What contribution, if any, did Ayn Rand make to philosophy?

[erislover]

“Popular doesn’t mean she’s good”. “Please define good.” “Look, just because Stephen King sells millions of books doesn’t mean he should be studied as an example of great literature.” “Please explain your criteria for great literature.” “It isn’t like Rand contributed anything new to philosophy.” “I don’t know what that means. Can you tell me what that means so I may respond?”

Well, we can try some more.

---

This would be a controversial but justified position if only she hadn’t based her work on Western religious traditions of goodness and the spiritual.

“Thou art God, Abe.” If you won’t take Rand on her terms, of course you won’t think she said anything.

Nathaniel Branden once noted that Rand didn’t take stock in the theory of evolution. He was appalled at that, but I think that is exactly right. She didn’t feel she knew enough, or it didn’t matter to her, or something similar, so she had no real opinion on it. Since, by her understanding, the intellectual community was founded on anti-realism and anti-reason, there wasn’t necessarily much she could inherently trust from that community.

If Hume was wrong, can you even trust Kant?

As far as the “groundbreaking” goes, I can’t fight this battle on random fronts. Do we want to discuss the fact that Rand didn’t contribute anything, that the millions of people who think she did (and who aren’t contributions, of course) are morons, or that objectivism itself is bunk? I think Rand did break new ground, in a sense. When was the last time you remember a philosopher that said man could be perfect, that knowledge was possible, that ethics could be rationally investigated and were in a sense objective, that reality was not a function of the mind? I can’t think of any who said all of this. But as I’ve noted I’m not that well-read.

Re: atheism
I became what most would call an atheist at 14. I didn’t need to investigate all arguments for God. You can tell whether there are any eggs in the carton by picking it up, you don’t need to investigate every liitle partiton. Same with me. As I understood the universe, there was no room for God. Nothing I have learned has created any “room” for him.

This is selective “thinking” motivated by a desire to exalt humanity in general as a vehicle and herself in specific as the object.

Oh, that’s rich. I believe this “selective thinking” you are referring to is called “not accepting conclusions which contradict your premises.” But no, we don’t have to call that rational thinking if you don’t want to. I don’t mind.

We start out by the argument that all knowledge depends on and is input by sensory perception; the faculty of reason then integrates what the senses provide. This is a sensible approach and one of the items that Rand’s admiring readers sometimes cite as an expression of genius and clarity–but it’s just standard-issue empiricism.

Not in any form I have encountered it. The line of empiricists have led us right where Rand disagrees the most: we can never “know” anything by our senses, and the distinction between analytic and synthetic propositions which respectively say nothing about the world and can never be confirmed.

If you accept Hume’s notions of empicism, you can’t escape that causality can’t be shown to exist. He develops that in the first hundred or so pages very succinctly (IMO). If you go with Kant, you mysteriously “know” things by virtue of existing (his synthetic a priori).

I’m not syaing Rand wouldn’t be considered an empiricist, she is by my count, but not in the sense that “empiricist” implies in popular academic philosophy.

but in practice you have to submit a product that meets a certain standard of quality before you can be taken seriously.

So you keep saying. What are those standards?

and by that definition not only is Rand among the great philosophers, but so are thousands of people on this board merely by dint of their SDMB discussion topics.

Well, I call a man a “scientist” if he chiefly does science. I call a man a philosopher if he chiefly philosophizes. How do you decide who is what?

Look at the way she mangles the problem of Universals!

The problem of universals is a stain on Rand in some sense, but it isn’t a total loss. She was an immanent realist by any sense of her readings, but she didn’t like the notion of “essences” which led her away from immanent realism.

She said on this topic that anyone who sought “manness” in men should seek the “aness” in 5000. I think that is a good answer for an immanent realist. “a” doesn’t exist per se, you can’t point to it. But it does exist, in another sense, because there are particular instances of it. I think everyone who tackles the problem of universals mangles it because it is “the problem of universals”. I mean, I think nominalists destroy it by the very virtue of their own existence.

To Rand, there is no “whiteness” that a piece of paper has, but it isn’t an essence in the sense of existing like “this coffee cup” exists. There are instances of length, but not “length”.

She misunderstood the problem. The debate I had on the boards a little bit ago (unfortunately two-thrids of which are lost now) demonstrated that most people have a hard time with it. I have been considering restarting the entire debate to get a fresh perspective. Would you be interested in that?

You haven’t provided a refutation to, for example, the fact that much of Rand’s work is simply unoriginal rehashing of other philosophers (some of whom she even claims to dislike) and even religious traditions.

Because I don’t think she did for the most part. She credits Aristotle with much of her thoughts. Virtue theory, reason, and so on. So even she knows she’s derivative. I mean, that’s even part of her point: we are investigating. We are assembling, integrating, the whole time.

Her goal was to restore philosophy. So in many ways she had to work of others.

As far as the religious stuff goes, give me a break. If I say that “Everyone should be nice to each other” I am not basing my thoughts of Jesus.

“I’ve never understood the analytic/synthetic distinction, and so I liked what she had to say on the matter.” Seems like hardly a good criterion by which to judge elements of a particular philosophy.

Well, what I meant was (I thought the context was clear) that I understood what they were saying and it was contradictory or near-mystical in nature. The very notion of analytic a priori knowledge borders on mystical, IMO. And Kant’s synthetic a priori? That we have a “special type” of contingent knowledge based on the fact that we exist? I would say all knowledge is synthetic a posteriori and can be no other way. The second I heard the distinction between them that’s what I said: there is nothing else.

Maybe I am projecting that opinion onto Rand. As I’ve said, I never read Piekoff’s work. but I see you take stock in the distinction. OK. We disagree here big time, but ok.

She attempts to establish a pattern for concept-formation based on measurement differences (commensurable characteristics), and denies the existence of a priori knowledge. But she claims that axiomatic concepts (consciousness, identity, extistence, etc.) have no contraries and/or alternatives, and thus they may not be differentiated by commensurable characteristics. Since her theory of concept-formation requires isolating groups of characteristics, it is a mystery how axiomatic concepts of (e.g.) identity and existence, which may not be differentiated from anything else, can exist at all given Rand’s denials of real abstractions, a priori knowledge, etc.

Well, if you appreciate the distinction I should imagine you’d find this is your own problem, too, as I just mentioned above.

Existence exists is an axiom. It is something we conceive of which underlies all experience. An axiom is an atomic concept. Where does it come from? From the process of abstracting and integrating perception and other concepts, the same place all other concepts come from. What is the same in all experiences? There exists something that I am aware of. What can we abstract from that? Existence exists.

(“existence exists” does not equal “there is a physical world”

Ok. Can you tell me where you got the concept “physical world” from? Oh wait, we’re not here to show that Rand might have actually had a thought in her head and responded to other philosophers in her own manner, we’re here to show that when we use our preconceived philosophy to judge another philosophy we find that we are right and they are wrong.

Indeed, it’s ridiculous that Rand depends on a priori justification for concepts that supposedly set up her foundations of reasons.

Well, if you say so. I am no longer aware of how to respond to you or what you are even looking for me to say.

Rand contributed nothing of substance I am aware of to the field of philosophy.

I’d ask you to explain what your criteria for “substance” is, but for fear that you’d tell me that I’m saying Rand is the end-all, be-all philosopher. Again.

If you try to make the argument that being popular necessarily means one has made significant contributions to a field (or anything else), please demonstrate how.

Well, I though I made that clear in my last post. Until you tell me how you feel people can contribute to philosophy, I have no idea how to respond to your concerns.

I know I said I wouldn’t ask again, and here I have asked two more times since then. I am a schmuck, aren’t I?

[Abe]

Erislover, I get the impression from your last post that (and I say this in all sincerity) you may not be up to speed on Rand’s actual work. I say this because of some of your replies to a few of my points. I’ll just take a couple of examples, first, when I said,

---

(“existence exists” does not equal “there is a physical world”

you replied with

Ok. Can you tell me where you got the concept “physical world” from? Oh wait, we’re not here to show that Rand might have actually had a thought in her head and responded to other philosophers in her own manner, we’re here to show that when we use our preconceived philosophy to judge another philosophy we find that we are right and they are wrong.

Which is rather inapplicable, because the distinction in the claim you quoted in not an objection I’m making, but Rand’s own meaning. You are complaining that I am arguing with bias and ulterior intent, yet your complaint seems based on a misunderstanding of Rand’s own problematic thinking (that I was placing in sequence to show some of their difficulties).

And when I wrote:

---

This would be a controversial but justified position if only she hadn’t based her work on Western religious traditions of goodness and the spiritual.

to which you replied

“Thou art God, Abe.” If you won’t take Rand on her terms, of course you won’t think she said anything.

and

As far as the religious stuff goes, give me a break. If I say that “Everyone should be nice to each other” I am not basing my thoughts of Jesus.

Perhaps I need to emphasize the parts of that same paragraph you objected to. This is what follows right after the part you quoted:

---

Her argument is that man, unlike the animals, is a form of matter wherein the spirit is triumphant over the matter–which is of course something that most forms of Western theistic belief have been teaching for ages. She feels she can do away with god, but then launches into discussions that make extensive use of theistic beliefs and rationales to prove a point (often fallaciously).

To elaborate on the man/animal, spirit/matter conflict mentioned above, Rand claims that humans are matter, mind, and spirit. That is an analysis proposed by–no, actually built on fundamentals of Western monotheism (and much of theism in general), which also happen to be what this strange patchwork philosophy paradoxically attempts to deny. There are many contradictions in Rand, enough to suppose at least that her higher reasoning is in fact not of very rational or logical at all (making it subjective?). We can quite safely question the validity of quite a few of Rand’s conclusions.

I don’t really have time to go over your entire reply, but in general I don’t think you and I are discussing with the same thing in mind. I’m going to let my replies stand for now, at least until I have more time.

[erislover]

Very well, I will revert back to quoting Rand’s own works exactly to support my explanations.

[Lamia]

*Originally posted by sleestak *
**
Wow flowbark.

Let me rephrase your first three points using a different subject.

Point the first. I have never listened to the music of Black Sabbath.
Point the second. I know very little about music.
Point the third. Since Brittany Spears and N’Sync are the best selling bands in the world Black Sabbath’s influence in the world of music must be low. (BTW, feel free to substitute Black Sabbath with Bach. The point is the same)
**

I can hardly believe that you are likening the finest minds in modern philosophy to N’Sync. Your analogy would be more apt had you placed Rand herself in that role, as she has great popular appeal but has won little respect from most experts in the field of philosophy.

