# What is Ayn Rand's contemporary status as a moral and political philosopher? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 11, 2010, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990 "2010-08-11T22:32:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/41 "2010-08-12T17:01:19Z")
A very detailed critique of Objectivism is Michael Huemer’s [Why I’m Not an Objectivist](http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand.htm), although I disagree with some of his points. Most damning to me is her utter confusion about universals, which she mistakenly seemed to believe was an epistemological issue—more or less ignoring the real “problem” entirely. (Apropos of nothing, I was amused to learn that the anonymous “profs” in the dialogue at the end of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology were graduate students at the time.) ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/42 "2010-08-12T17:06:36Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > It’s fiction based on made up situations and characters. It is not philosophy. While many people who like her politics and her fiction treat her works, as she wished, as the be all and end all of philosophy, you’d be hard pressed to find a single tenured professor of philosophy at an accredited university (real accreditation, not Rand Paul accreditation) who would admit even while drunk that Ayn Rand was a philosopher even if it coincided with his/her politics. Simply put, there are better philosophers making similar points elsewhere. All of this insistence that you can’t find professors who do the Rand thing strikes me as odd. To me it’s always been clear that she has a strong appeal to many people who are cloistered in the academic world; it just vanishes when they hit the real world. But I had a philosophy professor in college–Jim Wright of Harvey Mudd–who was a Randroid through and through. As I understand it he assigned healthy chunks (perhaps I should say “unhealthy chunks”) of Rand’s “nonfiction” in all his classes. In my political philosophy classes we read Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Jefferson, Marx, and Mill before starting on Rand. This was a big mistake, since the latter looks so utterly juvenile when compared to the former. I’ve forgotten most of the details of what Ayn Rand wrote but I do remember a statement to the effect that United States was an entirely free country, with no unprovoked initialization of force, until the progressive era and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Ludicrous statements like that are why the overwhelming majority of people can’t take the woman seriously. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/43 "2010-08-12T17:28:34Z")
I think we can safely say that Objectivism isn’t part of academic philosophy. As for politics (per the OP), I suspect she has had a significant impact on the political philosophy of many, probably most, Libertarian political thinkers. She certainly had a significant impact on the thinking of Alan Greenspan, arguably one of the most powerful people in the world during his tenure as Chairman of the Fed. But I believe she considered herself first and foremost a writer of fiction. The philosophy part was secondary. \*\*Panache45 \*\*can probably expand on that from his personal experience. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/44 "2010-08-12T18:28:19Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > > [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > > > It’s fiction based on made up situations and characters. It is not philosophy. While many people who like her politics and her fiction treat her works, as she wished, as the be all and end all of philosophy, you’d be hard pressed to find a single tenured professor of philosophy at an accredited university (real accreditation, not Rand Paul accreditation) who would admit even while drunk that Ayn Rand was a philosopher even if it coincided with his/her politics. Simply put, there are better philosophers making similar points elsewhere. > > All of this insistence that you can’t find professors who do the Rand thing strikes me as odd. To me it’s always been clear that she has a strong appeal to many people who are cloistered in the academic world; it just vanishes when they hit the real world. But I had a philosophy professor in college–Jim Wright of Harvey Mudd–who was a Randroid through and through. As I understand it he assigned healthy chunks (perhaps I should say “unhealthy chunks”) of Rand’s “nonfiction” in all his classes. In my political philosophy classes we read Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Jefferson, Marx, and Mill before starting on Rand. This was a big mistake, since the latter looks so utterly juvenile when compared to the former. And some people are Trekkers or Hobbits through and through in their real life, but academically are quite serious. A lot of people do embrace her “world” and apply it to how they have their own personal outlook. But it isn’t real philosophy, it’s an outlook or an attitude. As someone mentioned, it’s filled with straw-men and excluded middles. She had a point, that seizing property, compromising artistry and bullshit are really bad things. They are. But she wasn’t a philosopher about these things anymore than some people in rubber suits at Star Trek conventions are Klingons or Ferengis. And as for the OP, those of us who mock Rand’s pretensions of philosophy don’t really hate her, she’s dead and she was mentally unstable. We are frustrated that her acolytes won’t stop comparing her to real philosophers and don’t understand the difference. Fools like Alan Greenspan, a real acolyte of Rand, substitute her suppositions for independent thought and screw up the economy when there is real science, albiet limited, behind economics that can be used. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/45 "2010-08-12T20:21:26Z")
Two things: First, her shortest, and imho best work of fiction, **Anthem** , leads me to conclude that Rand would have done better to have presented her outlook as a science-fiction writer, like Heinlein for example, rather than an amateur philosopher. Second, Rand really did way, way too much meth. ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/46 "2010-08-12T20:39:37Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Given a thousand years of people working over Objectivism, it could (and possibly will) become something that is of sufficiently rigorously defined arguments to enter the general pantheon of Philosophy. That it hasn’t yet isn’t proof of much of anything. Given a thousand years of people working over my inane posts on this message board, they could probably come up with something that would be eligible to enter the general pantheon of philosophy, too. Sure as hell doesn’t mean what I’ve posted constitutes a coherent, rigorous philosophical treatise. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/47 "2010-08-12T20:50:57Z")
> [@Paranoid\_Randroid](#): > > But I _do_ believe that something like a eudaimonistic egoism, in the Randian vein, is the truth. How can an ethical system be true or false? ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/48 "2010-08-12T21:36:45Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > How can an ethical system be true or false? Primarily insofar as it begins with true premises and proceeds without contradiction. If an ethical system is not the sort of thing that admits of veracity, then there isn’t much reason to have a discussion in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/49 "2010-08-12T21:50:51Z")
> [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > Given a thousand years of people working over my inane posts on this message board, they could probably come up with something that would be eligible to enter the general pantheon of philosophy, too. Sure as hell doesn’t mean what I’ve posted constitutes a coherent, rigorous philosophical treatise. Indeed. But, the point is that it’s an irrational expectation to think that a coherent, rigorous philosophical treatise is possible without thousands of years to develop it when your point of comparison is something which _has_ had a thousand years of development. ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/50 "2010-08-12T22:03:57Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > > [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > > > Given a thousand years of people working over my inane posts on this message board, they could probably come up with something that would be eligible to enter the general pantheon of philosophy, too. Sure as hell doesn’t mean what I’ve posted constitutes a coherent, rigorous philosophical treatise. > > Indeed. But, the point is that it’s an irrational expectation to think that a coherent, rigorous philosophical treatise is possible without thousands of years to develop it when your point of comparison is something which _has_ had a thousand years of development. I’m not so sure Wittgenstein or Russell or Heidegger or Walter Benjamin or, say, the existentialists or post-structuralists would agree with you. They were all 20th century philosophers who were able to do far, far more than Rand did, and have made it into the “official” pantheon of philosophy. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/51 "2010-08-12T22:12:11Z")
> [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > I’m not so sure Wittgenstein or Russell or Heidegger or Walter Benjamin or, say, the existentialists or post-structuralists would agree with you. They were all 20th century philosophers who were able to do far, far more than Rand did, and have made it into the “official” pantheon of philosophy. Wittgenstein: “was an Austrian-British philosopher who worked primarily in the areas of logic, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of mind, and philosophy of language.” Let’s look at the origins of those: Logic - Ancient Greece Philosophy of Mathematics - Ancient Greece Philosophy of Mind - Ancient Greece Philosophy of Language - Not sure ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/52 "2010-08-12T22:19:51Z")
Maybe I’m misunderstanding your argument - are you claiming Objectivism _doesn’t_ have its roots in older systems of thought? ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/53 "2010-08-12T22:20:34Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Yes, but the metaphysics and epistemology were really and dishonestly afterthoughts. See post #16. She wrote a book, \*Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, \*which has been expanded by Leonard Peikoff and Harry Binswanger. She knew it was only an “introduction,” and had intended to expand on it, had she lived long enough. Peikoff has done a great deal of work fleshing out Objectivism, though I’m not exactly a fan is his. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > But I believe she considered herself first and foremost a writer of fiction. The philosophy part was secondary. \*\*Panache45 \*\*can probably expand on that from his personal experience. On a very personal level, she said that the purpose of writing \*Atlas Shrugged \*was the creation of John Galt (an “Ideal Man”) . . . for her own selfish pleasure of creating a man she could “worship.” Toward this end, in order to make him as real as possible, she had to create all the other characters, the events of the novel, and the philosophy. Her intelligence (which was extraordinary) and imagination wouldn’t let her stop until she had created an entire world. I don’t know what would have happened had she actually met her “ideal man” in reality. It certainly wasn’t either of the two men in her life. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/54 "2010-08-12T22:28:37Z")
> [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > Maybe I’m misunderstanding your argument - are you claiming Objectivism _doesn’t_ have its roots in older systems of thought? I’m doubting seriously that Ayn Rand made a particular study of philosophy before creating her own philosophy. Obviously, we all live in a world where we pick up tidbits of information about things from different sources about different topics, so certainly we can assume that Objectivism wasn’t 100% created in a vacuum. But, the amount that you just “overhear” and how rigorously defined that generally is, is pretty measly. If you ask your average Catholic about his beliefs, what relation that actually has to the official, rigorously defined doctrine of the Catholic church that’s been developed over the last thousand years is pretty often going to be nill. You would do just as well to say that, while the man-on-the-street’s version is certainly rooted in Catholic thought (through however tortured and maimed a path), it’s essentially it’s own thing that’s the creation of the _now_, rather than of thousands of years. ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/55 "2010-08-12T22:29:08Z")
