Reading the talk page is a bit frustrating, but here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ayn_Rand
I’m not sure how many here might be Wikipedia contributors, but qualifying her as an amateur shows an obvious slant. Especially considering I couldn’t find any other descriptions of “amateurs”.
Childish idiots. Best ignore them.
“Professional” philosophers want people to think that she is not really a philosopher or taken seriously by anyone who is intelligent. Why? Because she is preaching the opposite of their philosophical code. And if you cannot refute her philosophy, their only tactic is to smear her.
I experience this a lot, actually. And when you attempt to examine Ayn Rand’s ideas with many of these people, you find out that they don’t understand them. Just ignore them until you find someone that is actually concerned with ideas.
She wrote on philosophical topics, got published and made money at it. That qualifies her as a pro.
Exactly, Reidy. When you earn a living doing something, you are a professional. They might have settled on “pop” philosopher, because unlike any philosopher since Nietzsche and probably long before, people actually know about and follow her philosophy. But they would probably think that gives her too much credit. Most philosophers seem like intellectual hipsters to me.
I see that in the lead sentence of the article, the adjective amateur has been removed. I had never looked at this article until now. From a quick skim, it looks pretty good.
The last sentence of the introduction says that Rand “has been a significant influence among libertarians and American conservatives.” I wonder if she has also been a significant influence on contemporary atheism and self-esteem. I expect so for both, but I’m not aware of any sociological research on the extent of those influences.
“Professional” philosophers want people to think that she is not really a philosopher or taken seriously by anyone who is intelligent. Why? Because she is preaching the opposite of their philosophical code. And if you cannot refute her philosophy, their only tactic is to smear her.
Will you please give some examples of specific individuals who hold those views and practice those tactics? Please name names.
Of the philosophers I’ve seen who were critical of Rand, they were not necessarily in disagreement with her philosophical code, but were critical of her non-scholarly method – her inaccurate interpretations of history and of other philosopher’s views, etc. When she is called an “amateur” (which I think is a false description), it is because her method was often not very rigorous.
That, and she didn’t publish in the category of professional/academic-level philosophical treatises. She didn’t write formal philosophical presentations of her ideas. She only wrote a mere introduction to her theory of epistemology. She never submitted her ideas for professional review and criticism.
She never answer informed, independent criticism, but in fact often acted as if any criticism of her ideas was a vicious personal attack and insult. Those are, unfortunately, very amateurish traits, but they don’t make Rand an amateur.
J
Of the philosophers I’ve seen who were critical of Rand, they were not necessarily in disagreement with her philosophical code, but were critical of her non-scholarly method – her inaccurate interpretations of history and of other philosopher’s views, etc. When she is called an “amateur” (which I think is a false description), it is because her method was often not very rigorous.
Maybe you’ve found one particular professor or one particular university who doesn’t trash, explicitly and implicitly, virtually all of Rand’s main ideas. But even very brief observation of the product (stupents) and operating decisions (guv’ment money and influence) of almost all schools tell us that Rand is being rejected, even if they don’t know her by name. If they do know of her and don’t reject her, chances are they don’t even understand what she says.
For supporters of Rand, your particular response is just an apology for the dishonest “intellectuals” who can’t do anything but smear Rand.
James and Nell and Jonathan,
I have known a number of philosophers in academia, most of them not Objectivist. My impression is that among English-language philosophers today who have earned a PhD a significant number are realists concerning perception, science, and epistemology more generally. Overwhelmingly, at the same time, they reject foundationalism, especially of the axiomatic sort. The number of philosophers in agreement with Rand’s ethics, or with any egoistic ethics, is insignificant. (Eudaimonistic ethicists today also generally reject egoism.) Some philosophers defend the justice of laissez-faire capitalism, but not many in comparison to those opposing it.
There is overwhelming commitment to reason among those professional philosophers. Conceptions of reason will vary considerably, but they stand pat overwhelmingly against fideism, assertions without reasons, and logical fallacies (formal or informal). Overwhelmingly, they are atheists, outside of the religious schools. In sum there is significant concurrence with Rand on realism, reason, and atheism, but next to no concurrence with Rand on axiomatic foundationalism, egoism, or laissez-faire capitalism.
Those academic philosophers who have looked into Rand’s philosophy think they can refute it just fine. I imagine some of those philosophers who have not given a sustained look at Rand’s philosophy simply don’t have time for it, estimating it could not give them much help, given it is not academic philosophy. They have much other, definitely helpful work to study. They are pressed for time not only by shortness of life, but by competition from colleagues in their area.
Rand’s philosophy does give many other people much help, as you know. I expect it be will be around a while, and eventually someone might even bother to pull together a secularist and philosophically sophisticated book-length critique of the entire philosophy. At this point, however, it is unclear who would be the audience for such a work. Most people I’ve known with an interest in Rand’s philosophy either have an interest in it mainly for political organization or for the sake of themselves and their family. True, a few of us have studied philosophy widely beyond Rand, from all periods of philosophy, including our own, but few is few.
