Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand [Paperback]

Secondly, criticizing this book because it is "unoriginal" is totally senseless. The book was written to present THE PHILOSOPHY OF AYN RAND. Not a revision, nor any additions to it. To criticize a book for not doing something it wasn't intended to do is foolish. That said, the book IS, in a way, original. There is nowhere else one can go to find a presentation of Objectivism that is both a complete survey and presented with the hierarchical nature of the philosophy in mind.

Peikoff's book is the only place to go if one wants to learn and understand Objectivism. It is clear, logical, and loyal to Rand's writings. Peikoff presents the philosophy of Ayn Rand, not the philosophy of Leonard Peikoff, as was the purpose of this book. Peikoff addresses a myriad of topics not discussed in print anywhere else. Anyone who wants to learn Objectivism should definitely study this book in depth.

To start, I am a libertarian and have been for all of my life; I disagree with several of Rand's ideas on concept-formation and aesthetics, but agree with and respect the vast majority of her thinking. As many of your may know, during her lifetime Rand never wrote a treatsie on her philosophy per se; her various writings on ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology are scattered across a myriad of difference sources, ranging from her fiction works to her former lectures and newspaper articles. In this work, Rand's literary executor, Leonard Peikoff, set forth to contain all of the essentials of Rand's philosophy in one "all-in-one" package. In that aspect, he has magnificently accomplished his goal; each chapter is divided into several sections establishing the core tenets pertinent to each area of inquiry (such as measurement-omission, the role of volition, etc.) before another section or two repudiating various schools of thought or -isms that contradict with Objectivism's principles. Unlike many of the nonfiction pieces that Rand did in her life, Peikoff's work is meticulously footnoted, allowing for easy cross-reference or primary source validation. While sparing you all of the specifics of where and why I disagree with the philosophy, I must state, to corroborate the opinions of other readers, that Peikoff's style leaves much to be desired (thus, 4 instead of 5 stars.) Though his presentation of the actual information is clear and concise, he tends to ramble off on a didactic, over-moralizing tangent when criticizing the systems of others, particularly Kant (that seems to be an innate hatred in anything written by Objectivists.) Furthermore, I found the number of pragmatic examples that he cited in order to support capitalism in one of the later chapters to be unnecessary and, more than likely, detrimental to the overview point that he was trying to make, that being that capitalism is right because of moral, and not practical, reasons.
Despite a few minor flaws, OPAR is an overall excellent read for anyone interested in analyzing Rand's unique system of thought, whether or not you agree with her ideas.

Consider, as an example, the following contradiction. In the first chapter, Peikoff explains (among other things) Rand's view that the law of causation is a corollary of the law of identity. The fact that an entity has certain specific properties means that, "[in] any given set of circumstances... there is only one action possible to an entity..." (p. 14). That is, logic alone supposedly shows that entities cannot act in more than one way in any given situation. But then on the section on free will, Peikoff argues that, in any given situation, human beings are free to choose from among more than one course of action. "The content of one's choice could always have gone in the opposite direction..." (p. 69). Now, to be fair, he does notice that there at least APPEARS to be a contradiction here, but his attempt to resolve it is pure sophistry.

There are several other examples. For instance, Peikoff claims that "the choice to live precedes morality" (p. 247), meaning that one must first decide that life is worthwhile and only then can one say what is good or bad. But then to the objection that on this view the choice NOT to live cannot be shown to be wrong, Peikoff says: "A man who would throw away his life without cause... would belong on the lowest rung of hell" (p. 248). Hmmm... Sounds like a moral condemnation to me!

This is not to say that there isn't anything worthwhile in this book. I think Ayn Rand was an interesting thinker, with some good ideas and lots of confused ones. Her novels, though not in my opinion good as works of fiction, present an original moral viewpoint that many have regarded as life-changing. If you want to learn more about the ideas that underlie these works, this is a good place to start.