Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: Expanded Second Edition by Ayn Rand (EPUB)

Description

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.

User’s Reviews

Reviews from Amazon users which were colected at the time this book was published on the website:

⭐What some of Ayn Rand’s enemies recognize but many of her friends don’t is that because this book is easy peasy it is dangerous.Because of my own first hand experience I know this to be true.That is, this book is easy peasy IF you understand that it was written for the man-in-the-street-human being not man-in-the-ivory-tower-philosophy student.For example, who besides me hasn’t had a dream where your dream circle swooshed in on a red cup and in the same dream scene also on red painted fingernails from a long, slender hand dangling in the scene and then the next day on your 4th birthday woke up thinking about red as-a-thing?And then why some decades later when they read this on the first page of Chapter 2 of ITOE and [inserted] their own first hand experience while doing so: …2. Concept-Formation A concept is a mental integration of two or more units [cup & fingernails with something same about them] which are isolated according to a specific characteristic(s) [same look] and united by a specific definition [this cup and those fingernails look the same]. The units involved may be any aspect of reality: entities, attributes [same look], actions, qualities [same look that is different from the rest of the stuff–hand and table cup sits on–in the circle], relationships, etc.; they may be perceptual concretes [fingernails, cups] or other, earlier-formed concepts. The act of isolation involved is a process of abstraction: i.e., a selective mental focus [dream circle] that takes out or separates a certain aspect of reality from all others (e.g., isolates a certain attribute [color] from the entities [fingernails attached to a hand and a cup standing by itself nearby in an otherwise all black & white dream] possessing it, or a certain action from the entities performing it, etc.). The uniting involved is not a mere sum, but an integration, i.e., a blending of the units into a single, new mental entity …. [red!!!] …… why they didn’t end up keeling over from way way way too many multiple (mental) orgasms as the foreplayful Ms. Rand connected the dots–dot after dot after dot–for said individual such as myself, I’ll never know–actually I do know, that is, actually, internally speaking I did keel over. That is, a self who suffered greatly from the rampant Kantian abuse shoved down his throat by the mere fact of the fact that he took education seriously and was educated in the Kantian driven American Public Education School System as same existed from 1951 to 1987 wherein he was “educated”. (Granting that the first half of this period contained enough Classical Education influence to prevent total and complete mind destruction, in balance it still required a big dudette coming along at exactly the half way point in my education to save me.)All’s I can say is, “Thank god for Ayn Rand.”The dangerous part is both theoretical and factual.Theoretically, that is, IF ONLY I could now go back to my 10th grade high school class and have the teacher-lead-whole-class laughing at me for ME saying in response to the teacher’s question, “of course there is a sound when the tree falls in the woods without anyone around” and they all laughing in unison at me and saying you just don’t get it do you Deering, you can’t know this THAT’S THE POINT would I ever have a thing or two to tell them.Thing 1: if you too want to know that you can know then read Ayn Rand’s Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.Thing 2: Not all teachers are rational.Thing 1a: If you want to know HOW you know then read Ayn Rand’s Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.Factually, if after your sixth or seventh read through of this book where each time around the part just above last time’s easy peasy parts that you didn’t get then but now all of a sudden these new parts seem easy peasy too then welcome to the world of the knowers.It is a fun world, but as I said it is not without danger … as the following letter of mine sent to a local editor attests to:Dear Editor The Minneapolis Star:[Not reprinted here][I have to stop here because of amazon’s limitations–it can’t differentiate between swear words used inappropriately (profanity–that is, swear words as substitutions for appropriate abstract concepts that the user does not know and is too lazy to learn) and ones used appropriately (emotional end-state descriptors). Since my letter-to-the-editor (lte) has two appropriately used swear words in it and since I accept amazon’s rules about me qua “reviewer/commentator” on their website not making them differentiate I can’t put this lte here. However, for those aforementioned friends who are still interested you can read the full “review/comment” at my degageblog.]I sometimes think that “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology” is the greatest book Ayn Rand ever wrote.But then of course other times I think it is “Atlas Shrugged”.Either way, if you like thinking about thinking then there is a really good chance you will like ITOE.If on the other hand you love knowing and knowing that you know then there is a really really good chance you will love ITOE.PS: here’s a small tip on how to help you make this book be easy peasy(ier) for you if it already isn’t,1. Buy the original non-expanded version first (my 4th Printing copy–Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, pub: The Objectivist, Inc.–was printed in 1973) and read and study it first because it is physically a littler book (quarter inch thick) that can seem less daunting then this FOUR TIMES BIGGER (one-inch thick) Expanded Version. Also, some of the material in the Expanded Version’s expanded section prevents you from learning the material on your own without having to rely on more experts to give you the answers. (You will end up relying on them only after you have to–see more following).2. Read it and re-read it as required for the next year or so as you give yourself a chance to learn on your own all you can about epistemology in general and objectivist epistemology in particular (which ultimately–if both match reality–are the same thing).3. When you get to the point where you can’t easily continue your understanding of the book’s ideas by simply re-reading it (and thinking about the book’s ideas in-between these re-reads) then get this expanded version and read it’s expanded parts and4. then continue on as required to learn all you can about epistemology in general (and in particular, eventually, your own personal epistemology, i.e., psycho-epistemology, i.e., your own personal thinking modus operandi as herein resides your biggest source of self improvement you’ll ever find) and5. then, voila! after several years you too can conclude: “…this stuff is easy peasy …” (notice, when you are 3 years old several years is a lifetime but when you are thirty it’s only about 10% of a lifetime … voila, easy peasy/piece of cake are teleömetric–that is, relative–terms … ).PPS1. If you can’t get a copy of the original non-expanded version then buy two copies of this the paperback Expanded Version and2. put one copy away for future use, and3. take the other copy, turn to page 88 and tear off the rest of the book from pp 89 to the end and throw it away and4. cross off page 88 (title page for Dr. Peikoff’s Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy article*) with a giant X and then5. what’s left is the original non-expanded version for you to read and study and reread and continue studying for the first year or so … then go to number 3 in the PS above and continue on your way to easy-peasy ville …FPSObjectivism can be intimidating or at least it was to me but I refused to let this intimidation stop me and I highly recommend that you persevere also as the reward of … knowing and knowing that you know is … invaluable.—————–* I can’t remember for sure if I read this article before or after ITOE (since for me it was just under a half a lifetime ago when I read it) but I think I did and so since it was an invaluable article for me–or as I’ve published elsewhere: “[the] Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy article … single handedly uncrooked well over half of my 17 years worth of American-Public-Education-induced, intellectually twisted, psycho-epistemology”–it might prove to be the same for you so you can read this as a standalone thing independent of its inclusion here in ITOE.

