Ayn Rand and Objectivism: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Introduction to Philosophy / Factual Issues / Books » Ayn Rand and Objectivism » Ayn Rand and Objectivism

Ayn Rand and Objectivism

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Ayn Rand and Objectivism

nspeds
Nozickean

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 14, 2004
Location: The Noumenal Realm

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 194

Posted 10/24/04 - 09:52 AM:	#71
I myself have no opinion of Ayn Rand thus far (I have not read her works and until I do so, such judgement would be foolish). However, upon mentioning her name to my philosophy professor, I was engulfed with laughter and the phrase: "Ayn Rand is not a philosopher." Take this in any way you want to, you can even argue that my professor does not like Rand because she is different, but I would not make that argument. My professor adores Derrida (and his attacks against analytic philosophy) and his theories were entirely unconventional (when held next to analytic philosophy). In other words, he has respect for different philosophies, but even this respect (and patience) does not extend to the "works" of Ayn Rand, which in my opinion, shows a lot about her.
Online Journal

Klaatu
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2003
Location: In between

Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 20

Posted 10/24/04 - 10:10 AM:	#72
Justus wrote: It's so typical that when one thinks differently than you that you suddenly have to stamp their beliefs as illegitimate. I will grant to the people who hate her that she certainly didn't tailor her arguments in a way that they would accept. Its so typical of Ayn Rand, to suddenly stamp all other philosophies different from hers, as illegitimate.

Justus
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 26, 2004
Location: KY, USA

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 419

Posted 10/24/04 - 03:28 PM:	#73
She didn't call them illegitimate. She just called them flat out wrong. There's a difference.
"The present existing intellectuals have declared their own bankruptcy by abandoning the intellect. What we need today out of an intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning, any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, and not by feelings, wishes, whims or mystical relations." -Ayn Rand

Klaatu
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2003
Location: In between

Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 20

Posted 10/24/04 - 03:30 PM:	#74
Justus wrote: She didn't call them illegitimate. She just called them flat out wrong. There's a difference. Its so typical of Ayn Rand, to suddenly stamp all other philosophies different from hers, as flat out wrong. Which illegitimates her.

Archimedes
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2004

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 8

Posted 10/24/04 - 04:51 PM:	#75
I agree with those who say Ayn Rand was not a philosopher, but not for the reasons they state. Ayn Rand's so called newbie errors, and gross generalizations contribute, but are not by themselves cause to consider her unphilosophical. Ayn Rand never contributed to the arena in which philosophers work (i.e. she never contributed to any major philosophical journals nor did she participate in association meetings or seminars). Generalizing negatively about current philosphy didn't help either. Those who think that philosophy should examine her work, will have to wait until someone within philosophy finds something worthwhile in her work. As I've indicated in my posts, I'm not convinced there won't be something found. But since she was more of a populist, it will take an interesting twist in moral theory, before she finds interest among those philosophers. I think two philosophers have already evaluated her work (in a more charitable way--but they didn't see anything very interesting), but they couldn't find a relevant connection to current work. A khunian revolution within philosophy will have to take place before she has a shot in my opinion. If you are an "objectivist," you need to recognize that Ayn Rand exhibits many of the social characteristics of a "crank." This doesn't mean she necessarily IS a crank regarding her work, but it's hard to convince someone to spend many hours going over her work in order to make that determination. There needs to be another compelling reason (i.e. that something she wrote fits with a theory I'm working on in X or Y). BTW, railing against philosophers in "cranky" ways, furthers the "crank" perception.

Archimedes
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2004

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 8

Posted 10/24/04 - 05:00 PM:	#76
JohnGalt wrote: It sounds to me that philosophy has become a popularity contest. If someone completely rejects "established" philosphy then she is not to be taken seriously. But if she panders to the beliefs of today's "philosophers" she will then be accepted. If what you said were EXACTLY true you'd be right. But you're wrong. There really isn't an "established" philosophy. Ayn Rand NEEDLESSLY pitted herself against "all" or at least "most" of philosophy. I agree that many subdisciplines within philosophy have "icons," but there are many disagreements among philosophers. There just isn't a universally agreed upon belief anywhere in philosophy. In fact when there is a univerally agreed upon belief, it no longer remains the province of philosophy.

Justus
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 26, 2004
Location: KY, USA

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 419

Posted 10/24/04 - 05:38 PM:	#77
Wow, this is truly absurd. Apparently one has to follow a certain set of rules before one can join the "club." Perhaps, it's time to start a new club...
"The present existing intellectuals have declared their own bankruptcy by abandoning the intellect. What we need today out of an intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning, any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, and not by feelings, wishes, whims or mystical relations." -Ayn Rand

JHBowden
I love you guys!

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 20, 2003
Location: Little Italy, Chicago

Total Topics: 40
Total Posts: 1434

Posted 10/24/04 - 05:52 PM:	#78
Justus wrote: Wow, this is truly absurd. Apparently one has to follow a certain set of rules before one can join the "club." Perhaps, it's time to start a new club... If a person didn't know what an electron was, didn't know what 'momentum' meant, and then made a bunch of false attacks on Newton and Galileo for causing the establishment of totalitarian states in the 20th century, would we consider the person a physicist? Certainly not. Why should the analogous case hold for "Objectivism" and philosophy? Acting like a persecuted Christian is getting you and your partners in crime nowhere.
"It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it." -- Joseph Joubert (1754-1824) "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" -- Isaiah 5:20 "What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite." -- Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)

ying
I ♥ Scepticism

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 20, 2004
Location: Lichtenvoorde, Netherlands

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1485

Posted 10/24/04 - 06:24 PM:	#79
Archimedes wrote: I think two philosophers have already evaluated her work (in a more charitable way--but they didn't see anything very interesting), but they couldn't find a relevant connection to current work. A khunian revolution within philosophy will have to take place before she has a shot in my opinion. The branches in philosophy are in a preparadigmatic state, we don't have an established paradigm but competing schools. So, how can a paradigmshift occur when there is no paradigm? Moreover, is there a reason for a paradigmshift within branches of philosophy? There have to be anomalies for there to be a need to create new theories to overthrow the old one.
*"I determined nothing."* -Sceptical expression

nspeds
Nozickean

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 14, 2004
Location: The Noumenal Realm

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 194

Posted 10/24/04 - 07:18 PM:	#80
ying wrote: There have to be anomalies for there to be a need to create new theories to overthrow the old one. No, there has to be an entirely new set of paradigms or a pre-existing set that rejects core paradigms to the point where a new convention is born. Moreover, is such an event occurred, we would not be able to refer to this practice as "philosophy"; you would be suffering from the "semantic sting". Because Ayn Rand has created an entirely new subset of paradigms to define our practice, we can no longer refer to it as philosophy. The "Marxist Theory of Justice" was never really a theory of justice at all, it was just a radical concept that used entirely different paradigms that had the word "Justice" tacked on to it (perhaps to establish some categorical relevance). Of course, Ayn Rand could have just been modifying core paradigms, I do not know. I am just interpreting her actions through the testimony of her supporters and enemies in this thread. If the accusations concerning her misinterpretation of Kant are true, then I have no respect for Ayn Rand. You can critique Kant, but when you do, do it right. ND
Online Journal

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.