Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (Mentor) [Paperback]

Ayn Rand (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: April 1, 1979 | Series: Mentor

Today man's mind is under attack by all the leading schools of philosophy. We are told that we cannot trust our senses, that logic is arbitrary, that concepts have no basis in reality. Ayn Rand opposes that torrent of nihilism, and she provides the alternative in this eloquent presentation of the essential nature--and power--of man's conceptual faculty. She offers a startlingly original solution to the problem that brought about the collapse of modern philosophy: the problem of universals. This brilliantly argued, superbly written work, together with an essay by philosophy professor Leonard Peikoff, is vital reading for all those who seek to discover that human beings can and should live by the guidance of reason.

--This text refers to the Kindle Edition edition.

Product Details

• Paperback: 1 pages
• Publisher: Signet (April 1, 1979)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0451621719
• ISBN-13: 978-0451621719
• Product Dimensions: 6.8 x 4.1 x 0.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 4 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 3.7 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (55 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #3,302,401 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

88 of 98 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Great Book, December 23, 1999

By 

J. Fulton (Somwheres, NY) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: Expanded Second Edition (Paperback)

This book is precisely what the title states. It is an "introduction" and as such is the gateway to Rand's theory of knowledge by way of her theory of concepts. Human knowledge is conceptual knowledge and Rand validates the objectivity of concepts by explaining, from the ground up, the method by which they are formed in the mind. The points she makes which seem misguided and arbitrary are cleared up in subsequent re-readings as long as the reader keeps in mind that once she defines a term, she does not deviate from its meaning. For most of us who are generally unsure about specific definitions of terms and rely on our feelings to give meaning to the words we read, discipline is required. For those who start with an axe to grind based on their disagreements with Rand's political philosophy, deliberate mis-interpretations of terms generally abound (as can be seen in most of the on-line reviews.) One such example is the damning of Rand over her claim to have solved the problem of "universals". In this context, this problem refers to the issue of the relationship between concepts and their perceptual referents; the HISTORICAL problem of universals. It is unfortunately too common to find those who are willing to drop this necessary context and argue against the Objectivist claim based on various meanings of the term universal, few of which are relevant to the issue at hand.

It is amusing to read disagreements of the Objectivist theory of concepts which are addressed and cleared up in the appendix. The appendix of the second edition of I to OE really is amazing. It is simply transcripts of round table discussions of professors who had read the original text presenting their questions and objections on finer points of epistemology. Rand was, apparently, at her intellectual pinnacle at this point, and any potentially hazy points are clarified beyond question.

The criticism that this is not presented in as scholarly a way as an epistemological monograph should be has its merits. The preface clearly states that main work is a reprint of a series of articles in which Rand presented her theory of concept formation. I certainly would have preferred a more scholastic presentation and a deeper exploration of the background of certain ideas, but this was Rand's style. She did not "write down" to her readers and her writing requires objective truth seekers to do their own research. I have, on multiple occasions, encountered the criticism that a reader was left wondering what Bertrand Russell was attempting to "perpetrate" in his theory of numbers. After encountering this passage I went to a philosophy text and read a passage describing Russell's theory of numbers as an attempt to create a purely logical language which would allow one to understand numbers without relating them to their perceptual referents. Since Rand demonstrates that concepts are valid within the context of the totality of human consciousness, and that abstractions must be derived primarily from their perceptual referents (numbers, specifically, are covered) which form their fundamental context, the dismissal of Russell stands.

For those who are familiar with Rand only from Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, this is a fascinating opportunity to understand the underlying support of a novelist's reasoning process, rarely made this explicit.

16 of 17 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Best book on epistemology, August 15, 2007

By 

M. Peterson (Ocean Shores, WA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (Hardcover)

This is the clearest exposition of the most important problem in epistemology: the problem of universals. Most philosophers have believed that the meaning of concepts are not derived from sense perception. The Platonists and religious philosophers such as Augustine believe that concepts come from pre-existing forms, which are revelations from the highest form God. The Sophists, nominalists, and other secular philosophers such as Kant believe concepts are inventions of the mind and do not correspond to reality. Rand argues persuasively that a concept (or universal) is not synonymous with its definition, but an organization of an entire class of existents, our defintion of it changing as we learn more about the similarities of this class. For instance, the concept of "atom" has changed a lot from the Ancient Greeks through Dalton to the present day; but this change in defintion was not arbitrary. The scientists were responding to their observations, and the more they learned about atoms, the more they were obliged to change the definition of atom in accordance with their new understanding. Rand recognizes her debt to Aristotle in epistemology, but also points out flaws in Aristotle's theory of universals, and how these flaws were relentlessly exposed by philosophers eager to attack reason and promote faith, brute feeling, and other forms of irrationality. Most philosophy in the modern period is very abstruse, obscure, and incoherent; this book, by contrast, presents the issue very clearly.

16 of 19 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars The how and why of Objectivist thinking, August 26, 1997

By A Customer

This review is from: Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: Expanded Second Edition (Paperback)

Philosophy has traditionally (since the nineteenth century) been the province of "intellectuals", religious Pooh-Bahs and the like who seem to derive some sort of perverse pleasure out of constructing riddles out of real-world moral and ethical questions. As Rand herself put it, "The men who are not interested in philosophy need it most urgently: they are most helplessly in its power. The men who are not interested in philosophy absorb its principles from the cultural atmosphere around them from schools, colleges, books, magazines, newspapers, movies, television, etc. Who sets the tone of a culture? A small handful of men: the philosophers. Others follow their lead, either by conviction or by default." This book explains the fundamentals of Objectivism it's shared roots (Aristotle's) and it's opposition (Mysticism, Kant, etc.). It's not an easy read, but the author doesn't talk down to the reader and it is readily understandable by someone with a high-school education. I wouldn't recommend this book for folks who are new to philosophy as it requires some background knowledge. For this I would recommend Rand's wonderful introduction (to philosophy in general and Objectivism specifically) entitled "Philosophy, Who Needs It?"