Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: Expanded Second Edition

So many of these reviews complain that 'Ms. Rand claims that she has solved the problem of universals, but universals are a problem of metaphysics, not epistimology' Imagine a group of doctors standing around a patient, trying to figure out what is wrong with the patients nose, because he has complained that he has a problem breathing. They've examined his nose, looked up inside it, probed it, tested it, but none of them can solve the problem. Then some competent young doctor happens by the scene, observes the activity, and declares, 'This man has a problem with his lungs, which can be treated by a particular operation I know.' The doctor performs the operation, and the patient says, 'Thank You!! I can breathe properly now!', to which the group of doctors replies, 'He didn't really solve anything. It was a problem of the nose.'

At last the the seemingly un-tractable problem of the Universals was solved by Ayn Rand.Here in this book it was brilliantly elucidated how the concepts can be based on the observed facts or how the observed facts can be explained through concepts without any ambiguity.Concepts can be formed realistically i.e., with reference to ACTUAL referents and without any recourse to either mystical realm or the 'unknowble' trash .Ayn Rand with her monumental Philosophy of Objectivism performed a much needed and an expert psycho-therapy to Philosophy, in general, which is otherwise went out of contact with reality by basing its foundations in 'Unknowables','Subjectivism','Mysticism'. Ayn Rand forever will be accredited with making philosophy relevant to the life of a Man that is ONLY possible ' here on this earth'.Truly Objectivism is a philosophy for living on earth.Objectivism is a Great ,Brilliant,Incredible and Lasting breakthrough in the sphere of Philosophy.

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 consciousnes

To defend the validity and objectivity of reason, one must defend the validity and objectivity of concepts (abstract ideas). To defend concepts, one must show how they are formed from perceived concretes and what they refer to in reality. Historically, this is known as the "problem of universals." In this seminal work, Ayn Rand offers a new, mathematically based theory of how concepts are formed and what they refer to. The essence of her theory is that "similarity is the relationship between two or more existents which possess the same characteristic(s), but in different measure or degree." The link between the mathematical concepts of "unit" and "measurement" is the framework for her definition of "concept": "A concept is a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s), with their particular measurements omitted." This new, expanded edition features a 200-page appendix which transcribes a fascinating dialogue between Ayn Rand and some 14 professors of philosophy and science questioning her on every aspect of her theory, plus an article by her associate, philosopher Leonard Peikoff, using her theory of a concept's meaning to blast the so-called "analytic"-"synthetic" distinction of modern philosophy. Though written unusually clearly, this book is rather technical and is thus not intended as an introduction to Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism. For that, one should read, first _Atlas Shrugged_ and then _The Virtue of Selfishness_ or _Philosophy: Who Needs It_.

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?"