Objectivism and the Corruption of Rationality: A Critique of Ayn Rand's Epistemology Paperback – January 27, 2003

Both the late Scott Ryan and Ayn Rand shared something in common: neither one had any academic training in philosophy. Rand was a Hollywood script writer and novelist, yet went on to promote a philosophy she called “Objectivism.” Ryan, on the other hand, was a mathematician who apparently never wrote anything other than the above book prior to his untimely death. And yet, if you were to ask me who the better philosopher was, I would have to say it was Scott Ryan hands down.His book Objectivism and the Corruption of Rationality was written over several years, so it is not a slapdash production. One can tell that Ryan really thought through the issues he discusses. Most professional philosophers are not going to spend any time analyzing the thought of Ayn Rand any more than they would spend time analyzing the thought of L. Ron Hubbard. The reason is that they are simply too busy thinking and writing about the main thinkers and philosophers of history -- Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, and numerous others -- and so they have little time to devote to analyzing the thought of popular writers. Thus, it is left to informed amateurs to take up the slack. As someone who admits to no training in philosophy, Ryan has written a book that is fairly well up to professional standards in philosophy, and I can see how philosophy professors could assign it to students who ask about Rand’s philosophical views.There are some problems with the book. Ryan was, at the time of writing his book, an Idealist and pantheist after the manner of Spinoza, and his religious affiliation was Judaism. However, in the period prior to his death, he appears to have been making strides to become a Catholic. In any case, since the days of Russell and Moore most philosophers have little use for Idealism, but fortunately Ryan’s critique of Rand does not depend on his Idealism. Another problem is that Ryan makes endless parenthetical remarks. These would be okay every once in a while but Ryan makes them practically every page. It’s not as bad as (say) the French philosopher Maritain, who makes parenthetical remarks in the midst of his main points, but too many parenthetical comments suggest a lack of proper organization of the book.Nevertheless, despite these problems, Ryan provides an excellent discussion of the ideas of Rand and some of her followers, and he does so in an easy to follow style of writing. In reading this book, you will learn not only about Ayn Rand’s views, but also you will learn some good philosophy. (The only area where I think Ryan’s views are not up to par is in his discussion of David Kelley and the issue of perception. Kelley was excommunicated from the main Randian fold, but is a fine philosopher in his own right.)The book is organized into 13 chapters. The first few chapters deal with Rand’s less than adequate account of the problem of universals, or of the problems involved with perception and knowledge, and in the last couple of chapters, with Rand’s ethical views. Most who’ve bothered to read a little bit of Rand have noticed her underlying Nietzchean philosophy, along with an admixture of Aristotle and pro-capitalist thought. Rand and her followers disclaimed that they were “vulgar" Nietzscheans but Ryan does not think Rand ever changed her early Nietzscheanism in any substantive manner. Her hostility to religion along with many other aspects of her thought are in line with Nietzsche’s views.Most of us who have some knowledge of philosophy have little patience with Rand’s forays into philosophy. That’s also true of her fiction. I know that some say her fiction is great, but I for one have not been able to read her novels. William F. Buckley Jr., once said somewhere that he had to flog himself to read Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. I can well understand the feeling, but I could never force myself to get past the first 90 or so pages. It was sheer torture. However, with respect to her ventures into philosophy, Ryan has had the patience to unravel Rand’s confused ideas and critique them thoroughly.I highly recommend Ryan’s book, and at the same time I mourn the passing of such an intelligent individual, who if he had lived might have favored us with some thought-provoking discussions of more important and worthier thinkers than Rand or her followers. Ah well, at least he was seeking the Lord at the end.

Scott Ryan does an excellent job of critiquing Ayn Rand's philosophy, concentrating on her epistemology. His book is technical and can be difficult at times, but it is still worthwhile for anyone seeking an honest, thorough analysis of Objectivism. One reader called it a "screed," which is unfair - Ryan's tone is measured and serious, and he shows emotion only toward the end, when he gives his personal feelings about the psychological harm Rand can do to her followers. Other readers claim that Ryan is misinterpreting Rand by viewing her theories through an Idealist lens, but this is incorrect. Ryan simply points out, in detail, that Rand's epistemology is an incoherent mixture of Empiricism and Idealism. His criticisms are valid whether or not you agree with the alternative perspective he offers. I would recommend this book, as well as a critique from an Empiricist perspective, Gregory S. Nyquist's "Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature."

