Looking forward to following your series! I recently wrote an article on the weakness of "normie philosophers'" critiques of Rand (https://new-ideal.aynrand.org/p/why-cant-professional-philosophers). My thesis is that most of those critiques are parochial in that they're reading into her conventional premises that she's in fact calling into question, or pigeonholing her into argument forms they're comfortable evaluating but aren't in her text.
I read it! Without commenting on the specific authors, I agree with the general thesis. Hope to do better! (And I look forward to any pushback—feel free to be brutal, I’m here to learn!)
I admire her willingness to be unfashionable, but have never quite been able to see what her devotees found so brilliant in her work. On one hand, she never seriously engaged with other philosophers that I know of, other than to dismiss or disparage everyone except Aristotle, so perhaps her isolation is somewhat self-imposed. On the other, it seems like an accessible refutation or correction might be very valuable.
I can’t quite decide whether we would be better off without her, whether the ideas that I share with her would be taken more seriously if she had not warped them, or if they would be largely forgotten.
It's worse than "didn't engage with"; she made sweeping claims about thinkers she apparently hadn't read, sometimes not even based upon second-hand academic sources, but even journalistic descriptions of their views.
She certainly has an unusual interpretation of Kant. I agree she was not a serious critic of other persons' philosophy, at least as far as I am aware. But this is what I meant by “disparage and dismiss.”
Moreover, the business end of her ethics (i.e., the views that inform her politics, after the Star-on Machine of poor reasoning has clunked and blunked and burped and glurped ethical egoism and the law of non-contradiction into applied ethics) is *extremely* Kantian.
I actually consider Rand’s personality/persona/style to be fair game. R. Solomon’s “Nietzsche Ad Hominem” didn’t reference her once, but my mind strayed back to her at nearly every punctuation mark of that essay. If Socrates was ‘ugly’ and Kant ‘anti-nature’, what on earth would a malignant narcissist cult leader with a penchant for methamphetamines be?
I suppose she could be onto something, but I’m too much of a romantic existentialist to foreclose on the question ‘would I want that world?’
That said, critical conceptual analysis is superior; I yield. Do your worst.
If you’re interested, Roderick Long wrote an informative and fair critique of her work. He is deeply familiar with her work and contrasts her views with those of other thinkers like Aristotle and others, regarding issues related to epistemology and ethics.
«They won’t arrive in any systematic order. Ayn Rand Was Wrong About:
concepts, atonement, the axiology of theism, selfishness, charity, normative ethics, meta-ethics, miscellaneous religious matters, rights»
Wrong from the perspective of others schools of philosophy or wrong in the sense of not building a system, that's internally coherent and contradiction-free? I think both are probably true.
I think her value lies in being a good virtue ethicist, similar to Seneca, who did not even care terribly much for logic and a rigorous axiomatic foundation, but would you not call him a great philosopher?
The Prussian, an Objectivist blogger reports, that now that capitalism is becoming more popular in formerly socialist African countries, lots of Objectivists there. Is it simply that people like capitalism and then just use her as a justification? But for instance Nozick was 100 times more capable. Or even Rothbard.
Is it simply that people want to read novels instead of philosophy, but still pose as philosophers? But if people want to read novels from an Objectivist, James Clavell is the obvious choice. He was a Rand admirer but he could actually write and if one wants a novel-format justification for capitalism, Tai Pan and Noble House are much better than Atlas Shrugged.
Hi Amos,
Looking forward to following your series! I recently wrote an article on the weakness of "normie philosophers'" critiques of Rand (https://new-ideal.aynrand.org/p/why-cant-professional-philosophers). My thesis is that most of those critiques are parochial in that they're reading into her conventional premises that she's in fact calling into question, or pigeonholing her into argument forms they're comfortable evaluating but aren't in her text.
I read it! Without commenting on the specific authors, I agree with the general thesis. Hope to do better! (And I look forward to any pushback—feel free to be brutal, I’m here to learn!)
I admire her willingness to be unfashionable, but have never quite been able to see what her devotees found so brilliant in her work. On one hand, she never seriously engaged with other philosophers that I know of, other than to dismiss or disparage everyone except Aristotle, so perhaps her isolation is somewhat self-imposed. On the other, it seems like an accessible refutation or correction might be very valuable.
I can’t quite decide whether we would be better off without her, whether the ideas that I share with her would be taken more seriously if she had not warped them, or if they would be largely forgotten.
I look forward to a critical examination here.
It's worse than "didn't engage with"; she made sweeping claims about thinkers she apparently hadn't read, sometimes not even based upon second-hand academic sources, but even journalistic descriptions of their views.
She certainly has an unusual interpretation of Kant. I agree she was not a serious critic of other persons' philosophy, at least as far as I am aware. But this is what I meant by “disparage and dismiss.”
Moreover, the business end of her ethics (i.e., the views that inform her politics, after the Star-on Machine of poor reasoning has clunked and blunked and burped and glurped ethical egoism and the law of non-contradiction into applied ethics) is *extremely* Kantian.
Sounds good. And as someone who has a fondness for Ayn Rand, I look forward to possibly countering your criticisms.
😱
I actually consider Rand’s personality/persona/style to be fair game. R. Solomon’s “Nietzsche Ad Hominem” didn’t reference her once, but my mind strayed back to her at nearly every punctuation mark of that essay. If Socrates was ‘ugly’ and Kant ‘anti-nature’, what on earth would a malignant narcissist cult leader with a penchant for methamphetamines be?
I suppose she could be onto something, but I’m too much of a romantic existentialist to foreclose on the question ‘would I want that world?’
That said, critical conceptual analysis is superior; I yield. Do your worst.
Huemer already sort of did this! https://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/papers/rand.htm
Huemer’s essay slaps, but I want to cover everything!
Yes, but Wollen has not.
How original, someone attacking Ayn Rand. Can't wait.
If you’re interested, Roderick Long wrote an informative and fair critique of her work. He is deeply familiar with her work and contrasts her views with those of other thinkers like Aristotle and others, regarding issues related to epistemology and ethics.
https://praxeology.net/Reason_Value.pdf
«They won’t arrive in any systematic order. Ayn Rand Was Wrong About:
concepts, atonement, the axiology of theism, selfishness, charity, normative ethics, meta-ethics, miscellaneous religious matters, rights»
Wrong from the perspective of others schools of philosophy or wrong in the sense of not building a system, that's internally coherent and contradiction-free? I think both are probably true.
I think her value lies in being a good virtue ethicist, similar to Seneca, who did not even care terribly much for logic and a rigorous axiomatic foundation, but would you not call him a great philosopher?
“Unlike most of Ayn Rand’s critics, I will not engage in name-calling (and won’t bring up her sex life, which is creepy and none of our business).”
Nice use of paralipsis.
And yet, the enduring popularity.
The Prussian, an Objectivist blogger reports, that now that capitalism is becoming more popular in formerly socialist African countries, lots of Objectivists there. Is it simply that people like capitalism and then just use her as a justification? But for instance Nozick was 100 times more capable. Or even Rothbard.
Is it simply that people want to read novels instead of philosophy, but still pose as philosophers? But if people want to read novels from an Objectivist, James Clavell is the obvious choice. He was a Rand admirer but he could actually write and if one wants a novel-format justification for capitalism, Tai Pan and Noble House are much better than Atlas Shrugged.
Does EA fall in the category of subcultures, would you call yourself an EA, or other.