⭐Whether you’re a professional philosopher or just a student of life and reality this is a must read. And perhaps the best part of the book isn’t within the original content (but that content is enlightening on its own) it is the appendix where Miss Rand is peppered with question after question about her revolutionary epistemology. Adding that section was pure genius!

⭐My grading of Ayn Rand`s “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology” shows a bi-polarity: a-priori and upon analytic insight it is only worth one star and should be avoided by the vulnerable that might find their intellect injured by reading it; a-posterior and upon empirical insight it is possible to correct Rand`s objectivism and return logic to an intuitionism that is worth five stars to any reader that is able to understand the corrections.I am an optimist, and so I give this very dangerous book four stars; but by subtracting one star note that you have been warned!According to Rand`s objectivism, deduction, induction, and concept-formation are all that is needed to acquire objective knowledge. Rand`s “concept-formation” is to first differentiate (or particularize) a set into units and then to integrate (or generalize) over the set. Rand (1990, page 28) limits concepts to a bi-polarity and writes: “The process of observing the facts of reality and of integrating them into concepts is, in essence, a process of induction. The process of subsuming new instances under a known concept is, in essence, a process of deduction.” Rand correctly connects induction and deduction with the proclivities of generality and particularity, respectively, but in doing this she turns concept-formation into an empty bi-polarity that holds nothing else but induction and deduction.Rand`s Chapter 8 puts a great deal of emphasis on the “Law of Identity,” and something must be said about this. This law is only vaguely formulated if you check with the literature. Nevertheless, the Law of Identity is considered a law of thought, and is typically stipulated as a prelude to deductive logic. It is sometimes presented as a tautology, which says something to the affect that proposition A equals proposition A, or A=A for short. As a tautology that applies to grammar and logic, the fact that A=A, is very unilluminating. I can only guess that Rand uses this tautology because it enforces a type of literalism that applies when concepts are used in language and in logic. This seems to be an okay convention. However, I don`t believe we can assume that objectivism is pristine enough for such enforcement, and so the use of this law is on very thin ice.Note the duplicity in Leonard Piekoff`s contribution in the same book (pages 88-121), where departure from the Law of Identity is blamed for Kant`s analytic-synthetic dichotomy. However, in passing judgment, Piekoff changed the meaning of the Law of Identity given as the simple tautology that merely resides in abstract thought. Piekoff (page 99) writes: “The fact that certain characteristic are, at a given time, unknown to man, does not indicate that these characteristics are excluded from the entity – or from the concept. A is A; existents are what they are, independent of the state of human knowledge; and a concept means the existents which it integrates. Thus, a concept subsumes and includes all the characteristics of its referents, known and not-yet-known.”We discover that the Law of Identity is meant to apply to the bi-polarity offered by concepts! This can only mean that the Law of Identity underwrites the most significant synthetic that is the giver of all pristine facts, represented by the time-sense polarity: {analytic a-priori <> empirical a-posteriori}! If a concept emerges from the polarity and comes with an utterance that asserts that A=A, we know automatically that the middle-term that unites the polarity`s left-hand side and right-hand side is found undeclared by the utterance. Mere tautology that asserts that “concept is concept” is only wallpaper and comes no where close to declaring the middle-term that holds the polarity together, and it gives us no license to take the middle-term for granted. In other words, the middle-term that holds all concepts together is found undeclared by objectivism. The Law of Identity is used as an excuse to enforce a brand of circular reasoning that will evade any mention of this weakness. I ask the question: what is it? The objectivist answers: it is what it is!Objectivism is found unable to avoid Kant`s dualism, but I agree with Piekoff that this dualism is unnecessary. To find a hint of what the middle-term might be, note that Piekoff`s (page 113) writes this about the dichotomy: “To introduce an opposition between the logical and the factual is to create a split between consciousness and existence, between truths in accordance with man`s method of cognition and truths in accordance with the facts of reality. The result of such a dichotomy is that logic is divorced from reality (logical truths are empty and conventional) – and reality becomes unknowable (factual truths are contingent and uncertain). This amounts to the claim that man has no method of cognition, i.e., no way of acquiring knowledge.”We may conclude that the undeclared middle-term fills in the noted gap not filled by objectivism, and this act of filling is needed for cognition and knowledge! Yet Rand (page 87) writes, “The motive of all the attacks on man`s rational faculty, is a single basic premise: the desire to exempt consciousness from the law of identity.” The best she can do to defend her covert circular reasoning offered by objectivism is to point to “attacks” and “desire.” Rand spent her life defending rationalism from the likes of collectivists, from Kant, from altruism, and from mysticism, and this effort was made by an objectivism that concealed its own circularity. At best she can only offer her emotions for acting the way she did, and that is the key to the undeclared middle-term that mystics have no trouble understanding.The synthesis of deduction and induction that is necessary for Rand`s concept-formation shows reciprocity in the best tradition of Taoism, and it reveals naked emotionality! Revealed emotion informs on the middle-term that holds the bi-polar concepts together permitting the passing of objectivism over to intuitionism.Yes, it is true, words are concepts that emerge from concept-formation as indicated by objectivism. However, the concepts are now recognized as Kantian synthetics that reach across the third antinomy (representing the rift offered by the One and Many of Greek philosophy), they are not products of Rand`s “law of identity” that is also conveniently found ignoring the very emotive middle-term that holds concepts together. Rather, it is the middle-term that signifies the changeless identity. It is the authentic synthesis that supports the identity that unites the analytic and the empirical. Even the facts of reality, that pass over to human concepts, come as authentic synthetics that are open to less than perfect interpretations. This simple modification corrects Rand`s epistemology. The Many now reconcile themselves with the One, and this implies that knowledge is vastly additive as predicted by objectivism, but coming with a proviso that emotion must become more fully integrated with logic.