Stephen*
She never answer informed, independent criticism, but in fact often acted as if any criticism of her ideas was a vicious personal attack and insult.
That’s a blatant lie.
Can you give examples of where she addressed such criticism? Nozick, for example, tried to put forth a serious technical critique of her ideas, but she never took him up on it.
Can you give examples of where she addressed such criticism?
Are you aware of the Q&A sessions she had after every lecture? Or her television appearances? She answered plenty of criticism.
She just didn’t answer the criticism of the self-appointed experts of the field of contemporary Philosophy, because she considered the field they created devoid of value.
But whenever the questions came from people interested in philosophy as a means of understanding and living in reality rather than just a purposeless intellectual exercise, she made a considerable effort to answer.
Nozick, for example, tried to put forth a serious technical critique of her ideas, but she never took him up on it.
What makes Nozick’s critique “informed and independent”? The fact that he had a PhD? The fact that he’s famous?
Or is it something actually contained in that criticism? (if it’s the latter, please, name a specific point that’s informed and independent).
P.S. The real question I have (the one I’m interested in far more than anything else in this thread) is an explanation of what “technical” refers to. What are the specific techniques/definitions/assumptions/(whatever else) being employed, that make a critique of Ayn Rand “technical”? (in fact I’ll probably start a thread about it at some point, because I keep hearing it and it always struck me as a very vague thing to say)
Are you aware of the Q&A sessions she had after every lecture? Or her television appearances? She answered plenty of criticism.She just didn’t answer the criticism of the self-appointed experts of the field of contemporary Philosophy, because she considered the field they created devoid of value.
They weren’t “self-appointed” experts. They were experts. People who are experts ask questions and pose challenges that lay people, talk show hosts like Donahue, and students and fans don’t know enough to ask. The same is true of any profession. It’s the reason that peer review exists. If, say, a scientist were to propose a new theory, his facing an audience of housewives on a popular talk show, or briefly answering randomly selected questioners after a speech, would not be the same as facing sustained, in-depth, professional criticism, review and testing by experts in the field. The scientist’s declaring that all other scientists are devoid of value, and therefore that he wasn’t going to answer their criticisms, wouldn’t be a rational or effective tactic.
What makes Nozick’s critique “informed and independent”? The fact that he had a PhD?
Yes, a person’s earned degrees, honors, publications and professional experience make him an expert. That’s what it means to be an expert. Degrees are conferred upon people for having studied and demonstrated their expertise of the subject at hand.
J
Rand’s philosophy does give many other people much help, as you know. I expect it be will be around a while, and eventually someone might even bother to pull together a secularist and philosophically sophisticated book-length critique of the entire philosophy. At this point, however, it is unclear who would be the audience for such a work.
Well, I think it would follow the typical call-and-response, critique-and-rejoinder format, which would mean that the audience of criticism would be, and should be, Objectivists, or enthusiasts of Objectivism. It will take time. The passion of cult of personality, aesthetic exuberance and hero-worship loyalty probably needs a few generations to fade. And then cooler heads will take a fresh look, freely and dispassionately accept adjustments and improvements, and discard the mistakes. They will invite criticism rather than resent it.
J
And then cooler heads will take a fresh look, freely and dispassionately accept adjustments and improvements, and discard the mistakes. They will invite criticism rather than resent it.
Resenting criticism doesn’t imply a lack of coolheadedness. “Hero-worship” doesn’t imply a lack of objective evaluation, nor does “aesthetic exuberance” or (reasoned) loyalty.
Why is Rand the one who is to blame for not fitting into what is essentially nothing more than a culture of university professors? Why not the other way around? Rand’s whole thing was that philosophy needs to be accessible to people, not just as a series of floating ideas. Professors’ and Rand’s approach to philosophy do not jive, and I think Rand’s is superior.
Yes, a person’s earned degrees, honors, publications and professional experience make him an expert. That’s what it means to be an expert. Degrees are conferred upon people for having studied and demonstrated their expertise of the subject at hand.
Of course, we’re all free to judge whether those degrees actually mean anything… or whether they’re just self-serving junk titles.
“Amateur” is usually used to contrast against “professional”. Using one or the other usually hinges on whether one gets paid for whatever role is being described. Amateur can also connote a “hobbyist”, as opposed to someone who makes it their career. When talking of branches of knowledge, there’s another distinction: whether one takes the traditional, establishment route or whether one is mostly self-taught.
So, for instance, Henry Ford was not a professional engineer, nor a career engineer when he was first developing his car. From a short biography I’ve read, I doubt he engaged in discussions with any contemporary professors of engineering. (Though mechanical engineering was only newly broken off into its own field, some schools – notably University of Michigan – had created separate programs around the time Ford was 10 years old.) When he started making money selling cars, he became a professional, even though he had taken a non-establishment route. Wait though, while Ford was doing the work that would finally lead up to selling cars and becoming one of the richest men in the country, was he “non professional”?
