Classic Books Store
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: Expanded Second Edition
RRP: $20.00
Our Price: $13.60
You Save: $ 6.40 ( 32% )
Usually ships in 24 hours
Manufacturer: Plume
Author: Ayn Rand
Publisher: Plume
Average Customer Rating:
Our Price: $13.60
You Save: $ 6.40 ( 32% )
Usually ships in 24 hours
Manufacturer: Plume
Author: Ayn Rand
Publisher: Plume
Average Customer Rating:
Experimental feature: Order Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: Expanded Second Edition from the UK, Canada, Germany or France by clicking an appropriate flag below.
Some items available at Amazon.com are not available in all countries.
Some items available at Amazon.com are not available in all countries.
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: Expanded Second Edition Description
Binding: Paperback
Dewey Decimal Number: 121
EAN: 9780452010307
ISBN: 0452010306
Label: Plume
Manufacturer: Plume
Number Of Items: 1
Book Pages: 320
Publication Date: 1990-04-26
Publisher: Plume
Studio: Plume
Dewey Decimal Number: 121
EAN: 9780452010307
ISBN: 0452010306
Label: Plume
Manufacturer: Plume
Number Of Items: 1
Book Pages: 320
Publication Date: 1990-04-26
Publisher: Plume
Studio: Plume
Editorial Review of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: Expanded Second Edition
Customer Reviews of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: Expanded Second Edition
Customer Rating:
Review Summary: A unique theory of abstraction that deserves to be studied.
Review: This book is an attempt to defend a new theory of concept formation, which Rand hopes will create a rennaissance in philosophy. Rand argues on page 3 that "under all the tortuos complexities, contradictions, equivocations, rationalizations of the post-Rennaissance philosophy---the one consistent line, the fundamental that explains the rest is: a concerted attack on man's conceptual faculty." This means that professional philosophy has reached a low point in the doctrines that it is teaching. Instead of teaching people to use reason to live better lives, philosophers are now committed to the idea that knowledge is an illusion. On page 47, Rand lists the idea that "words...represent arbitrary social conventions" as an example of the kind of popular view that she is attacking. Rand believes that one of the reasons this has happened is because of the failure of previous philosophers to solve the question: "How can abstract knowledge be validated when everything in the universe is particular and concrete?" In order to solve this problem, Rand lays out a complex theory as to how the formation of abstract concepts occurs in the human mind and why this process should not be regarded as mysterious. This "Objectivist" theory has several components that distinguish it from previous theories. One of these differences is that, contra Aristotle, Rand considers the "essence" of a concept to be dependent on "context of knowledge" rather than intrinsically being given in reality. Another difference from other thinkers is that Rand considers concept formation to be intimately related to the process of measurement.
This book should not be mistaken for a treatise on empirical psychology. It's goal is philosophical, not scientific. Although Rand does present hypothesis about human cognitive development, these hypothesis are not intended to be definitive scientific statements of the kind offered by empirical psychologists. On the contrary, Rand's primary concern is to show how abstractions COULD be formed through a valid process, and to indicate what kind of practices human beings need to engage in to make sure their concepts are, in fact, valid. Her concern is primarily epistemological, not psychological. This is an important fact to keep in mind when evaluating the book.
Another point to keep in mind is that this book does not include an exhaustive refutation of every previous theory of concepts. The focus in this book is on explaining the theory rather than combatting alternatives, and this is one of the reasons it is called an "introduction" (I would suggest part I of Richard I. Aaron's "A Theory of Universals" for a summary of other theories).
Despite these qualifications, Rand has succeeded in presenting a unique theory of how abstractions can be validated. Her ideas on this issue deserve to be studied and discussed. I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in epistemological issues.
Customer Rating:
Review Summary: Best book on epistemology
Review: This is the clearest exposition of the most important problem in epistemology: the problem of universals. Most philosophers have believed that the meaning of concepts are not derived from sense perception. The Platonists and religious philosophers such as Augustine believe that concepts come from pre-existing forms, which are revelations from the highest form God. The Sophists, nominalists, and other secular philosophers such as Kant believe concepts are inventions of the mind and do not correspond to reality. Rand argues persuasively that a concept (or universal) is not synonymous with its definition, but an organization of an entire class of existents, our defintion of it changing as we learn more about the similarities of this class. For instance, the concept of "atom" has changed a lot from the Ancient Greeks through Dalton to the present day; but this change in defintion was not arbitrary. The scientists were responding to their observations, and the more they learned about atoms, the more they were obliged to change the definition of atom in accordance with their new understanding. Rand recognizes her debt to Aristotle in epistemology, but also points out flaws in Aristotle's theory of universals, and how these flaws were relentlessly exposed by philosophers eager to attack reason and promote faith, brute feeling, and other forms of irrationality. Most philosophy in the modern period is very abstruse, obscure, and incoherent; this book, by contrast, presents the issue very clearly.
Customer Rating:
Review Summary: Quine and knowledge
Review: A reviewer wrote:
For example, Peikoff's piece on the analytic-synthetic distinction shows that he is completely unaware of contemporary philosophy: he begins by saying that the analytic-synthetic distinction "is accepted, in some form, by virtually every influential contemporary philosopher". But this is clearly false. The most cited paper in 20th century philosophy is Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" (1953, available in From A Logical Point of View) which famously (and, I think, quite effectively-much more effectively than Peikoff) attacks the distinction. Though there have been many criticisms of the paper and defenses of the distinction, many agree with Quine and he is one of the most famous philosophers of the 20th century, especially within Anglo-American philosophy.
