To M: Ayn Rand

[John Cole]

M,

Like you I haven't read Rand's books. I did try Altas Shrugged, but I shrugged it off after about thirty pages. Turgid stuff. Why anyone tries to "say something" in literature is beyond me. I think I'd read Middlemarch, Bleak House, Tristram Shandy, or Tom Jones if I were going to invest the time slogging my way through one of Rand's novels. But, many people seem to like them.

I also looked for academic responses to Rand's philosophy, and it seems few, if any, professional philosophers take her work seriously. I'm sure her supporters would argue that a measure of her radical thinking, but I son't think so. The wonderful Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (available online) doesn't mention her or her work. Critiques of her work are available, and the best I can tell, most who do critique her work believe Objectivism cannot sustain any basic premise. But, again, you can find many advocates with a simple web search. I think I would spend my time more wisely trying to read Richard Rorty.

[MMMMMM]

Thank you, John.

My interest stems from the fact that so many seem attracted to her philosophy and I wanted to know what all the fuss was about. Also, I do like mulling over ideas if one can get to the kernels without too much heavy digging.

[mosta]

Rorty--don't bother either. Believe me. Please. If you want to read a 20th century intellectual in the area of philosophy your time would be well spent on Derrida. And if you think you Derrida is to be lumped in with Deleuze and Guatari, Ricoeur, Baudrillard, etc etc, all the other French monkeys, even Foucault--then you should probably give up reading altogether. (Read Derrida's critique of Foucault's criticism of Descartes on madness in L'Ecrivant et la Differance to see a detailed close reading of a text demolish a pretentous clown.)

[John Cole]

I've read Derrida, but I haven't read his critique of Foucault. I've also read most of Foucault's work, and in a hospital waiting room a couple months ago, stuck without much to read, I found a copy of Madness and Civilization and began rereading. Not as good as Discipline and Punish. However, I lack a good philosophy background, so I have to hack at this stuff.

I gave up on Philosophy and the Mirrror of Nature when MY nerve endings were causing pain.

Concerning non-professional philosophers: see Stanley Cavell's The Senses of Walden and his Pursuits of Happiness: The Hollywood Comedy of Remarriage. He makes a cogent defense of non-professional philosophy that Rand's supporters might appreciate.

[Ed Miller]

I also looked for academic responses to Rand's philosophy, and it seems few, if any, professional philosophers take her work seriously.

If you are looking for something similar that is taken seriously, try Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia.

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
I also looked for academic responses to Rand's philosophy, and it seems few, if any, professional philosophers take her work seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

I got my bachelors in philosophy and we never even studied Rand. She would be mentioned every once in a while and that was it. And it was not because Rand was post-graduate material either. There was nothing so complicated in her writings that one would have to have a degree to understand or know previous philosophy. I guess what i am saying is to truly understand marx (not just his economic philosophy, but all of it; since it is all connected), one would have to know hegel fairly well. But, to read Ayn Rand, one would have to have a pretty good hold on the english language (at least an 8th grade level /images/graemlins/wink.gif). My school also did not have a "great" philosophy program, but i have talked to people that went to other colleges, and Rand was barely mentioned there as well.

craig

[craig r]

mosta,

don't you think to understand the philosophers you mentioned, one would have to have to have some knowledge of modern philosophy as well? and not just modern philosophy, but marx as well?

[Ragnar]

John Cole wrote, ". . . it seems few, if any professional philosophers take her work seriously."

Apparently Cole is not familiar much of the writing going on in the academic world. He is definitely mistaken. While it is true that Rand's philosophy is not in the mainstream of academic thought, a number of academics do take her work seriously. Some of them teach or have taught at prestigious universities and publish in the academic presses.

David Kelley received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton. He was on the faculties at Brandeis and Vassar. He published The Evidence of the Senses which is grounded Rand's epistemology through the Louisiana State University Press. (Full disclosure--he is my boss at The Objectivist Center.)

Chris Matthew Sciabarra published his provocative book Ayn Rand the Russian Radical through Penn State Press. Dr. Sciabarra is a lecturer in political philosophy at NYU.
He has written numerous articles on Objectivism and related topics.

Tara Smith has published two books based heavily on Rand's philosophy Viable Values and Moral Rights and Political Freedom . Dr. Smith is a tenured faculty member at the University of Texas at Austin.