Essentially, Ford’s situation does not fall neatly into the category. And, that’s just fine. It is quite pointless to argue which qualifier one ought to use to describe him. Rand clearly did not go through the typical, establishment training for philosophers. She clearly saw her career as being a novelist, rather than a philosopher. She wrote philosophy for non-philosophers. Even writing for lay-people, she does not take a textbook style: for instance, she does not methodically compare and contrast her conception of Egoism with the one or two major conceptions that have been put forth by previous philosophers. Though she wrote privately to John Hospers, she did not seem interested in any wider engagement with career philosophers. Clearly, she does not fall into a neat category.
They weren’t “self-appointed” experts. They were experts. People who are experts ask questions and pose challenges that lay people, talk show hosts like Donahue, and students and fans don’t know enough to ask. The same is true of any profession. It’s the reason that peer review exists. If, say, a scientist were to propose a new theory, his facing an audience of housewives on a popular talk show, or briefly answering randomly selected questioners after a speech, would not be the same as facing sustained, in-depth, professional criticism, review and testing by experts in the field. The scientist’s declaring that all other scientists are devoid of value, and therefore that he wasn’t going to answer their criticisms, wouldn’t be a rational or effective tactic.
False analogy, for one. You’re also begging the question. The crux of the disagreement between Rand and academia is precisely whether their philosophy is a rational study of reality (the way science is), or more akin to religion than science.
Rand’s position was clear on that. So is yours. She argued her position in half a dozen books. Now it’s your turn. Instead, so far you’re trying to win the argument by assuming your own position, and drawing an analogy between what scientists do and what modern philosophers do. Fraudulent nonsense. Let me know when you have an actual argument, defending your position against Ayn Rand’s using logic.
Yes, a person’s earned degrees, honors, publications and professional experience make him an expert.
Degrees and honors are in fact not what make someone an expert in a subject.
Degrees are conferred upon people for having studied and demonstrated their expertise of the subject at hand.
Let’s say that’s true (though it’s not always true, in fact most degrees make all kinds of false claims or exaggerations about the expertise they supposedly “demonstrate”).
But let’s say it’s true: the subject of Nozick’s critique was Rand’s philosophy (which consists of Rand’s thoughts on the nature of reality and man’s role within it). What degrees or honors did he hold to demonstrate his expertise in that subject?
Well, I think it would follow the typical call-and-response, critique-and-rejoinder format, which would mean that the audience of criticism would be, and should be, Objectivists, or enthusiasts of Objectivism. It will take time. The passion of cult of personality, aesthetic exuberance and hero-worship loyalty probably needs a few generations to fade. And then cooler heads will take a fresh look, freely and dispassionately accept adjustments and improvements, and discard the mistakes. They will invite criticism rather than resent it.
But this is already happening; specifically, in the Ayn Rand Society Philosophical Studies series edited by Allan Gotthelf and James Lennox. The first book, Metaethics, Egoism, and Virtue, contains essays by Objectivists which further flesh out Rand’s philosophy, a series of responses by non-Objectivist philosophers, and rejoinders by Objectivist scholars. This seems like precisely the type of exercise that you are asking for. For example, in his essay on ‘Objectivism and Analytic Philosophy,’ Irfan Khawaja states his purpose as “to identify [the Objectivist ethics’] overarching justificatory structure in such a way as to show (without doing violence to its claims or watering it down) how it is in competition with analytic philosophy on problems that analytic philosophers can recognize as their own.” The essay following this one is a reply to Khawaja by Paul Bloomfield, a non-Objectivist professional philosopher.
The final section of the book is titled “Author Meets Critics: Tara Smith’s Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics.” It contains critiques of Smith’s presentation of Rand’s philosophy by philosophers, and rejoinders by Smith herself.
The second volume in this series, Concepts and their Role in Knowledge, is similarly structured. The first part contains essays which expand upon Rand’s epistemology, written by Objectivist philosophers (e.g. Allan Gotthelf and Onkar Ghate). The second section, ‘Discussion,’ contains critical responses to each of these essays by non-Objectivist scholars, along with rejoinders from the authors.
I’d note that several of the Objectivist scholars involved in this series are also strongly affiliated with ARI, most notably Onkar Ghate and Tara Smith. They seem to be perfectly willing to engage in critical debate with non-Objectivist academics over Rand’s ideas. Harry Binswanger is quoted on the back of the first one as calling it “a valuable and exciting project.” I think you strongly overstate the ‘passion of cult of personality, aesthetic exuberance and hero-worship loyalty’ that supposedly prevents Rand’s ideas from being discussed critically.
As an aside, Allan Gotthelf did an excellent job producing the series, and I sincerely hope that they continue to be produced in his absence.
Most people I’ve known with an interest in Rand’s philosophy either have an interest in it mainly for political organization or for the sake of themselves and their family.
Personal gain (ethical and professional guidance - in the area of aesthetics) and the improvement of inter-personal relationships (and organization, including political) are the reasons why I have an interest in Rand’s philosophy (and not just Rand’s, I have an interest in some other people’s too, for the same reasons). The way I read your sentence, you’re referring to those two main reasons.
For what purpose do you have an interest in philosophy, aside from those two?