# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2010, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/81 "2010-08-13T17:42:46Z")
> [@qpw3141](#): > > > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > > > What if all of the governments of the world went on a widescale mission to kill everyone with an IQ below 100 > > You’d still end up with 50% of people being below average\* intelligence. > > - Median. Not that it isn’t a good idea nevertheless. 🙂 ---
**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 13, 2010, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/82 "2010-08-13T17:48:13Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > These college students were consumed by a desire for upward social mobility. They thought of the government as a barrier to this. They desired lower taxes for themselves, and fewer government regulations to interfere with money making. No, most of us in fact were leftists before discovering Rand. She didn’t reinforce our existing beliefs, she challenged them. Previously, I had considered myself some sort of vague “democratic socialist.” > [@](#): > > . . . anti-communism . . . implied the obligation to enlist, and risk one’s life on behalf of “freedom.” > > Ayn Rand was not nimble enough to combine her praise of selfishness with a reason to avoid combat duty in Vietnam. No, Rand was vehemently opposed to the draft and spoke out against it many times. She said that the issues of the draft and slavery were the two greatest flaws in the Constitution. She supported a constitutional amendment abolishing it, and encouraged draft-age men to move to Canada. ---
**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 13, 2010, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/83 "2010-08-13T17:52:33Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > > [@Paranoid\_Randroid](#): > > > > You state that as if it’s a settled matter, a fact generally known which should be accepted without controversy. > > I am fairly certain that that is exactly what it is among philosophers, including philosophers who espouse definite and non-relativist ethical systems. Perhaps some Doper more current in contemporary philosophy can correct me on that point. I’m not sure you’re right. I think you are confusing the following distinctions: [ul] [li]Some philosophers assert the existence of an analytic-synthetic distinction. Analytic sentences, if you believe in the distinction and according to one common, but by no means universal, formulation, are true in virtue of the meaning of the terms used and the structure of the sentence. This would include propositions like “A = A” or “There exists a person X such that if Tim loves X, then X loves Audrey.” Synthetic statements are not analytic (this is probably the best way to put it). Thus included in synthetic statements are ones like “John Smith is six feet tall” or “Russia’s need for a warm-weather port, which port would have been jeopardized by a protracted Balkan conflict, is why that country mobilized so quickly in the wake of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.”[/li][li] Some synthetic proposition have relatively easy, non-controversial ways for determining their truth or falsehood. Statements like “John Smith is six feet tall” are an example. Other synthetic propositions are not so easily dispatched: the statement about Russia above is an example.[/li][li] Some predicates take more than one argument at a time. For example, the predicate “is-married-to” is binary. Thus a sentence like “Joe is married to” is incomplete and cannot be assigned a truth value until the second argument is identified or subject to a bound quantifier — “Joe is married to Susan” (true), “Joe is married to Abraham Lincoln” (false), “Joe is married to someone” (true), “Joe is married to everyone” (false), “Joe is married to no one” (false). Perhaps “good” is like this. Maybe “good” is really a two- or three-place predicate more fully realized as “X is good according to person P”, “X is good in culture C at time T”. This would make “X is good” incomplete in the same way as “X is married to” is incomplete. However, if we could fill in the blanks, as it were with the needed arguments or bound variables, we should then have a sentence which is either true or false.[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2010, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/84 "2010-08-13T17:52:51Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > > [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > > > These college students were consumed by a desire for upward social mobility. They thought of the government as a barrier to this. They desired lower taxes for themselves, and fewer government regulations to interfere with money making. > > No, most of us in fact were leftists before discovering Rand. She didn’t reinforce our existing beliefs, she challenged them. Previously, I had considered myself some sort of vague “democratic socialist.” And a lot of neoconservatives have been ex-Trotskyists. Funny how that works. ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2010, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/85 "2010-08-13T17:56:27Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > 1. Philosophy either does, or does not, exist to come up with ideas for how to make the world becomes a better place. > 2. If it does not exist for that purpose, then no useful goal is being served by philosophy. > 3. If it does exist for that purpose, philosophers are extremely limited in their ability to test their ideas on society as a whole. And yet, that is the only way to verify whether an idea would make the world a better place. Your definition of philosophy is idiosyncratic, and not one philosophers would agree with in general. 1) is a false dilemma. 2) is simply false. 