*Originally posted by erislover *
**As far as the “groundbreaking” goes, I can’t fight this battle on random fronts. Do we want to discuss the fact that Rand didn’t contribute anything, that the millions of people who think she did (and who aren’t contributions, of course) are morons,
**

Please, don’t tempt me. Calling the Randians I’ve encountered in real life (a group that consists entirely of the sort of high school and college students RexDart has already mentioned) “morons” would be giving them too much credit.

This is not necessarily a reason to disregard Rand – after all, I’m not willing to disregard Nietzsche despite finding many of his followers distasteful. But bringing up her legion of fans is not the best way to convince anyone with a serious interest in philosophy that her work is worthwhile.

**
or that objectivism itself is bunk? I think Rand did break new ground, in a sense. When was the last time you remember a philosopher that said man could be perfect, that knowledge was possible, that ethics could be rationally investigated and were in a sense objective, that reality was not a function of the mind? I can’t think of any who said all of this. But as I’ve noted I’m not that well-read.
**

Apparently not, if you think that any of these concepts were introduced into the field of philosophy by Rand. I don’t see anything here that couldn’t be found in Plato.

**
What is the same in all experiences? There exists something that I am aware of. What can we abstract from that? Existence exists.
**

Unless I greatly misunderstand you, or Rand, then this is just a rehash of Descartes.

[erislover]

Well, that [Plato] I suppose I will give you. Of course even the best summary is easily destroyed by casual scrutiny, and I am not that great at summarizing. Plato’s insistence on universals’ independent existence, though, leaves a bitter taste in many people’s mouths, Rand included, and me included. But it isn’t that I thought they were introduced by Rand. I mean, give me a break. These concepts were around before philosophers. I simply had not noticed anyone that was “like Rand, only good.” I see lots of people that were sort of similar on many points, but the reasons they had for reaching those points were different, and so where they went from there was also different. Because I don’t know anyone “like Rand, only good” I felt that she is worth considering in her own right.

Re: Descartes: I wasn’t offering it as something new per se, but rather that it wasn’t a priori knowledge as Abe was trying to assert or impose on the situation. I would be suspicious of any claim that Rand asserted that there was knowledge a priori, since it was held that all concepts came from acts of perception, including that proposition. This also isn’t new, and I wouldn’t present it as such, and people probably thought about this before formal philosophy, but I think that it sort of devestates a priori knowledge in the sense that I encounter it most often. Not that I ever expect anyone to agree with me on that point, I think that’s my own little cross to bear. Of course, you argue with people who understand philosophy and they think you just don’t understand the concepts if you disagree (a problem people always seem to find in Rand but never in themselves).

I tend to view Rand’s notion of concept formation like compression routines for computers, as far as analogies go. You read data in, and form your dictionary of abstracted similarities. At some point, your dictionary can be no more abstract. As it stands all the data only makes sense in that framework. You ask Rand: did that dictionary exist before you took in the data? No. But it must have!–Here it is, and where did it come from? It came from the algorithm. Ah!-- so you knew the algorithm before hand! I did? You must have! And so on.

Also re: Descartes, he started from questioning what he could doubt. Not the same thing. They happened to reach the same conclusion. Is it new? I wasn’t offering it as such, and besides I already felt that nothing was new in philosophy anyway. Except, in reflection on the matter, I must say copyrights. Those are new.

Here’s a question. Have you been reading Lib’s two threads dealing with the modal logic form of the ontological argument? Is that new?

To Slee: I can hardly believe that you are likening the finest minds in modern philosophy to N’Sync.

Well, seeing as Rand’s non-presence in popular academic philosophy is being used as a judge of here philosophic character, I think that serves the point rather well. I seem to be the only one who has even gone through the non-trouble of defining the terms and standards I am using, while everyone else seems to be denying them but not supplying their own. N’Sync sounds about right to me for a lot of academic philosophers that are studied. Let us suppose that you like N’Sync’s music. You want to know if Fugazi is a “good” band. You look to N’Sync and find they have said nothing about Fugazi. You search the internet and go to the bookstore and find that there are a few musicians who seem to really dislike and/or critique Fugazi’s music.

Is Fugazi a good band? Hell, they use the same old instruments every band uses. And there’s only so many notes, you know? I bet they even use the same chords that have been used by bands since the Beatles.

Please, don’t tempt me. Calling the Randians I’ve encountered in real life (a group that consists entirely of the sort of high school and college students RexDart has already mentioned) “morons” would be giving them too much credit.

Well, hey, I’ve got a friend who insists on solipsism, pure and simple. She doesn’t budge from it, and you can’t disprove it (she’s got considerably more education on philosophy than me). Perhaps you should argue with her for a while and see how “unique” these Randistas are.

But bringing up her legion of fans is not the best way to convince anyone with a serious interest in philosophy that her work is worthwhile.

Look, I’m sorry to sound rude here, but this is just tiring. I’m not using that as an example that her work is worthwhile. That was an example that she had an impact.

There are several issues here that everyone wants to paint me into corners on.

Did Rand contribute anything?
Is objectivism worthy of being mentioned in academic courses?
Is Rand worthy of being mentioned in academic courses?
Is she contradicting herself?
Is she worthwhile reading?

I am responding to all of these, so please try and be careful not to use answers for one in place of answers for the other. OK? It is hard enough to defend Rand on her own merits (whatever they are or are not), I don’t need answers to one question being used as answers for another.

[erislover]

http://www.lddebate.org/?go=essays&essay=register-rand

A rather interesting article pro-Rand with reservations. And citations to a few modern authors that I do not automatically recognize as being Randistas, though that damning claim may prove true anyway.

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~owl/rand.html

A critique of Rand. Since no one seems compelled to present their own specific examples, I have found one, and I offer it up for approval. Is this a “good” critique of Rand? May I respond to this instead of generalizations?

[Lamia]

*Originally posted by erislover *
**Well, that [Plato] I suppose I will give you.

**

Thank you.

**
But it isn’t that I thought they were introduced by Rand. I mean, give me a break. These concepts were around before philosophers.

**

Okay, in fairness you did say that you were looking for another philosopher who’d supported all the ideas on your list, but you’ve already granted me Plato on that one. Plato! One of the most important, influential, and widely studied men in the history of Western thought!

**
I simply had not noticed anyone that was “like Rand, only good.” I see lots of people that were sort of similar on many points, but the reasons they had for reaching those points were different, and so where they went from there was also different. Because I don’t know anyone “like Rand, only good” I felt that she is worth considering in her own right.

**

If you’re not happy with similarity on many points then, unless by “only good” you mean “goodness” of something other than her ideas (writing style, personal life, etc.), you would seem to be looking for someone else whose ideas were in fact identical to Rand’s. Of course you’re going to be disappointed there.

**
Also re: Descartes, he started from questioning what he could doubt.

**

No, he started by doubting everything.

**
I wasn’t offering it as such, and besides I already felt that nothing was new in philosophy anyway.

**

Only in the sense that there’s nothing new under the sun. But there have been “new” things in philosophy just the same as in any other academic discipline.

**
Well, seeing as Rand’s non-presence in popular academic philosophy is being used as a judge of here philosophic character, I think that serves the point rather well.

**

Is there even such a thing as “popular academia”? Academic respect does involve popularity of a sort, but it is popularity among people who are experts in their fields and presumably know what they are on about. It is not popularity with the general public, and it is especially not popularity with impressionable youths.

**
N’Sync sounds about right to me for a lot of academic philosophers that are studied.

**

I might be willing to concede this point if you could show me any significant body of trained musicians, music scholars, or even music critics that has the same respect for N’Sync that the academic philosophy community has for, say, Socrates, Spinoza, or Singer. Take all the time you need.

**
Look, I’m sorry to sound rude here, but this is just tiring. I’m not using that as an example that her work is worthwhile.

**

Well, then I hardly see that it was worth mentioning, as the subject of this thread is “What contribution, if any, did Ayn Rand make to philosophy?” not “Did Ayn Rand have any impact on the world at all?” or “Do countless annoying teenagers haul around copies of Atlas Shrugged?”

[Measure_for_Measure]

*Originally posted by sleestak *
Let me rephrase your first three points using a different subject.

Point the first. I have never listened to the music of Black Sabbath.
Point the second. I know very little about music.
Point the third. Since Brittany Spears and N’Sync are the best selling bands in the world Black Sabbath’s influence in the world of music must be low. (BTW, feel free to substitute Black Sabbath with Bach. The point is the same)

Ok, I’ll accept your analogy. As I am not overly familiar with Black Sabbath, I could attempt the same exercise. I have with me The All Music Guide: The Best CDs, Albums and Tapes. We can pretend that I also have the Trouser Press Guide to New Music and various handbooks associated with Rolling Stone.

If those texts don’t mention Black Sabbath, I could guess that B.S. was rather uninfluential. (In fact, Black Sabbath does get a fair amount of press.)

Furthermore, I would assert that the fact that Ayn Rand doesn’t show up in the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy to be fairly revealing. As I noted earlier. So yes, this nonphilosopher is fully capable of checking some standard texts in order to glean A.R’s reputation among philosophers. Just as this nonmusician can evaluate Bach and whatnot in a similar way. Hey sleestak, you could do the same!

What I can’t do so easily is evaluate A.R’s ideas from a philosophical standpoint. But you may note I took pains to avoid doing that.

While you state that you admit that you have no standing in that community and therefore your statement is hearsay at the best.

At the same time I can find a ‘certain segment’ of the intellectual community that thinks Pol Pot was a nice guy.

Um. I have no standing in the philosophical community. I do consider myself (and Eris, for that matter) to be a member of the (generalist) intellectual community. (Your card will be in the mail soon, Eris. ).

Finally, I will note that I took Ayn Rand’s dubious quote directly from her foundation’s website. (Follow the link and you will see that it is prominently displayed.) IMO, that quote of hers reflects a pompousness that is, yes, laughable. And that’s actually being kind: the exagerated claims made on behalf of A.R. on that website strike me as mildly cultish, or to be more precise fringy. ( FWIW, www.crank.net agrees with me.)

Finally, I have encountered a number of people who are bemused with the ARers (mostly in print btw). I have never encountered anyone who claims that Pol Pot was a nice guy. The size of the 2 populations differ greatly, I would submit.

[erislover]

…you would seem to be looking for someone else whose ideas were in fact identical to Rand’s. Of course you’re going to be disappointed there.

Hmm, yes, well. Seeing as all of her work was derivative, I would expect to find “Rand, but good.” That was my hidden agenda there.

Only in the sense that there’s nothing new under the sun. But there have been “new” things in philosophy just the same as in any other academic discipline.

Then you misunderstand. I honestly feel there is nothing new in philosophy. I have certainly never been shocked by anything I’ve read to date. Including Rand. So I ask, what is a new contribution to philosophy? Of course, if it is only what academic philosophers say, and Rand isn’t an academic philosopher, then she will have contributed nothing. I can think of slightly more appealing arguments. And, in fact, you can too. So good thing I’m not trying to tell you you’re making it. But what argument are you making?

Is there even such a thing as “popular academia”? Academic respect does involve popularity of a sort, but it is popularity among people who are experts in their fields and presumably know what they are on about. It is not popularity with the general public, and it is especially not popularity with impressionable youths.

Yes, in fact, there is such a thing as popular academia. I deny the distinction between analytic and synthetic knowledge. How many academic philosophers, you know, the ones that “contributed” something “new” to philosophy, have said that? Tell me: which philosophers would agree with me that we can obtain knowledge chiefly (and, in fact, only) through our senses?

I might be willing to concede this point if you could show me any significant body of trained musicians, music scholars, or even music critics that has the same respect for N’Sync that the academic philosophy community has for, say, Socrates, Spinoza, or Singer. Take all the time you need.

Of course, it goes without saying that this begs the question.

Well, then I hardly see that it was worth mentioning, as the subject of this thread is “What contribution, if any, did Ayn Rand make to philosophy?” not “Did Ayn Rand have any impact on the world at all?” or “Do countless annoying teenagers haul around copies of Atlas Shrugged?”

Yes, that is the OP. And I offered, pretty clearly, my criteria to show why Rand should be considered. Libertarian also offered some criteria. Flowbark has offered some, and I have attempted to respond to that (hopefully without being too vague). I’ll note, with some interest, that you have given no criteria with which I may demonstrate, or fail to demonstrate, whether Rand has made a contribution.

How many times do I need to ask? I don’t mean to be rude, Lamia, and I know I probably sound like it. In fact, I think we’ve clashed on a few topics before. But please, let’s enter this reasonably. I have no personal motive to defend Rand. I don’t think much of her, compared to say, Hume. But those are my standards, and even at that I think she contributed to the body philosophy if for no other reason than she was a philosopher.

My motivation in this thread is to be wrong, I suppose I should say that now. I have a friend who is a total Randista, and I would like the thread to represent a solid attack on Rand. This seems the perfect place to do so. But no one seems to be up to even answering the rather simple questions I’ve presented thus far in order to demonstrate what you’ve all been saying all along.

“Rand contributed nothing. Here is my standard for determining that. Here is what I mean when I think a philosopher has contibuted something. She clearly doesn’t meet that standard.” If it is so obvious it should be rather trivial.

Since I disagree I can’t demonstrate it to him. Can you?

To quote again

Well, then I hardly see that it was worth mentioning, as the subject of this thread is “What contribution, if any, did Ayn Rand make to philosophy?” not “Did Ayn Rand have any impact on the world at all?” or “Do countless annoying teenagers haul around copies of Atlas Shrugged?”

Then why am I being forced to answer those questions? Oh, I know. because I am trying to imagine different ideas on how a philosopher can contribute to philosophy. And demonstrating that Rand meets them. Or was it that I was told that my claim is that Rand was a great philospher? Or was it that I was told my claim was that Rand should be discussed in school? Rand should be discussed in school, I agree. But I think that is because she contributed something to philosphy. Which brings us back around again.

You may continue to make analogies to Stephen King. Take all the time you need.

flowbark, you slippery beast. When we want to know if anyone constributed something to economics, we ask economists. When we want to know if anyone contributed anything to music, and we already have the assumption that there are no objective standards for good music, then we sort of run into a bit of a pickle when describing “good” music or musicians.

It is, I think, quite the same with philosophy. At least, in this case. Rand was rather disappointed, that I can see, with the notion that truth was relative or impossible except in a possibly mystic sense (analtyic or a priori or both or whatever). So who do we ask to find whether Rand was a good philosopher? Well, we could ask Kant, but of course he’s bound by his Euclidean geometry and senses. We could ask Searle, but he’s trapped tying to figure out if his head only spits out symbols on paper. We could ask who else? Well, we could ask your CDP which fails to mention her.

Now, I completely agree as I think that is a significant point as, apart from general academia, I don’t see that it has any real bias of any kind. I say apart from general academia because it is not trivial to ask, “What authority do I appeal to to make an argumant from authority?” I mean, what sort of fellow can answer that question? Does he have a beard?

Still, let’s not be crazy. I would be a jerk to not address that point. And let me say this: I can’t address it. I am really not sure why Rand isn’t mentioned. I certainly think she should be, and if the IEP’s recent addition is any indication she will be. How many PhDs need to write books discussing Rand’s ethics before she merits a mention in the schoolroom? :shrug: That seems to be anyone’s guess.

There are PhD philosophers that take Rand’s ideas seriously. Since the argument from authority seems to be popular (and lonely) here I can offer no more than that. I do not know why she isn’t mentioned. I do not see any reason to accept that she was purely derivative or mostly contradictory or startlingly unoriginal and generally wrong. But I do not ask for that proof, either. I only ask for a standard by which to judge her. If academics win the day, then I have a few names I can drop in addition to the ones Lib already did, though a glance at the link I gave above should reveal what my initial glance yielded.

What I can’t do so easily is evaluate A.R’s ideas from a philosophical standpoint. But you may note I took pains to avoid doing that.

Well, I’ll note it, anyway. But I think you underestimate yourself. We members of the Armchar Intellectuals Club have to stick together to assert to others what it means to be an armchair intellectual. Ok, bad joke. But really, at worst if you read Rand you would agree with others here that she is unoriginal etc. At best you would see she attempted to refresh philosophers memory in a few topics, and possibly lent a new angle to ethics (which wasn’t Sade’s pure hedonism and wasn’t quite Aristotle’s eudaemonism). Or, heck, maybe you’ll become a Randista.

Somehow I doubt it.

[Lamia]

*Originally posted by erislover *
**Hmm, yes, well. Seeing as all of her work was derivative, I would expect to find “Rand, but good.” That was my hidden agenda there.

**

And here we go again. The “but good” means that whoever this “Rand, but good” might be would have to be different from Rand, because she or he would be “good” where Rand is not. As I already said, unless you mean something like “Rand, but a good writer” or “Rand, but a nice person” (and being a good writer or a nice person are certainly not attributes shared by all important philosophers) then “Rand, but good” can only mean “Rand, but with good ideas”. But you insist that this “Rand, but good” must be a single person (perhaps you think it is less derivative to steal from multiple sources?) and that their ideas cannot differ from Rand’s in any significant way. So you are asking for someone who is exactly like Ayn Rand yet at the same time better than her. It is less than shocking that no one has been able to come up with anyone that meets both these terms.

**
So I ask, what is a new contribution to philosophy? Of course, if it is only what academic philosophers say, and Rand isn’t an academic philosopher, then she will have contributed nothing. I can think of slightly more appealing arguments.

**

You know, academia is not a secret society. While there is unquestionably a certain level of snobbery to be found among the academic elite, an “outsider” who makes a genuine contribution can win recognition even if she or he doesn’t know the secret handshake.

**
I deny the distinction between analytic and synthetic knowledge. How many academic philosophers, you know, the ones that “contributed” something “new” to philosophy, have said that? Tell me: which philosophers would agree with me that we can obtain knowledge chiefly (and, in fact, only) through our senses?

**

This is getting ridiculous. You might as well say that you’re an atheist, and ask me which of my smarty-pants philosophers don’t believe in the gods.

**
Of course, it goes without saying that this begs the question.

**

You seem to have a serious misunderstanding of what the term “begging the question” means.

**
I’ll note, with some interest, that you have given no criteria with which I may demonstrate, or fail to demonstrate, whether Rand has made a contribution.

How many times do I need to ask? I don’t mean to be rude, Lamia, and I know I probably sound like it. In fact, I think we’ve clashed on a few topics before.

**

Fewer than we might have had I not refrained from entering into several because of your tendency to resort to these sorts of demands for definitions and insistences that your opponents are preventing you from arguing your case.

Let me clue you in to a little of the secret knowledge I picked up while studying in the ivory tower of academic philosophy: Your opponent is not going to do your dirty work for you. On the other hand, your opponent can do nothing to prevent you from making an argument. Either you have a case or you don’t. It’s got nothing to do with anyone else.

[JThunder]

*Originally posted by erislover *
**There are PhD philosophers that take Rand’s ideas seriously. Since the argument from authority seems to be popular (and lonely) here I can offer no more than that. **

Are there Ph.D. philosophers who regard Rand’s work seriously? Given the broad spectrum of philosophy, I would not be surprised.

However, I fail to be impressed by this argument. Earlier, I told the story of a philosophy Ph.D. who earned his degree by defending the statement “Truth can not be known.” Not only was he convinced of this statement, but so was his doctoral dissertation committee. It took years for him to realize that this statement is blatantly self-refuting. (If the truth can not be known, then how do you know that the truth can not be known?)

You will find philosophers who believe any number of wierd things. The fact that some philosophers take Rand seriously (which may or may not be the same as agreeing with her) doesn’t impress me much.

[Measure_for_Measure]

So I ask, what is a new contribution to philosophy?

Searle’s response to the Turing Test was new. (Heck, the Turing Test was new as well, though it wasn’t advanced by a philosopher. FTR, I understand that later statements of the Turing Test went beyond the original claim).

[Measure_for_Measure]

Eris:
When we want to know if anyone contributed anything to music, and we already have the assumption that there are no objective standards for good music, then we sort of run into a bit of a pickle when describing “good” music or musicians. It is, I think, quite the same with philosophy. At least, in this case…So who do we ask to find whether Rand was a good philosopher?

I can’t answer whether Rand was a good philosopher. Personally, I doubt whether anybody can in less than 1 page. (Three pages might do it though, provided the reader is willing to provisionally accept the definitions set forth.)

Therefore, I restate the question: what was Rand’s influence among academic philosophers? This, in contrast, is amenable to empirical investigation. It is also (I grant you) a smaller question.

*I am really not sure why Rand isn’t mentioned…There are PhD philosophers that take Rand’s ideas seriously. *

Hypothesis: Possibly she isn’t mentioned because going through her muddled thinking is a tedious and unnecessarily convoluted process to present to beginners such as ourselves. …I would say those PhD philosophers have their work cut out for them. But that’s ok, since:

1. Nobody has claimed that there is no research agenda connected with Rand’s thinking. Quite the contrary, in fact.

2. Job prospects for philosophers aren’t all that great. If the Rand foundation funds them, I see little harm. Successful academicians know how to chase grants. (And wise funders don’t hire mouthpieces.)

