TheEgoist Posted June 16, 2010 Report Share Posted June 16, 2010 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayn-rand/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0096 2251 2110 8105 Posted June 16, 2010 Report Share Posted June 16, 2010 Oh God... Finally! :') Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted June 16, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2010 Oh God... Finally! :') Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeagle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted June 16, 2010 Report Share Posted June 16, 2010 Too bad for the dolts on Wikipedia. I remember many a debate where people argued that Rand wasn't a philosopher, and removed the reference from her article. That's pretty much indisputable now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted June 17, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2010 Too bad for the dolts on Wikipedia. I remember many a debate where people argued that Rand wasn't a philosopher, and removed the reference from her article. That's pretty much indisputable now. Yeah, it's funny how this can really solidify her as a philosopher. And it's good that her ideas are presented, however briefly, in a serious philosophic manner. Best of all, no immature twits can go in and change it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IchorFigure Posted June 17, 2010 Report Share Posted June 17, 2010 How does the summary of her philosophy there appear to do overall? I don't have time right now to read it all, but the bit I read on altruism seemed decent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0096 2251 2110 8105 Posted June 17, 2010 Report Share Posted June 17, 2010 How does the summary of her philosophy there appear to do overall? I don't have time right now to read it all, but the bit I read on altruism seemed decent. Well, it raises objections everywhere, and I found the tone of the writer a little condescending in some parts. I don't know if that's really necessary, or if that's the case with other philosopher's entries, but most of it seems fine, in general. It also includes some stuff from Branden, but I haven't got the time to read it properly, so I don't want to pass any judgement for now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted June 17, 2010 Report Share Posted June 17, 2010 How does the summary of her philosophy there appear to do overall? I don't have time right now to read it all, but the bit I read on altruism seemed decent. I haven't scrutinized it all either. The section on rights mysteriously uses the phrase "natural rights", a phrase Rand never uses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted June 17, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2010 Well, it raises objections everywhere, and I found the tone of the writer a little condescending in some parts. I don't know if that's really necessary, or if that's the case with other philosopher's entries, but most of it seems fine, in general. It also includes some stuff from Branden, but I haven't got the time to read it properly, so I don't want to pass any judgement for now. SEoP articles often raise points and counterpoints to ideas. I've gone over the section on Metaphysics and Epistemology the most. I think it's pretty spot on. There are some unanswered objections that have historically been retorted to by Objectivists, but nothing too damning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebelconservative Posted June 17, 2010 Report Share Posted June 17, 2010 That is great, I've not had time to read it all, but scanning parts, it looks quite well written, neutral and dare I say it, fairly objective. Will read it all later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2046 Posted June 17, 2010 Report Share Posted June 17, 2010 It was co-written by anarcho-capitalist "left-libertarian" philosopher Roderick T. Long of Auburn University, senior scholar at the Mises Institute, and co-editor of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. http://aaeblog.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roderick_Long http://mises.org/articles.aspx?AuthorId=383 http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/long2.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted June 17, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2010 It was co-written by anarcho-capitalist "left-libertarian" philosopher Roderick T. Long of Auburn University, senior scholar at the Mises Institute, and co-editor of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. http://aaeblog.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roderick_Long http://mises.org/articles.aspx?AuthorId=383 http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/long2.html I knew this and fail to see the huge deal. What's good is good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairnet Posted June 17, 2010 Report Share Posted June 17, 2010 It was co-written by anarcho-capitalist "left-libertarian" philosopher Roderick T. Long of Auburn University, senior scholar at the Mises Institute, and co-editor of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. http://aaeblog.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roderick_Long http://mises.org/articles.aspx?AuthorId=383 http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/long2.html Roderick Long is a good writer. He has an interesting essay comparing Mises and Wittgenstein. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2046 Posted June 17, 2010 Report Share Posted June 17, 2010 Yeah I wasn't insinuating anything btw, just seeing if anyone knew anything about the guy or had an opinion on him. (Sorry probably should have been more specific) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted June 18, 2010 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2010 It's okay, 2046. I've just already seen complains from a couple of people about who the article was written by. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairnet Posted June 18, 2010 Report Share Posted June 18, 2010 Yeah I wasn't insinuating anything btw, just seeing if anyone knew anything about the guy or had an opinion on him. (Sorry probably should have been more specific) Well, like I said earlier, he is a good writer. I know he has criticized Rand before, and that criticism has a rebuttal. From what I have of his read he is a hardcore rationalist. He like Mises and Wittgenstein, but does not believe in ethics as being something that is subjective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.