature, Rand considered man's mind as "tabula rasa" and his will absolutely free. From these ideas much else in Rand's philosophy flowed. So, for example, emotions are programmed by human reason, concepts are created by the mind by a virtually deliberate process, and history is ultimately determined by ideas, to the virtual exclusion of economic and environmental factors. But if Rand's view of human nature is wrong, then these conclusions are likely wrong as well. That this is the case is the argument of Greg Nyquist's generally excellent book, Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature.

As Nyquist shows (following sociobiologist E.O. Wilson and others) this is every reason to believe that human nature isn't quite so malleable and unrestricted. We are biological creatures; human nature and our environment impose all sorts of limitations on us.

In the book's best chapter - that on history - Nyquist pokes any number of holes in Rand's theories. First of all, it is extremely unlikely that philosophical ideas are the ultimate determiner of history. To make such a conclusion would require a complex analysis of various civilizations and cultures, to determine what factors influenced historical change. Rand didn't do this, so why should her conclusions on history be trusted?

Indeed, as Nyquist shows, while Rand claimed to be the most "rational" and "objective" thinker ever, whenever one subjects her theories to empirical observation, they are almost always proven to be false. Take for example her work, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. There, Rand claims to solve the so-called "problem of universals" (which is more of a metaphysical than epistemological problem, but that's another story). She engages in all sorts of gratuitous speculations on how human and even animal minds work without offering a shred of evidence. Her speculations on history are even more ridiculous. She proffered endless pablum on topics such as the Middle Ages and the Renaissance which are plainly false to anyone who has a modicum of knowledge on these subjects.

This book has some problems of its own. Nyquist is a little unfair to Rand at times. He could do a better job of synthesizing her statements. In this respect, Sciabarra's Ayn Rand the Russian Radical is a much better discussion of her philosophy. Likewise, many of his jabs at other philosophers (and scholars of Ayn Rand) are unfair.

I read this book when it first came out several years ago, and what a great, refreshing, head-spinner of a book this is, as I remember it. It's a tour de force, unique in the field of anti-Rand literature. It's not a rant; it's an exploration, a tour through a strange museum that was Rand's Objectivism and Greg Nyquist is our tour guide, a guide who is not without his humor and surprise!

Greg Nyquist isn't a professional philosopher trying to substitute Rand's philosophy for his own. Nor is he trying to make a better argument than Rand for Objectivism. He really just wants to show the reader that trust in Rand-worship and in Rand's philosophy is misplaced; both have lots of cracks, fissures, and implausibilities about them. That's why he's written this book. The book is not a rant; it's an extended conversation with the reader.

Mr. Nyquist is a freelance writer. He's created a book by his own means, his own intellectual effort. He deserves respect for that effort and for his courage. There's no need to remark perjoratively, as some negative reviewers have done, that Nyquist started with "vanity publishing" attempts of this book. Such remarks remain beside the point of the book's main and cogent discussion; they even constitute an ad hominen argument against what are the book's main ideas, and Randians especially ought to know and recognize this error. But, sadly, they do not and keep uttering irrational mouthings.

Great authors in the past have followed the path of self-publishing and great authors in the future will continue to do so. There is no shame attached to this endeavor at all. Mr. Nyquist has a right to feel proud of his work. It is a wonderful and awesome read.

The author shows the reader exactly where the cracks and fissures in Objectivsm are -- especially in regard to Rand's views of human nature (and in her pedestrian esthetic tastes). I think the author does this job better than any other anti-Rand author managing to get his or her words out in print, no matter the means.

Granted the author's ways of reaching his goals, his ways of taking the reader on this exploration, journey, or tour through the museum of Rand's ideas can be quirky or even eccentric at times, but he gets the job done and he does it very interestingly, compellingly.

The book is not a dry treatise as some might expect, although someone less informed and less skilled at being a highly specialized philosophical tour-guide of Rand's ideas than Greg Nyquist might have created such a work and bored the reader beyond tears. It is a provocative and informative work.

I recommend this book to men and women who feel uncomfortable in the cult of Objectivism and who need, understandably, really reasonable reasons to escape, good and useful reasons for escaping the cult that is Objectivism. I also recommend this book to men and women who want an overview of what pitfalls to avoid when exploring Objectivism.

This is a highly enjoyable and riveting read, but one which does require some academic acumen or intellectual staying-power to fully enjoy.

Peace to all, and enjoy!

With a multimillion-selling oeuvre of fiction and polemic, promoted by both her followers and herself as the greatest philosopher of the 20th Century, and possibly of all time, Ayn Rand remains a controversial figure. Yet while both loved and loathed, her work is still too little examined.