---

I’m perfectly willing to read a 30 page Objectivist article. I’m a little leary of reading the wrong one (or of being told that to really understand Rand you need to read 2 novels and several screeds). For that matter.

Slippery: Ya, I’m slippery in that I keep coming back to a narrower (though more answerable) question. If I was more familiar with Rand’s work, perhaps I could frame a question that is kinder to her legacy. As it is, I’ll note again that Rand’s skill as an analytic academic philosopher is hardly the only basis by which to judge her work.

[erislover]

Fewer than we might have had I not refrained from entering into several because of your tendency to resort to these sorts of demands for definitions and insistences that your opponents are preventing you from arguing your case.

I have argued my case. flowbark has said some great things. Everyone else makes assertations without backing up their response with pretty much anything.

I even fucking offered a cite which critiques Rand for you so that I had something tangible to respond to. No one felt like allowing that or offering something different. :shrug: If you think merely repeating your assertions is good enough, then I am glad we haven’t tangled more. And then you have the nerve to suggest I am asking you to make the argument for me? Holy hell.

Rand offered a strong reason to reject the analytic synthetic distinction. If nothing else, I have never heard of another philosopher which has done anything in this sense. I can develop the point more, though Piekoff does a pretty superb job in ITOE. The point is developed through the objectivist theory of concepts. I do not know how original that is, I am assuming it really isn’t at all, and is in fact rather trivial, but the analytic/synthetic distinction really crumbles beneath it. I think they looked at the same theory of concepts (or at least a similar one to most realists) but saw something more than the same old-same old.

It is also much more realitic than Hume’s notions of concepts, which is the other strong “gained through senses” guy that I am aware of. I about dropped my jaw when he asserted that I don’t really have an idea of infinite divisibility. Of course, if I were allowed to spout off those sorts of things I could contribute to philosophy, too.

You might as well say that you’re an atheist, and ask me which of my smarty-pants philosophers don’t believe in the gods.

If I became an atheist because of Rand I would mention that, yes. But I haven’t.

So you are asking for someone who is exactly like Ayn Rand yet at the same time better than her. It is less than shocking that no one has been able to come up with anyone that meets both these terms.

Then it is supremely shocking to think that Rand contributed nothing to philosophy after saying something like that.

When both sides of the argument find it silly, something has really gone astray.

As far as begging the question goes, you are defining academic philosophy through which philosophers they respect. Then you note Rand is missing and conclude that Rand has contributed nothingto academic philosophy. I mean, hello? Do you pat yourself on the back for these sorts of circular arguments? “Lamia, what are academic philosophers?” "Well, those who don’t feel Rand contributed anything. "Did Rand contribute anythingto academic philosophy? “Why, no, just ask these academic philosophers.”

You’ll note JThunder likes that. I can’t even offer him PhD philosophers as evidence! In my reality, that should mean he was as unimpressed with your argument as he is with mine since we both appealed to authority (though at least my criteria is somewhat, shall we say, standard: having a PhD in the area with which you claim to study). I wonder if he is or not…

flowbark, again, I think your analysis is very proper, but I think you aren’t looking hard enough. The article I linked above (which doesn’t critique Rand) does offer quite a few citations by other philosophers who apparently cited Rand’s wotk in ethics. Now, I don’t know that these works were not by Randistas as it is. But that’s sort of the question, isn’t it? I mean, if we automatically discount philosophers that agree with Rand, isn’t it sort of obvious that we’ll find she didn’t contribute to philosophy?

Searle’s response to the Turing Test was new, and Rand’s attack on the analytic/synthetic distinction was also new. Or so I have offered up several times, anyway, with no response there. I even offered up the critique of Rand by Huemer which goes into great detail about why there is a priori knowledge and why the analytic/synthetic distinction is meaningful. Alas, that hook got no bites. That’s okay.

Nobody has claimed that there is no research agenda connected with Rand’s thinking. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Well, that sort of makes me wonder why anyone could then claim that Rand made no contribution, then. Or am I misunderstanding your intent here?

Job prospects for philosophers aren’t all that great. If the Rand foundation funds them, I see little harm. Successful academicians know how to chase grants.

Well, again, why do we only discount philosophers that agree with Rand?

I’m perfectly willing to read a 30 page Objectivist article.

Well, next time you are at a library or a bookstore I’d check out Piekoff’s article on the analytic/synthetic distiction in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. He cites Rands work there and is a better orator for what that’s worth. It is also right around that length.

If it weren’t for Rand’s work I think the ARI would have a hard time getting all of its money. So I doubt there will be public releases of Rand’s articles which I think are highly motivated and clear. But that little blip is, IMO, a good read.

[erislover]

RE: Searle… I may have been unclear. I assume you are referring to the Chinese Box or Chinese Room response to the TT. That was certainly very interesting, and in a sense it is true that no one had said that before. However, in another sense, that response wasn’t anything other than another analogous formulation to the underlying problem people had that mimicry doesn’t indicate actuality.

The Turing Test would have us purchase a reproduction of the Mona Lisa for the cost of the original if we couldn’t prove with our current tools that they differed. Searle was like, no chance, and check this out.