⭐This book really changed my life, more so than any of her other works. The fictions are good entrance into the philosophy and all the nonfiction stuff is good too, but this is really the meat and potatoes to me.

⭐Brilliant. Peikoff by his own admission is a candle next to Rand’s Super nova, but he makes the work of a genius more available because of that trait. I’m not even certain that Peikoff really understands every facet of Rand’s brilliant mind, but he certainly gets her in more ways than most of us. He puts on the sunglasses so that we at least can glimpse the structure, if not the fine detail, or the eloquence of its sum.However, a word of warning, diving into objectivism isn’t something anyone should do without the necessary back ground to understand the context. The world generally sees Rand as a monster, those that have read Atlas Shrugged and declare themselves Randian acolytes probably haven’t a clue about the brilliance of the philosophy. Rand herself would tell any acolyte that they must not accept at face value the value of any work, particularly hers. If you don’t grasp objectivism it’s perfectly understandable because it is almost alien, it inverts thousands of years of philosophy in order to come up with a very radical solution. The solution is every bit as important as Einsteins field equations, but, unlike Einstein she does not have the luxury of creating something that only effects the ideas of a tiny few who grasp the significance of a theory. Objectivism applies to everyone, in every way possible and that is a deeply polarising philosophy in a world which has not yet asked the question ‘why it should man need a moral code’ ? and if he requires one then how does he begin to know what it should be ? this is the field of ethics and it is a scientific field of study, not simply one of whimsical discussion.

⭐Ayn Rand at her best

⭐I love reading Ayn Rand… she is very clear and concise… I wish I would have gotten her original book it was so much more smaller and inviting… the idea of a philosopher that is short, brief and to the point… is what made the original smaller book so appealing… you either agree or disagree… but unlike other philosophers, there is no way you can not understand what is being said…

⭐I am a big fan of Ayn Rand novel and some other book (the romantic manifesto or Philosophy who need it for example).But this book is about BS philosophy not real one.If you like book talking about what is a measure ? What is a definition ? What is a concept ? You will definitely love this book. But if you like real subject instead (like politics, economics, arts, etc) you will hate this book

⭐Rand should stick to fiction , this was very dry and incredibly boring . Nothing new and she kept repeating basically the same thing over and over .

Keywords

Free Download Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: Expanded Second Edition in EPUB format
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: Expanded Second Edition EPUB Free Download
Download Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: Expanded Second Edition 1990 EPUB Free
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: Expanded Second Edition 1990 EPUB Free Download
Download Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: Expanded Second Edition EPUB
Free Download Ebook Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: Expanded Second Edition