3) begs the question. ---
**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 13, 2010, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/86 "2010-08-13T18:04:45Z")
> [@hansel](#): > > > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > > > 1. Philosophy either does, or does not, exist to come up with ideas for how to make the world becomes a better place. > > 2. If it does not exist for that purpose, then no useful goal is being served by philosophy. > > 3. If it does exist for that purpose, philosophers are extremely limited in their ability to test their ideas on society as a whole. And yet, that is the only way to verify whether an idea would make the world a better place. > > Your definition of philosophy is idiosyncratic, and not one philosophers would agree with in general. 1) is a false dilemma. 2) is simply false. 3) begs the question. You’ll have to explain to me how “useful goal” and “improves the world” are not synonymous. I can’t think of any way for one not to be equivalent to the other. ---
**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 13, 2010, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/87 "2010-08-13T19:20:21Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > > [@hansel](#): > > > > Your definition of philosophy is idiosyncratic, and not one philosophers would agree with in general. 1) is a false dilemma. 2) is simply false. 3) begs the question. > > You’ll have to explain to me how “useful goal” and “improves the world” are not synonymous. I can’t think of any way for one not to be equivalent to the other. If you really mean that, then you also have to admit the validity of this syllogism: 1. Electrical engineering either does, or does not, exist to come up with ideas for how to make the world a better place. 2. If it does not exist for that purpose, then no useful goal is being served by electrical engineering. 3. If it does exist for that purpose, electrical engineers are extremely limited in their ability to test their ideas on society as a whole. And yet, that is the only way to verify whether an idea would make the world a better place. ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2010, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/88 "2010-08-13T20:25:16Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > 1. Philosophy either does, or does not, exist to come up with ideas for how to make the world becomes a better place. It isn’t now, and never has been, the goal of philosophy to make the world a better place. It’s a field of inquiry, not an agenda. So the superficial answer is that it does not exist to make the world a better place, but that’s only because you’ve made a category mistake in applying that predicate. The dilemma you’ve proposed is nonsensical. > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > 1. If it does not exist for that purpose, then no useful goal is being served by philosophy. “Useful” is a subjective term, but I think that we’d agree that inquiry is generally useful in the same way that, say, theoretical physics is useful insofar as increased understanding is always generally useful. As someone pointed out above, the concept of “falsifiability” that you mentioned was most clearly articulate by a philosopher. > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > 1. If it does exist for that purpose, philosophers are extremely limited in their ability to test their ideas on society as a whole. And yet, that is the only way to verify whether an idea would make the world a better place. It does not exist for that purpose, so 3 is irrelevant. > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > You’ll have to explain to me how “useful goal” and “improves the world” are not synonymous. I can’t think of any way for one not to be equivalent to the other. They’re synonymous insofar as you are defining their equivalence, but your terms are opaque. Does academic study without immediate empirical consequences “improve the world”? Is String Theory useful, or Lacanian deconstruction? ---
**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 13, 2010, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/89 "2010-08-13T20:28:54Z")
> [@hansel](#): > > It isn’t now, and never has been, the goal of philosophy to make the world a better place. It’s a field of inquiry, not an agenda. So the superficial answer is that it does not exist to make the world a better place, but that’s only because you’ve made a category mistake in applying that predicate. Why go through the effort of inquiry if you have no particular belief that it has the potential to create something useful? If I was doing it for my own amusement, then certainly. But I’m not going to get paid to do something that’s only serving myself. Regardless of whether the philosopher inquires merely for his own amusement, the rest of society only gives him the opportunity to do so because they expect something good to come of it. ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2010, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/90 "2010-08-13T20:43:06Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Why go through the effort of inquiry if you have no particular belief that it has the potential to create something useful? Curiosity? Idle amusement? You’re making an empirical claim about the motivations of philosophers here. Do you have any evidence that they generally hold this belief? I have, as a counterexample, a close friend who teaches philosophy at a university. His PhD was on the political philosophy of Hume, which has basically zero practical consequence no matter what conclusions he reaches about Hume (or “that fat bastard”, as my friend refers to him). Currently he’s just enjoying teaching, and what philosophical interests he has are far more immediately attached to his career than any sense of creating something useful > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > If I was doing it for my own amusement, then certainly. But