Really, I am just curious as to the evidence behind the claim that Quine's article is the 'most cited' paper in 20th century philosophy. Furthermore, I have no clue into the amount of comprehension that reivewer has of Quine's argument in the paper at hand. As far as the outcome of the debate he has raised -- it is far from over. In fact, it is very much alive. A J Ayer, for example, has written several intersting essays discussing the nature of not only Quine's objections, but Alonzo Church as well.
Customer Rating:
Review Summary: Read these reviews carefully
Review: 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.'
Customer Rating:
Review Summary: Excellent and Incredible
Review: 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.
Review Summary: A unique theory of abstraction that deserves to be studied.
Review: This book is an attempt to defend a new theory of concept formation, which Rand hopes will create a rennaissance in philosophy. Rand argues on page 3 that "under all the tortuos complexities, contradictions, equivocations, rationalizations of the post-Rennaissance philosophy---the one consistent line, the fundamental that explains the rest is: a concerted attack on man's conceptual faculty." This means that professional philosophy has reached a low point in the doctrines that it is teaching. Instead of teaching people to use reason to live better lives, philosophers are now committed to the idea that knowledge is an illusion. On page 47, Rand lists the idea that "words...represent arbitrary social conventions" as an example of the kind of popular view that she is attacking. Rand believes that one of the reasons this has happened is because of the failure of previous philosophers to solve the question: "How can abstract knowledge be validated when everything in the universe is particular and concrete?" In order to solve this problem, Rand lays out a complex theory as to how the formation of abstract concepts occurs in the human mind and why this process should not be regarded as mysterious. This "Objectivist" theory has several components that distinguish it from previous theories. One of these differences is that, contra Aristotle, Rand considers the "essence" of a concept to be dependent on "context of knowledge" rather than intrinsically being given in reality. Another difference from other thinkers is that Rand considers concept formation to be intimately related to the process of measurement.
This book should not be mistaken for a treatise on empirical psychology. It's goal is philosophical, not scientific. Although Rand does present hypothesis about human cognitive development, these hypothesis are not intended to be definitive scientific statements of the kind offered by empirical psychologists. On the contrary, Rand's primary concern is to show how abstractions COULD be formed through a valid process, and to indicate what kind of practices human beings need to engage in to make sure their concepts are, in fact, valid. Her concern is primarily epistemological, not psychological. This is an important fact to keep in mind when evaluating the book.
Another point to keep in mind is that this book does not include an exhaustive refutation of every previous theory of concepts. The focus in this book is on explaining the theory rather than combatting alternatives, and this is one of the reasons it is called an "introduction" (I would suggest part I of Richard I. Aaron's "A Theory of Universals" for a summary of other theories).
Despite these qualifications, Rand has succeeded in presenting a unique theory of how abstractions can be validated. Her ideas on this issue deserve to be studied and discussed. I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in epistemological issues.
Customer Rating:
Review Summary: Best book on epistemology
Review: This is the clearest exposition of the most important problem in epistemology: the problem of universals. Most philosophers have believed that the meaning of concepts are not derived from sense perception. The Platonists and religious philosophers such as Augustine believe that concepts come from pre-existing forms, which are revelations from the highest form God. The Sophists, nominalists, and other secular philosophers such as Kant believe concepts are inventions of the mind and do not correspond to reality. Rand argues persuasively that a concept (or universal) is not synonymous with its definition, but an organization of an entire class of existents, our defintion of it changing as we learn more about the similarities of this class. For instance, the concept of "atom" has changed a lot from the Ancient Greeks through Dalton to the present day; but this change in defintion was not arbitrary. The scientists were responding to their observations, and the more they learned about atoms, the more they were obliged to change the definition of atom in accordance with their new understanding. Rand recognizes her debt to Aristotle in epistemology, but also points out flaws in Aristotle's theory of universals, and how these flaws were relentlessly exposed by philosophers eager to attack reason and promote faith, brute feeling, and other forms of irrationality. Most philosophy in the modern period is very abstruse, obscure, and incoherent; this book, by contrast, presents the issue very clearly.
Customer Rating:
Review Summary: Quine and knowledge
Review: A reviewer wrote:
For example, Peikoff's piece on the analytic-synthetic distinction shows that he is completely unaware of contemporary philosophy: he begins by saying that the analytic-synthetic distinction "is accepted, in some form, by virtually every influential contemporary philosopher". But this is clearly false. The most cited paper in 20th century philosophy is Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" (1953, available in From A Logical Point of View) which famously (and, I think, quite effectively-much more effectively than Peikoff) attacks the distinction. Though there have been many criticisms of the paper and defenses of the distinction, many agree with Quine and he is one of the most famous philosophers of the 20th century, especially within Anglo-American philosophy.
Really, I am just curious as to the evidence behind the claim that Quine's article is the 'most cited' paper in 20th century philosophy. Furthermore, I have no clue into the amount of comprehension that reivewer has of Quine's argument in the paper at hand. As far as the outcome of the debate he has raised -- it is far from over. In fact, it is very much alive. A J Ayer, for example, has written several intersting essays discussing the nature of not only Quine's objections, but Alonzo Church as well.
Customer Rating:
Review Summary: Read these reviews carefully
Review: 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.'
Customer Rating:
Review Summary: Excellent and Incredible
Review: 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.