Douglas J. Den Uyl and Douglas B. Rasmussen published The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand through The University of Illinois Press. They are both tenured professors of philosophy and other tenured academics published articles in the book.

There is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal about Rand's philosophy entitled The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies

There is a society in the Eastern branch of the American Philosophical Association devoted to the study of Rand. They have paper presentations at yearly meetings, and have for many years.

There are a number of independent scholars and faculty scholars around the world who regularly write and publish articles about the philosophy of Objectivism. A few consider themselves Objectivists, most are interested in Rand's ideas with some agreement and some criticism.

I used to keep track of all of the academic articles about Objectivism, but I lost track about five years ago. There are just too many.

Since MMMMMM seems to be bound and determined to try to find out about this philosophy through web material only I'd suggest that he try searches on David Kelley (not the Manhattan US atty or the TV guy married to Michelle Pheiffer), Tara Smith, Chris Sciabarra, Douglas J. Den Uyl, Douglas B. Rasmussen, Eric Mack (professor at Tulane) Roderick Long, or Aeon Skoble. There are others but that would be a start. All are professional philosophers. All of them take Rand's work seriously.

Ragnar

[John Cole]

Ragnar, thank you. I was really endeavoring to find that information through a quick web search. I also found that some academics have written on Rand, but they were not philosophers--not that I'm discounting their credentials or expertise. Which university publishes The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

You could also try reading "Capitalism and Freedom", by Milton Freedman.

"Atlas Shrugged" is a long and somewhat ponderous morality play, with occaisional interesting parts. The philosophy of individualism is clear, though, and that's what I like about it.

[MMMMMM]

"The philosophy of individualism is clear, though, and that's what I like about it."

I have to question the extent of Rand's "philosophy of individualism", because as pointed out in the Letters of Ayn Rand thread, that philosophy apparently does not approve of living by mere "harvesting" for one's sole support (whether by playing poker, growing one's own food, fishing, or any other means). The requirement that an individual support himself by some sort of "productive labor which benefits society as a whole" strikes me as a very lukewarm sort of individualism at that, and I suspect belies an insidious desire for control over others. Who shall officially determine what is or is not permissible as "productive labor"? Ayn Rand herself? The government?

For a philosopher of individualism, I choose Thoreau. He also made good points regarding how "doing good" instead so often turns out to be "doing bad", and how incessant "busi-ness" is fairly inimicable to contemplation and an honestly led life.

[John Cole]

Ragnar,

Looking again under a different search string, I found Rand's advocates using the words "philosophers don't take here work seriously" before they attempt to make their case.

I also noticed that The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies is followed by a .com. However, any journal that publishes Zizek (http://www.egs.edu/faculty/zizek/zizek-the-lesbian-session.html) can't be all bad.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I don't disagree. Rand seems to believe that individualism is fine if you're an over-acheiving industrialist, or are performing labor in a conventional job in an industrial society. Still, her focus on the primacy of private property is a good one.

Go ahead, invest the time and read Atlas Shrugged. Then, at least, you'll be able to offer a completely thought out critique. Or at the very least, get your hands on a copy of "The Ayn Rand Lexicon" in which you can look up how objectivist philosophy approaches a multitude of issues, listed alphabetically (which gets you into a big one - abortion - right on the first page /images/graemlins/wink.gif)

[Ragnar]

John,

The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies is not published by a University. It is published by the owner of Liberty magazine. Some of the books I mentioned were published by University presses. I didn't mean to convey the impression that JARS is published by a University press. However, most of the articles are written by academics and there is a peer review process.

Kelley, Mack, Den Uyl, Rasmussen, Smith and Skoble and others are are philosophers and have been professors in philosophy departments at universites. Sciabarra is a lecturer in political philosophy.

There are a number of others I have left out, but I failed to list a major figure. John Hospers who was a philosophy professor at the University of Southern California for many years, had discussions with Rand and wrote about her philosophy. He is the author of one of the major introductory philosophy texts which is still used in many schools, An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis and quotes Rand in the ethical section of that book.

Ragnar

[Ed Miller]

Go ahead, invest the time and read Atlas Shrugged.

I think the Fountainhead is a much better book. It at least somewhat reads like a novel.