I’m not going to get paid to do something that’s only serving myself. Why not? For many people, getting paid to be self-serving is an excellent position to be in. Why should philosophers not be similarly venal? > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Regardless of whether the philosopher inquires merely for his own amusement, the rest of society only gives him the opportunity to do so because they expect something good to come of it. Society does not give philosophers (or take away from them) the opportunity to do philosophy. Society didn’t get together and say “let’s allow some to philosophize and thus improve the world.” My friend does philosophy because it interests him, and he can support himself and his family by teaching it. If you took away his professorship, he probably wouldn’t do philosophy, but some still would, mainly for their own interest’s sake, or perhaps to sell some books. The basic mistake you seem to be working under is to imagine the field of philosophy as being somehow collectively purposeful. It isn’t. It’s just a lot of people doing it, and forming a professional community around it to foster the further pursuit of it. ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2010, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/91 "2010-08-13T20:50:49Z")
Further to my point above. I’m not saying that philosophy professors are just milking the system for an office and a paycheck while they wank. I’m saying that few philosophers have strong or clear ideas about “improving the world” or having a large effect. They pursue philosophy by seeking tenured professorships in the same way that theoretical physicists do: They are interested in the area, they believe that greater understanding is a general benefit of what they do, and they can make a profession out of it, which makes it much easier to do good work within an area of inquiry. ---
**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 14, 2010, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/92 "2010-08-14T01:33:08Z")
> [@hansel](#): > > Society does not give philosophers (or take away from them) the opportunity to do philosophy. Society didn’t get together and say “let’s allow some to philosophize and thus improve the world.” My friend does philosophy because it interests him, and he can support himself and his family by teaching it. If you took away his professorship, he probably wouldn’t do philosophy, but some still would, mainly for their own interest’s sake, or perhaps to sell some books. > > The basic mistake you seem to be working under is to imagine the field of philosophy as being somehow collectively purposeful. It isn’t. It’s just a lot of people doing it, and forming a professional community around it to foster the further pursuit of it. Fine, I’ll buy that explanation. But all that explanation is saying is that item #2 of my list was _true_; philosophy (as practiced by professional philosophers) doesn’t serve a useful purpose. And if that’s true, then unless you’re a professional philosopher, how well Objectivism does among philosophers is irrelevant. It just doesn’t matter one way or the other because the study itself doesn’t matter. All the non-philosophers in the world are only interested in “philosophy” as a set of rules or guidelines that, if followed, make the world a better place. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2010, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/93 "2010-08-14T02:02:39Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Fine, I’ll buy that explanation. But all that explanation is saying is that item #2 of my list was _true_; philosophy (as practiced by professional philosophers) doesn’t serve a useful purpose. And if that’s true, then unless you’re a professional philosopher, how well Objectivism does among philosophers is irrelevant. It just doesn’t matter one way or the other because the study itself doesn’t matter. All the non-philosophers in the world are only interested in “philosophy” as a set of rules or guidelines that, if followed, make the world a better place. I agree with you here, in the end I do think that the point of philosophy is to guide us to make this a better place. IOW, “I eso con que se come?” 🙂 That is a common saying in Latin America that in a few words tells people that are proposing fantastic new ways to do things to tell us how the new ways have to be digested or swallowed and with what ingredients. As for the current status of Ayn in Philosophical academic circles: > **[Questions | AskPhilosophers.org](https://www.askphilosophers.org/question/1279)** > [@](#): > > Why has Ayn Rand become so inconsequential to modern philosophy? > > The point is underscored by the lack of any references to Rand on your site, save one instance where someone asked if there were any refutations of Rand’s Objectivism available – to which a link was dutifully supplied. The point is further underscored by some questions in regards to women in philosophy (or the lack thereof) which, to my amazement, Rand was not referred to (even begrudgingly) as a positive example. My pet theories about this situation have something to do with her aligning herself strongly with Capitalism, while philosophers historically have been left leaners or overtly aristocratic (of sorts) but never very money orientated, which is probably seen as a very Earthly consideration to dwell on. Some say that Rands format of conveying philosophical ideas in the form of novels has not helped her cause much. If this consideration is to be given weight then why should Socratic dialog, for example, be so revered? The methodology of presenting a dissenting opinion in Plato’s Republic is rendered null when that very opinion is not only authored by the same person as the opposing view, but can only be interpreted as being rather strawmanish anyway. I’m not trying to diminish Plato’s works – they