The act of creation always makes something out of materials, and those materials are always the product of some other act or event. Clearly, thanks to Sciabarra, a fuller understanding of Rand emerges -- not as merely a fourth giant among a great three, but as the one who saw through the lacks and mistakes of the hundreds of thinkers in the 2,500 years since the birth of philosophy. She absorbed a dialectical method of inquiry that profoundly influenced her literary and philosophic project. Purpose of the Review My purpose in writing this review is to show the important ways in which Sciabarra succeeds. There is evidence that efforts to apply dialectical reasoning broadly have been in our culture for many years.
Take a pass on this. Her dialectic approach also resembles Hegel. Briefly, his thesis is that, while the content of what she thought is virtually the reverse of the views that dominated the intellectuals of that time, including all her professors at Petrograd University, she absorbed, and always used, the intellectual method that dominated this same group of people. But until better historical evidence is provided, the claim that Russian dialectics is the key to Rand's philosophical odyssey remains an unpromising conjecture. Here the obviously important problem is ascertaining the nature of the difference between these two seminal thinkers.
Ultimately, Sciabarra challenges Rand's followers and critics to reassess her thought and its place in intellectual history. In particular, it was widespread in the history department, in which Rand majored 77 - 82. I think this is a serious mistake. And, despite its title, it goes well beyond an exploration of Ayn Rand. But these virtues are an essential part of a free society, because they require me to act in such a way that I leave others free from irrational pressure to subject their way of thinking to mine. What motive could she have had for inventing a connection with Lossky? There is also a revised response by available online.
Are they evidence that Rand's point of view is dialectical in Sciabarra's sense? Refreshingly, however, he is not an idol-worshiper like so many objectivists, and his treatment of here is worth of the title of serious intellectual history. But, to talk about the Objectivist movement, this book is not a contribution to that movement. This is why all dualities are bad from a dialectical point of view, in themselves and on principle. Most contemporary academic philosophers ignore Ayn Rand. He is unique, however, in addressing objections from the rest of philosophy in a respectful and informed way. A central task for the historian of ideas is to provide a narrative which explains an intellectual innovation, supported by evidence in favor of that explanation.
None of his listed courses at the university deals with Plato, Aristotle, or the Greeks. I am also impressed by his evidence that this is something she gets from her Russian beginnings. By an interesting coincidence, Lossky was there at the same time, lecturing to students who were older than she was. There are obviously important similarities between the content of Rand's thought and that of Nietzsche, including her idea that life is the standard of value and her idea that evil rests on some sort of incapacity or failure and consequently is There are also direct statements from Rand herself that she was In both these respects, the Rand-Nietzsche connection differs sharply from her relations with the Silver Age writers Sciabarra discusses. The problem with the Totality This might sound almost like a technical point, but I don't think it is. Both, apparently, were deeply authoritarian. The problem here is that Rand, even at that tender age, was repelled by both these traditions.
She absorbed a dialectical method of inquiry that profoundly influenced her literary and philosophic project. This is, furthermore, the first study to explore the intellectual milieu of Rand's early, formative years. Petersburg, Russia, Rand lived through the Russian Revolution and rise of the Soviets. But in that case, people who appear to me to make mistakes — that is, people who disagree with me — will be ones that I find unwelcome and undesirable. A central task of Parts Two and Three of Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical is to establish that on topics ranging from the theory of concepts to ethics and aesthetics, just such a close similarity exists.
Check out Notablog for a series discussing the release of the second edition: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,. The other half is that we can find the dialectical approach in her own works, and that looking for it sheds light on them. But this idea is quite lacking in Rand's thinking; she has, to put it another way, no metaphysical doctrine of internal relations. Visit the page for details on site policies. He points out how Rand creates a third position on many philosophical issues that is counter to the traditional opposites, such as intricism vs. Intellectual content, intellectual method That, however, is not his main point, or his most original one.
Thus a dialectical approach involves two characteristics that might be found in points of view that we do not ordinarily think of as dialectical: it treats the object of knowledge as a system and not as a collection of independently understandable isolates, and it understands the nature of a thing by understanding its relations to other things the so-called doctrine of internal relations. Sciabarra locates Rand's roots in the Russian Revolution. From a dialectical point of view, what is objectionable about dualistic distinctions is not simply that, say, the mind and the body are supposed to be mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive of reality, but that they are supposed to be separately understandable. Lossky was, in fact, one of those who transmitted post-Kantian German philosophy to Mother Russia - early in his career Lossky translated works by Kant and Fichte into Russian. For one who has not read her fiction and also read representative smattering of her non-fiction, this work is a tough slog. Ultimately, Sciabarra challenges Rand's followers and critics to reassess her thought and its place in intellectual history.
The Lossky case The most dramatic piece of evidence Sciabarra offers to connect Rand to the dialectical approach is his discussion of N. There is such a thing as negative influence. Though Rand recalls a class in ancient philosophy taught by Lossky, there are no records of him teaching such a course. The problem, as I see it, is this. It dawned on me at one point that I was part of that little part of history. Her distinctive libertarian synthesis is presented as a major contribution to radical social theory.