For those who have been impressed by Rand's intellect, this may demonstrate that you have yet to scratch the surface. Scott Ryan's credentials may not be superlative but his thoroughness and precision are.

Ayn Rand claimed to be the most rational of thinkers. Her followers are more explicit: Ayn Rand (they love to use both names for some reason) provided a stunningly original explanation and defense of human reason. Yet is her philosophy -- called "Objectivism" -- in fact rational? Is it even original? In OBJECTIVISM AND THE CORRUPTION OF RATIONALISTY Scott Ryan discusses Objectivism, its claims, and its place in the history of philosophy.By way of background, Mr. Ryan's primary intellectual debts are to Spinoza and Brand Blanshard. He describes his philosophy as "rational objective idealism." Mr. Ryan's focus here is Rand's epistemology; however, he discusses her ethics in detail (and has a few well-directed barbs against her politics and aesthetics).Mr. Ryan's approach is comprehensive. He takes a position of Rand's, explains it, discusses its place within the history of philosophy, and critiques it. The critique is in the spirit of Blanshard (although he doesn't follow Blanshard uncritically). Even if one doesn't agree with Mr. Ryan's rationalism, one must admit that he has done yeoman's work in explaining Objectivism and putting it in historical context. Mr. Ryan says that his critique can be appreciated by anyone interested in Rand, regardless of philosophical orientation, and he is certainly correct.This book is 400 pages long, so I'll discuss only a couple of topics Mr. Ryan hits on. Take the "problem of universals." Rand proposed her solution in INTRODUCTION TO OBJECTIVISM EPISTEMOLOGY. Her theory of measurement-omission is considered her greatest achievement by her followers. Rand starts by comparing her view to other schools, rejecting both nominalism and realism. However, as Mr. Ryan shows, the problem of universals falls within metaphysics, not epistemology. Not only that, but Rand's solution is really a form of moderate nominalism. Indeed, it isn't particularly original since a similar approach was advocated some years before by Roy Wood Sellars (although there is no proof that Rand read Sellars).As another example, consider the validity of the senses. Rand attempted to refute skepticism by her axiom that "existence exists." Likewise, one-time follower Nathaniel Branden argues that skeptics use the "stolen concept": they attack the possibility of knowledge, but implicitly concede that something must be known when uttering any claim advocating skepticism. Again, this isn't particularly original or profound. (Ryle employed a version of the stolen concept argument years before Branden when noted "not all coins of the realm can be false.") Yes, skepticism is self-refuting. But the fact that we have some knowledge doesn't prove that the senses are generally reliable, or tell us how to distinguish true from false beliefs.What is most impressive is Mr. Ryan's mastery of the relevant literature. Rand wasn't particularly well read in philosophy, and perhaps she can be excused for failing to develop her arguments with sufficient rigor. So Mr. Ryan supplements his critique of Rand's views with refinements offered by Leonard Peikoff, Alan Gotthelf, and David Kelley. Sometimes they follow and elaborate on Rand, other times they take surprisingly different approaches.Scott Ryan has provided the best critique of Ayn Rand in print. For a discussion of Rand's philosophy from a more sympathetic perspective, see Chris Sciabarra's AYN RAND: THE RUSSIAN RADICAL.

While the tone may not always be respectful of Rand, points & arguments made are mostly valid. This book made me read up more into idealism, and I find myself agreeing with its tenets. Well-argued thesis that the rationality Rand/objectivism espouses is a limited one, and that Rand’s aversion to religion led to her to support her idealist conclusions with materialist-empiricist-nominalist premises which do not stand up to scrutiny.Good read to widen one’s view of Rand & objectivism, and this was its effect on me.