Comes off sounding like a juvenile wish-fulfillment fantasy, IMO. She’d never have met her ideal man, because perfection isn’t a quality humans possess. ETA: In response to **panache45**. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/56 "2010-08-12T22:37:01Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > > [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > > > Maybe I’m misunderstanding your argument - are you claiming Objectivism _doesn’t_ have its roots in older systems of thought? > > I’m doubting seriously that Ayn Rand made a particular study of philosophy before creating her own philosophy. Obviously, we all live in a world where we pick up tidbits of information about things from different sources about different topics, so certainly we can assume that Objectivism wasn’t 100% created in a vacuum. But, the amount that you just “overhear” and how rigorously defined that generally is, is pretty measly. If you ask your average Catholic about his beliefs, what relation that actually has to the official, rigorously defined doctrine of the Catholic church that’s been developed over the last thousand years is pretty often going to be nill. You would do just as well to say that, while the man-on-the-street’s version is certainly rooted in Catholic thought (through however tortured and maimed a path), it’s essentially it’s own thing that’s the creation of the _now_, rather than of thousands of years. You can almost see the flop-sweat… Do you have any evidence whatsoever for what Ayn Rand did or did not study? Either in the way of biographical details or a genetic study of her own literary output? Because to me it looks like you were called out on a piss-poor argument and are now engaged in **Dio** -style flailing in an unsuccessful attempt to distract us from that. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/57 "2010-08-12T23:02:43Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Do you have any evidence whatsoever for what Ayn Rand did or did not study? Either in the way of biographical details or a genetic study of her own literary output? Nope, I know little-to-nothing about her. I only know that her arguments didn’t pass muster with professional philosophers and that in any specialty, like Law, Economics, etc. minus training, you’re probably going to fail to make what would be seen as a worthwhile argument if you haven’t had significant training in that field. Witness the recent legal troubles of [Stoid](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=546172), for example. The only other reason I can think of to not pass muster, besides not having the training, is by simply not being very good. Either way, the point remains that the quality of an argument and the value of an argument aren’t necessarily linked. If something is tossed based on _quality_, that doesn’t necessarily tell you anything about the value. Obviously, there will generally be a positive correlation between quality and value, of course, as someone with training and skill is more likely to come up with something novel and well-considered. But, in terms of having effect in the greater world, simple, unrefined ideas generally resonate louder, and most philosophies _did_ begin in such a form. You’d really have to compare those earlier forms to Objectivism, to say how well it compares, not the modern, refined versions. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/58 "2010-08-12T23:35:16Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > > [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > > > Do you have any evidence whatsoever for what Ayn Rand did or did not study? Either in the way of biographical details or a genetic study of her own literary output? > > Nope, I know little-to-nothing about her. I only know that her arguments didn’t pass muster with professional philosophers and that in any specialty, like Law, Economics, etc. minus training, you’re probably going to fail to make what would be seen as a worthwhile argument if you haven’t had significant training in that field. Witness the recent legal troubles of [Stoid](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=546172), for example. > > The only other reason I can think of to not pass muster, besides not having the training, is by simply not being very good. > > Either way, the point remains that the quality of an argument and the value of an argument aren’t necessarily linked. If something is tossed based on _quality_, that doesn’t necessarily tell you anything about the value. Obviously, there will generally be a positive correlation between quality and value, of course, as someone with training and skill is more likely to come up with something novel and well-considered. But, in terms of having effect in the greater world, simple, unrefined ideas generally resonate louder, and most philosophies _did_ begin in such a form. You’d really have to compare those earlier forms to Objectivism, to say how well it compares, not the modern, refined versions. She had a degree in philosophy and history from the University of Petrograd. So ya missed that one. My guess is she knew a heck of a lot more than you or I. And I was a philosophy major for a while\*. Slee \*Until I figured out that I needed to be employed at some point. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/59 "2010-08-12T23:41:08Z")
Ayn Rand was a philosophical charlatan in the same way that Sean Hannity is a charlatan of journalism. She was not a genuis. Her literature is second rate at best and her philosophy filled with fallacies. A moral philosophy isn’t true or false, it is valid or fallacious given the premises it is based on and the correctness of the logic. The fact that people are entitled to their opinion that they find her writings satisfying is nothing more than a report on the state of their personal predilections kinda like I enjoy a meat lover’s pizza. The fact that she sells a lot of copies of her works doesn’t make it good literature or good philosophy, it means she writes popular literature, much like Danielle Steele, but not as popular. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/60 "2010-08-12T23:52:57Z")
> [@Paranoid\_Randroid](#): > > > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > > > How can an ethical system be true or false? > > Primarily insofar as it begins with true premises and proceeds without contradiction. If an ethical system is not the sort of thing that admits of veracity, then there isn’t much reason to have a discussion in the first place. But, no ethical system begins with true or false premises, or can. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990.md?page=4)