are brilliant, I’m criticizing the assumptions that may have effected Rand’s popularity unfairly. > > July 11, 2006 > > > [@](#): > > > > Response from Richard Heck on July 11, 2006 > > > > I don’t think Rand’s alignment with Capitalism has much to do with her lack of influence on modern philosophy. It’s true, to be sure, that the majority of philosophers nowadays tend to be left-of-center, but there are plenty that are not. To give but one example from recent philosophy, Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia could hardly be described as leftist, but it is an acknowledged classic nonetheless. Similarly, Rand’s presentation of her ideas in novels isn’t unique. There are writings of Nietzsche’s that are in much the same form, and he’s still taken seriously. > > > > I’m afraid the reason Rand is “so inconsequential to modern philosophy” is rather less interesting: The overwhelming majority of contemporary philosophers find her work to be of poor quality. ---
**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 14, 2010, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/94 "2010-08-14T02:39:35Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Fine, I’ll buy that explanation. But all that explanation is saying is that item #2 of my list was _true_; philosophy (as practiced by professional philosophers) doesn’t serve a useful purpose. And if that’s true, then unless you’re a professional philosopher, how well Objectivism does among philosophers is irrelevant. It just doesn’t matter one way or the other because the study itself doesn’t matter. All the non-philosophers in the world are only interested in “philosophy” as a set of rules or guidelines that, if followed, make the world a better place. This is one of the major differences between Rand and the philosophical establishment. To her, philosophy is not only important in people’s daily lives, but essential. She would have dismissed any subject that didn’t have any relevance. She even wrote a book called “Philosophy: Who Needs It?” \*"Philosophy is the science that studies the fundamental aspects of the nature of existence. The task of philosophy is to provide man with a comprehensive view of life. This view serves as a base, a frame of reference, for all his actions, mental or physical, psychological or existential. This view tells him the nature of the universe with which he has to deal (metaphysics); the means by which he is to deal with it, i.e., the means of acquiring knowledge (epistemology); the standards by which he is to choose his goals and values, in regard to his own life and character (ethics) – and in regard to society (politics) . . . . "In order to live, man must act; in order to act, he must make choices; in order to make choices, he must define a code of values; in order to define a code of values, he must know \*\*what \*\*he is and \*\*where \*\*he is – i.e., he must know his own nature (including his means of knowledge), and the nature of the universe in which he acts – i.e., he needs metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, which means: **philosophy**. He cannot escape from this need; his only alternative is whether the philosophy guiding him is to be chosen by his mind or by chance. \* Sadly, there aren’t many of today’s philosophers, or their students (including the ones in this thread) who would agree with any of this. And I believe this is one of the reasons why fundamentalist religion is on the rise. It provides its believers with a comprehensive philosophy to live by . . . which is exactly what Objectivism does. Unfortunately, both systems are obviously flawed, but there’s no other competition. As you can read in this thread, the philosophical establishment no longer bothers with anything that’s actually of use to people. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2010, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/95 "2010-08-14T05:27:13Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > Sadly, there aren’t many of today’s philosophers, or their students (including the ones in this thread) who would agree with any of this. And I believe this is one of the reasons why fundamentalist religion is on the rise. It provides its believers with a comprehensive philosophy to live by . . . which is exactly what Objectivism does. Unfortunately, both systems are obviously flawed, but there’s no other competition. As you can read in this thread, the philosophical establishment no longer bothers with anything that’s actually of use to people. While hansel’s insouciant dismissal of the notion of philosophy, as a general field of logical intellectual inquiry, being “responsible” for anything is appealing in a rigorous “philosophy is a kinda/sorta/maybe science” sense, it does sort of weaken the appeal of the study of philosophy as a powerful, meaningful and _useful_ thing to undertake. ---
**Author:** ![hansel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/6bbea6/32.png) [@hansel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hansel)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2010, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/96 "2010-08-14T06:53:58Z")
> [@astro](#): > > While hansel’s insouciant dismissal of the notion of philosophy, as a general field of logical intellectual inquiry, being “responsible” for anything is appealing in a rigorous “philosophy is a kinda/sorta/maybe science” sense, it does sort of weaken the appeal of the study of philosophy as a powerful, meaningful and _useful_ thing to undertake. If your motivation is to improve the world in any immediate sense, I wouldn’t recommend philosophy as a field of study, no. Philosophy does, in general, try to answer the question “how should I live?” Most philosophers who make some kind of significant mark in the history of philosophy offer some take on ethics and what’s a good life. However, philosophy, like