What do you think?
Rate this book
With charity toward none;: An analysis of Ayn Rand's philosophy
Ayn Rand's Philosophy of Objectivism.
- GenresPhilosophy
233 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1971
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
July 12, 2024
ONE OF THE EARLIEST BOOK-LENGTH CRITIQUES OF OBJECTIVISM
The author wrote in the first chapter of this 1971 book (which was one of the first "serious" critiques of Ayn Rand and Objectivism), "Much of what Miss Rand says is open to attack on a variety of different grounds---logical, linguistic or purely empirical. It is far too pat, however, simply to dismiss Ayn Rand as the progenitor of some new and exotic type of intellectual lunacy. She may be precisely this, but merely 'labeling' her as such scarcely establishes the point, and... she should at least be presumed innocent until the evidence has been presented in some legitimate area of intellectual inquiry."
He admits that "I am not an Objectivist," but adds that "I have made every attempt throughout this study to be accurate, objective and fair." (Pg. 8) He notes that "she 'speaks' loud and clear to many people, and she is obviously addressing herself to real areas of concern." (Pg. 14) He even adds that "In a world of increasingly innocuous philosophies, Miss Rand's point of view is refreshingly abrasive." (Pg. 15)
He suggests that, "despite her explicit contempt for Platonism and the Platonic tradition, she is in many respects very close to Plato in her analysis of the knowledge process." (Pg. 84) He criticizes her notion that sensations are "automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism," saying that "this definition flies in the face of virtually all reputable psychological evidence." (Pg. 113)
He asserts that her epistemology is "both pre-scientific and anti-psychological," and that she "feels obligated to ground her beliefs in metaphysics (because) they do not make sense in terms of contemporary psychology. The child's first knowledge is not rational knowledge at all but emotional knowledge." (Pg. 121) He regards her as inconsistently holding that objectivists are justified in accepting public (governmental) scholarships (Pg. 182).
Concerning her ethics and politics, he suggests that "Reduced to its essence, this comes amazingly close to St. Augustine's famous injunction, 'Love God and do as you will.' Miss Rand's position might be summarized 'Be an objectivist and do as you will.'" (Pg. 183)
This book has been superseded by more recent criticisms of Objectivism, but it still has value for anyone interested in Ayn Rand's philosophy.
The author wrote in the first chapter of this 1971 book (which was one of the first "serious" critiques of Ayn Rand and Objectivism), "Much of what Miss Rand says is open to attack on a variety of different grounds---logical, linguistic or purely empirical. It is far too pat, however, simply to dismiss Ayn Rand as the progenitor of some new and exotic type of intellectual lunacy. She may be precisely this, but merely 'labeling' her as such scarcely establishes the point, and... she should at least be presumed innocent until the evidence has been presented in some legitimate area of intellectual inquiry."
He admits that "I am not an Objectivist," but adds that "I have made every attempt throughout this study to be accurate, objective and fair." (Pg. 8) He notes that "she 'speaks' loud and clear to many people, and she is obviously addressing herself to real areas of concern." (Pg. 14) He even adds that "In a world of increasingly innocuous philosophies, Miss Rand's point of view is refreshingly abrasive." (Pg. 15)
He suggests that, "despite her explicit contempt for Platonism and the Platonic tradition, she is in many respects very close to Plato in her analysis of the knowledge process." (Pg. 84) He criticizes her notion that sensations are "automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism," saying that "this definition flies in the face of virtually all reputable psychological evidence." (Pg. 113)
He asserts that her epistemology is "both pre-scientific and anti-psychological," and that she "feels obligated to ground her beliefs in metaphysics (because) they do not make sense in terms of contemporary psychology. The child's first knowledge is not rational knowledge at all but emotional knowledge." (Pg. 121) He regards her as inconsistently holding that objectivists are justified in accepting public (governmental) scholarships (Pg. 182).
Concerning her ethics and politics, he suggests that "Reduced to its essence, this comes amazingly close to St. Augustine's famous injunction, 'Love God and do as you will.' Miss Rand's position might be summarized 'Be an objectivist and do as you will.'" (Pg. 183)
This book has been superseded by more recent criticisms of Objectivism, but it still has value for anyone interested in Ayn Rand's philosophy.
September 30, 2020
What a horrible philosophy
Ayn Rand, child of tsarist Russia, developed what can only be described as a truly selfish ( in all the worst ways) philosophy. Rationalism = rich. Poverty=bad people suffering only because they don't look out for their own selfish needs. And altruism? Only for masochists. What a miserable person. Unfortunately, her ideas are now guiding the Republican party.
Ayn Rand, child of tsarist Russia, developed what can only be described as a truly selfish ( in all the worst ways) philosophy. Rationalism = rich. Poverty=bad people suffering only because they don't look out for their own selfish needs. And altruism? Only for masochists. What a miserable person. Unfortunately, her ideas are now guiding the Republican party.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews