Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical by Chris Sciabarra Page A
Authors: Chris Sciabarra
Tags: General Fiction
Ads: Link
LaBoccetta; Robert McKenzie; E. Frederic Mirer; Gerard Power; David Ross; and Tim Starr.
For commenting on this manuscript in whole or in part: the late Bill Bradford, Robert L. Campbell, the late John Hospers, Roderick T. Long, Tibor Machan, Victor and Susan Niederhoffer, David Oyerly, Peter Saint-Andre, David Ramsay Steele, the late George Walsh, Charles Wieder, and several anonymous readers. An earlier draft of this book was reviewed by Allan Gotthelf. Though Professor Gotthelf strongly disagrees with my arguments concerning the sources and dialectical character of Ayn Rand’s thought, my final presentation benefited nonetheless from his helpful criticism.
I owe a very special debt of gratitude to seven people: Kathleen Rand, for her loyal support; Stephen Cox and Douglas Rasmussen, for their friendship and long-term support of, and critical commentary on, my work; Murray Franck, for his comments, indispensable legal advice, and friendship; and Roger E. Bissell, Michelle Marder Kamhi, and Louis Torres, for their friendship and encouragement of my efforts in countless ways.
Thanks also to so many others too numerous to mention, who helped me materially and spiritually; to my aunts, uncles, cousins, and friends, and also, to my immediate family, all of whom have been a source of profound personal support, especially my late mother, Ann; my late father, Sal; my late Uncle Sam; my sister, Elizabeth; my brother, Carl; my sister-in-law, Joanne; Pamela Bolen; Matthew Cappabianca; Mark Cwern; the late Michelle Ely; Annette Memon; Hiromi Shinya; Michael Southern; Elaine Thompson; Peter Vigliarolo; Richard C. Williams and Dante the cat; and my late dog Blondie, who, during some of my most difficult days, gave me firsthand evidence of the “Muttnik Principle” in action.
In acknowledging the above parties, I do not mean to suggest their implicit or explicit endorsement of any of the ideas herein expressed. What appears in this book is my own interpretation of Ayn Rand’s legacy and philosophy, for which I take full responsibility. I do not speak for a group or a movement, but only for myself.
EPILOGUE
Some of you may know the story of the four travelers who on a moonless night chanced upon an elephant and came away separately convinced that it was very like a snake, a leaf, a wall, a rope. Not one could persuade any other to change his mind, for each had touched a different part. Not one could resolve their differences for none of them knew the entire elephant.
The moral of the story is not the inevitability of subjectivism. Rather, it is a lesson in the fallacy of reification . Each traveler abstracted a part of the whole and reified that part into a separate entity, which was identified as the totality. Reification is possible because no one—and no human being—can achieve a synoptic vantage point on the whole. Our definition of what is essential depends on a specific context.
I have approached Ayn Rand ’s legacy in a self-consciously one-sided fashion, with an emphasis on its historical roots. I do not have the intellectual hubris to propose that my perspective is the only legitimate vantage point on Objectivism . But as scholarship on Rand’s thought progresses, different perspectives will necessarily bring into focus aspects formerly obscured from view.
The importance of Objectivism then, in this context, does not lie merely in its repudiation of formal dualism or its insistence on the primacy of existence. Objectivism is a seamless conjunction of method and content—of a dialectical method and a realist-egoist-individualist-libertarian content. This synthesis is Rand’s most important contribution to twentieth-century radical social theory .
The Randian project overturns traditional assumptions about the relationship between dialectical method and specific political content. In contemporary intellectual history , the dialectic has been identified almost exclusively with the Hegelian and Marxian traditions.
For commenting on this manuscript in whole or in part: the late Bill Bradford, Robert L. Campbell, the late John Hospers, Roderick T. Long, Tibor Machan, Victor and Susan Niederhoffer, David Oyerly, Peter Saint-Andre, David Ramsay Steele, the late George Walsh, Charles Wieder, and several anonymous readers. An earlier draft of this book was reviewed by Allan Gotthelf. Though Professor Gotthelf strongly disagrees with my arguments concerning the sources and dialectical character of Ayn Rand’s thought, my final presentation benefited nonetheless from his helpful criticism.
I owe a very special debt of gratitude to seven people: Kathleen Rand, for her loyal support; Stephen Cox and Douglas Rasmussen, for their friendship and long-term support of, and critical commentary on, my work; Murray Franck, for his comments, indispensable legal advice, and friendship; and Roger E. Bissell, Michelle Marder Kamhi, and Louis Torres, for their friendship and encouragement of my efforts in countless ways.
Thanks also to so many others too numerous to mention, who helped me materially and spiritually; to my aunts, uncles, cousins, and friends, and also, to my immediate family, all of whom have been a source of profound personal support, especially my late mother, Ann; my late father, Sal; my late Uncle Sam; my sister, Elizabeth; my brother, Carl; my sister-in-law, Joanne; Pamela Bolen; Matthew Cappabianca; Mark Cwern; the late Michelle Ely; Annette Memon; Hiromi Shinya; Michael Southern; Elaine Thompson; Peter Vigliarolo; Richard C. Williams and Dante the cat; and my late dog Blondie, who, during some of my most difficult days, gave me firsthand evidence of the “Muttnik Principle” in action.
In acknowledging the above parties, I do not mean to suggest their implicit or explicit endorsement of any of the ideas herein expressed. What appears in this book is my own interpretation of Ayn Rand’s legacy and philosophy, for which I take full responsibility. I do not speak for a group or a movement, but only for myself.
EPILOGUE
Some of you may know the story of the four travelers who on a moonless night chanced upon an elephant and came away separately convinced that it was very like a snake, a leaf, a wall, a rope. Not one could persuade any other to change his mind, for each had touched a different part. Not one could resolve their differences for none of them knew the entire elephant.
The moral of the story is not the inevitability of subjectivism. Rather, it is a lesson in the fallacy of reification . Each traveler abstracted a part of the whole and reified that part into a separate entity, which was identified as the totality. Reification is possible because no one—and no human being—can achieve a synoptic vantage point on the whole. Our definition of what is essential depends on a specific context.
I have approached Ayn Rand ’s legacy in a self-consciously one-sided fashion, with an emphasis on its historical roots. I do not have the intellectual hubris to propose that my perspective is the only legitimate vantage point on Objectivism . But as scholarship on Rand’s thought progresses, different perspectives will necessarily bring into focus aspects formerly obscured from view.
The importance of Objectivism then, in this context, does not lie merely in its repudiation of formal dualism or its insistence on the primacy of existence. Objectivism is a seamless conjunction of method and content—of a dialectical method and a realist-egoist-individualist-libertarian content. This synthesis is Rand’s most important contribution to twentieth-century radical social theory .
The Randian project overturns traditional assumptions about the relationship between dialectical method and specific political content. In contemporary intellectual history , the dialectic has been identified almost exclusively with the Hegelian and Marxian traditions.
Similar Books