science, deliberately constrains itself by its method of rational inquiry. And like science, if you start with an end result and try to bend the method to achieve it, you corrupt the method and lose all certainty and credibility that the method normally grants. If you want the method to give your results some guarantee of correctness, you have to let the method work. One way to describe philosophy as an activity just is pursuing rational inquiry wherever it leads. > [@panache45](#): > > . . which is exactly what Objectivism does. Unfortunately, both systems are obviously flawed, but there’s no other competition. And the reason Objectivism is obviously flawed, and not taken seriously by the academy, is that Rand started with the result she wanted and tortured her method to get it. She’s _bad_ at rational inquiry. > [@panache45](#): > > As you can read in this thread, the philosophical establishment no longer bothers with anything that’s actually of use to people. Plenty of philosophers are ready to offer prescriptions for how we should live. Peter Singer is the most obvious example, but there’s no shortage of others publishing books and sitting on bioethics boards and publishing columns in the New York Times. As for more general usefulness, the study of logic in the early 20th century informed a great deal of early computer science and the pursuit of artificial intelligence. Philosophy of language informed the field of linquistics. Mathematicians and scientists are generally quite happy to engage with their philosophical counterparts where they overlap. The field of cognitive science is half philosophy of mind and language. What the field collectively doesn’t try to do is take responsibility for leading us all out of the darkness. They’re happy to teach anyone with the patience to become rigorous, rational thinkers, which is obviously beneficial to society. But very few think that they’re Plato, and the history of philosophy supports their humility. I mean, seriously Panache: You want _more_ people trying to create mass ideological movements? ---
**Author:** ![snoopygal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b487fb/32.png) [@snoopygal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snoopygal)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2010, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/97 "2010-08-16T10:38:38Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > > [@snoopygal](#): > > > > You don’t know anything about philosophy. > > I didn’t claim to. And yet… > [@](#): > > Ultimately, philosophy is a tool for mankind to figure out the best way to go about living. > [@](#): > > the only way to know which philosophical ideas work is to test them in the real world. > [@](#): > > 1. Philosophy either does, or does not, exist to come up with ideas for how to make the world becomes a better place. > 2. If it does not exist for that purpose, then no useful goal is being served by philosophy. Cooking either does, or does not, exist to come up with ideas for how to make the world becomes a better place. If it does not exist for that purpose, then no useful goal is being served by cooking. Jerking off either does, or does not, exist to come up with ideas for how to make the world becomes a better place. If it does not exist for that purpose, then no useful goal is being served by jerking off. You don’t even know what philosophy IS. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2010, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/98 "2010-08-25T20:04:48Z")
[quote=“Sage\_Rat, post:57, topic:549990”] > [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > 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. This is a mischaracterization of the facts of my case, and my arguments, neither of which you or anyone else here is sufficiently familiar with to comment upon as an example of how lack of formal education results in “unworthwhile” arguments. I don’t want or intend to resurrect it, I merely ask that people stop referring to it in a variety of ways that are incorrect. You don’t know what you think you know; ironically demonstrating the fact you sought to illustrate…that your own lack of education about the facts of my legal case lead you to make an argument that is not worthwhile. 🆒 ---
**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 25, 2010, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/99 "2010-08-25T20:15:44Z")
Words are being placed on my lips (or my fingertips) that were not uttered by me. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2010, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990/100 "2010-08-27T13:59:25Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > > [@panache45](#): > > > > No, most of us in fact were leftists before discovering Rand. She didn’t reinforce our existing beliefs, she challenged them. Previously, I had considered myself some sort of vague “democratic socialist.” > > And a lot of neoconservatives have been ex-Trotskyists. Funny how that works. Ayn Rand’s philosophy attracts people when they are young. Neoconservativism attracts people when they are middle aged. In the late 1960s neoconservatism emerged among liberals who had become skeptical about the ability of the government to solve social problems. The civil rights legislation and the War on Poverty had been followed by five years of black ghetto rioting and more durable increases in black social pathology. After the first Gulf War neoconservatism segued into confidence about the ability of the U.S. military to solve international problems. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have discredited the optimism of neoconservatives as much as the failure of government social spending discredited the optimistic liberalism of the 1960s. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-ayn-rands-contemporary-status-as-a-moral-and-political-philosopher/549990.md?page=4)