Now, I have never read a first-hand account of this response. I have read Dennett’s review of it (in his book, Consciousness Explained), and I have read Penrose’s support of it as an attack on what he calls “Strong AI” theory in The Emperor’s New Mind. So I have received two sides of that, but it is just a rehash of the old “distinction without any difference” debate in the guise of consciousness rather than something like a red ball or identity discussions. So was it new? Yeah. Original? Nah.

But I think that’s where I am at anyway with philosophy. That’s kind of what I mean by saying that there’s nothing new in philosophy. Taken literally it is almost absurd, but it is difficult for me to see most philosophical arguments as anything more than previous arguments in a new context.

I don’t think it was original for Rand to think we didn’t have any knowledge which wasn’t obtained from our senses. But the context in which she put forth that argument (or allowed for that argument to be put forward from her quotes) was new. It is a “return to Aristotleanism” which, one would imagine, cannot be original. But it can be new. At least, that’s how I use the terms. New cars aren’t original, either, now, are they?

[Lamia]

*Originally posted by erislover *
**And then you have the nerve to suggest I am asking you to make the argument for me? Holy hell.
**

I am not suggesting, but rather saying flat out, that you have clearly expressed a desire to have your opponents complete the definition process for you. This is not something that anyone else has an obligation to do for you. It is a basic part of the canon of rhetoric and if you want to form a persuasive argument then you should be able to do it yourself. You have also said that your real motive here is to get someone else to provide a criticism of Rand that you can scurry back to your Rand-loving friend with. This certainly sounds like someone who doesn’t want to do his own homework to me.

If you want to write a defense of Rand then go ahead and write one. I am not going to help you with it. And if you want to write a criticism of Rand then write that, but again, you’re not getting any help from me.

**
As far as begging the question goes, you are defining academic philosophy through which philosophers they respect. Then you note Rand is missing and conclude that Rand has contributed nothingto academic philosophy. I mean, hello? Do you pat yourself on the back for these sorts of circular arguments? “Lamia, what are academic philosophers?” "Well, those who don’t feel Rand contributed anything. "Did Rand contribute anythingto academic philosophy? “Why, no, just ask these academic philosophers.”
**

Here is another free debating tip: it does not serve to lie about what your opponent has said, especially when his or her exact words are posted in plain view for all to see. You have done this to me in the past, and I am not going to put up with it. I have never said or even suggested that respectable academic philosophers are defined by how they feel about Ayn Rand.

The closest I have come to that (and it is not very close at all) is to say that in two years of undergraduate level philosophy work I have never, not once, come across Ayn Rand’s name in a textbook, reference book, classroom, lecture hall, conference, meeting, or any other remotely academic setting. I am not dismissing or disregarding authors, speakers, or works who support Rand, I am saying that I have not encountered them in academia at all. I have not even encountered criticism of Rand. This is not merely my own experience, but seems to be the case with everyone here who has any formal schooling in philosophy at all. Considering that even popular works by non-philosophers like Lewis Carrol and Mark Twain are often mentioned in such settings it would surprise me if a real philosopher who made real contributions were overlooked in this way. And even if that were the case, it could be argued that an unrecognized contribution is hardly a contribution at all, as it has little opportunity to influence anyone else.

But I fear that I am wasting my time. You don’t seem to have anything worthwhile to say here about Ayn Rand, you have shown little understanding of the subject of philosophy in general, and I will not subject myself to further personal insults, obscene language, and suggestions that I am inventing a fictional degree program for myself. Good day to you, sir.

[erislover]

I provided a definition. That definition indicated that Rand contributed to philosophy. flowbark contributed a definition. It appears that by that Rand contributed to philosophy. Liberarian and I have shown doctorate-level philosophers who think Rand contributed to philosophy. Since people do not agree with the foregoing, I am simply asking what standards they are using to come to their conclusion. This isn’t asking you to make the argument for me. It is asking you to make an argument, period.

By my admission I would like someone to mount a strong case against Rand if they can. I cannot, because I feel she made some worthwhile contributions. That was the admission I made.

If you feel the conversation has ended, then so be it.

[Liberal]

The closest I have come to that (and it is not very close at all) is to say that in two years of undergraduate level philosophy work I have never, not once, come across Ayn Rand’s name in a textbook, reference book, classroom, lecture hall, conference, meeting, or any other remotely academic setting.

You might be surprised at how many students of cinema have never heard of Lois Weber. Who? Lois Weber.

[Guinastasia]

I think one of the main problems with Ayn Rand is that she did not tolerate criticism of her ideas. How can one be a philosopher if one does not encourage or allow criticism? Isn’t that what philosophy is based on-questioning things?

[Liberal]

Oh, I agree, Guin. I think you’ve made a great statement about the basis of philosophy. It even covers philosophy’s children, science and logic. And I don’t think that anyone but her disciples would argue that Rand was psychologically stable (especially toward the end).

But the fact remains that before her, there was no philosophy defined by a metaphysic of objective reality, an epistemology of reason, and an ethic of self-interest. After her, there was.

I’m still amazed at those who step forward to claim two things that, taken together, are astounding: (1) I am a student of philosophy, and (2) I have never heard mention of Ayn Rand. I already cited American sources (professors of philosophy, to be exact) who include Rand as an important and prominent part of their courses. Frankly, I think that it is an idictment, not of a philosopher, but of a university’s syllabus when it ignores someone whose magnum opus is documented to be second only to the Bible in influence. It’s like a course in science never mentioning Popper, or a course in economics never mentioning Mises.