This is not due to its modest ambition. Many of Ayn Rand's adherents contend that she is the greatest genius who ever lived, that she almost singlehandedly solved all the major philosophical problems of the last 2000 years, and that the entirety of Western civilisation needs to be urgently recreated in the image of her particular philosophy, Objectivism, if it is to survive. These are the kind of claims that usually attract critical attention. Yet until recently the response had been either superficial, or rather specialised and fragmented, with no comprehensive criticism in the vigorous popular style that Rand herself wrote in.

Greg Nyquist's book "Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature" fills this vacuum. Starting from the key insight that her life's work was the `projection of an ideal man', Nyquist conducts a blistering examination all the main branches of her philosophy, exposing the immense divide between her romantic rationalisations and the hard empirical facts of reality. Perhaps most devastating of all, he shows how, on close examination, some of the most important doctrines of Objectivism turn out to be little more than empty word-games mistaken for profound insights. If you enjoy the book, there is also an 'Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature' blog at blogspot.

Greg Nyquist is the kind of guy that would probably annoy a person who enjoys day-dreaming and dallying in flights of fancy. He states his allegiance to naturalist and empirical philosophies and respect of biological views of human nature upfront. If you make a claim, Nyquist will simply ask you for evidence supporting it. And ideally, he doesn't mean you observation of one individual - he means scientifically tested data, or references and arguments in support of your claims. Define what you mean by pointing to things, and present your evidence.

The view of human beings that Nyquist develops with such a worldview is cynical, but Nyquist is obviously able to empathize with lofty ideals - he just thinks that all issues should be brought to the bar of scientific and rational analysis with substantiating evidence. Of course, he also stresses that you should not evade the evidence contrary to your theme.

How well does Nyquist's criticism of Objectivism hit its mark when shooting from this perspective? It hits it very well! Nyquist criticizes Objectivist claims about human nature, history, art and philosophy by simply taking an Objectivist position, looking for the evidence, and asking what science, and then his philosophical viewpoint, have to say on the matter. My favorite parts of his critique are his criticisms of Rand's assertions about human nature and the tabula rasa mind. I had thought about doing such a critique myself, but guessed intuitively that Nyquist would have done one first. He presents the empirically based genetic and sociobiological evidence for genetic influences on human choices and behavior.

I am not a history buff, so I am not able to critique historical views with great competence. While Nyquist might score points here, I think it might have helped if he was able to cite more than one reference for every point that he made, or at least, primary references. However, this does not destroy his points that undermine the lazy approach of replacing real empirically tested or substantiated knowledge with philosophical perspectives.

While I disagree with Nyquist's arguments that attempt to dissociate logic from metaphysics (I am acquainted with the history of the argument between Blanshard and Nagel on that point - not directly presented by Nyquist - and I side with Blanshard), I do appreciate and agree with his argument that the scientific claims pretty much trump speculative philosophical ones and that underlying philosophies that declare allegiance to "reason" are not necessarily declaring an allegiance to the scientific method that certifies predictive and testable knowledge. I also agree with him that it is when allegiance to *scientific empiricism* is pervasive, and not just *bland declarations of allegiance to reason* that progress amongst human beings is greatest (not that the two are totally mutally exclusive, but Newton is an example of a mystic who was a scientific empiricist). Speculative philosophy can be right about things, but the idea that it grants certain knowledge is very dubious, whether coming from Objectivism, Christianity or Marxism. The method by which of verbalist speculation replaces science is common in lots of philosophy. Nyquist uses this to show how Rand ends up confusing many of her readers by playing upon their intuitive understandings of her ambiguously defined words. He does what is pretty clear to most people who have argued with Objectivists - show that "reason" to a hardcore Objectivist is synonymous with "the ideas of Objectivism".

I do not think Nyquist has written a perfect book - I sometimes found the presentation format to be uneven (not every chapter seemed to have a conclusion, for example), and there were points on which his disrespect for a certain position led him to dismiss it without sufficient empathy.

However, he deserves a 5-star review if only for bringing Objectivism to the bar of empirical analysis. Reviews that disagree with him will tend to dislike his naturalism, especially as he cynically applies it to ethics and politics, asking how Rand's capitalist fantasies, with which he (and I) share some sympathies, will ever take root.

In the end, you respect for this book will depend on whether you are able to empathize with arguments you disagree with, and whether your view of human nature is conserative or libertine.

The best technical presentation of Ayn Rand's thought is Leonard Peikoff's "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand." Rand herself maintained that a philosophy should be graspable by real people--and not the purview of experts alone--and Peikoff's book is that presentation. So if you've read her novels and articles, and want to grasp her thought in a systematic way, then read Peikoff. Then, decide for yourself.

Nyquist's book does not rise to the level of a competent critique. He neither presents his own methods clearly, nor properly presents Rand. I have not said whether I agree with her or not. I have simply said that Nyquist's book is not the place to learn her thought. Stay away from it.