You must be commenting on a different article. This one never implies, “Hume’s salient characteristic is no more “little confused fuzzy pictures”. Maybe you didn’t notice this is part 1 of a 4 part article.
Where did you get, “This piece does at least give a reasonably concise summary of how Rand’s metaphysics ...”
Rand’s metaphysics?
Rand never wrote metaphysics.
In all her writing, the word only shows up about 25 times. In almost every case it’s in reference to what she regards as a wrong or mistaken metaphysics. Here is all she ever wrote about metaphysics [quoted from her works]:
Metaphysics: Existence exists—A is A.
... the fifth branch of philosophy, the basic one, the fundamental of the science of fundamentals: metaphysics?
In metaphysics, this meant a fundamental change in emphasis: from God to this world, the world of particulars in which men live, the realm of nature.
These answers are the province of metaphysics—the study of existence as such or, in Aristotle’s words, of “being qua being”—the basic branch of philosophy.
In philosophy, the fundamentals are metaphysics and epistemology. On the basis of a knowable universe and of a rational faculty’s competence to grasp it, you can define man’s proper ethics, politics and esthetics.
The essentials are: in metaphysics, the Law of Identity—in epistemology, the supremacy of reason—in ethics, rational egoism—in politics, individual rights (i.e., capitalism)—in esthetics, metaphysical values.
Her entire explicit metaphysic can be summed up as, “existence exists, and A is A (the law of identity)” which means only that there is an objectivie existence independent of consciousness.
One of my major criticisms of Objectivism is that it has no thoroughgoing metaphysics, and no ontology at all.
By the way the author is not an Objectivist and does not promote Objectivism—especially as it is held and practiced by those who do call themselves Objectivists today.
Hank
“By the way the author is not an Objectivist and does not promote Objectivism”
For him to deny Hume’s positive impact on the evolution of “his” philosophy is ignorant. To deny Rand’s is just laughable. He can call himself what he wants, but he is Objectivist in ideas, tone, and even word choice.
I suppose his next article will be a similar hit piece on Rand. For completion’s sake, he can afterwards write a hit piece on himself.
Here is all she ever wrote about metaphysics
You forgot:
"I use the word 'metaphysical' to mean: that which pertains to reality, to the nature of things, to existence. [The Virtue of Selfishness - page 14].
and no ontology at all
So on to ontology:
"A 'concept' is a mental integration of two or perceptual concretes, which are isolated by a process of abstraction and united by the means of a specific definition.
"Every word of man's language, with the exception of proper names, denotes a concept, an abstraction that stands for an unlimited number of concretes of a specific kind." [The Virtue of Selfishness - page 20]. . .
The first is metaphysics and the second a practical definition of ontology. Both at the heart and premise of her empistemology.
There is nothing missing.