The works of Ayn Rand will in all likelihood find a small but secure place within the academic curriculum. The primary reasons for this are twofold: first, her admirers within academia are very devoted to her work and will fight to have it included; and second, her work is easier to digest than that of most philosophers, especially academic philosophers, and is therefore more suited to teaching the majority of college students, most of whom could not make heads or tails of philosophers like Locke, Kant, Hegel or Wittgenstien. As to the question of whether more scholars should be studying Rand, I would challenge the very premise that scholars should be spending so much time studying other thinkers. I think there is a bit too much of that already. The problem with academia, especially in the Humanities, is that the curriculum tends to veer too far from reality. Scholars, instead of studying facts, end up studying merely the words of this or that thinker. This was the problem with Chris Sciabarra's otherwise brilliant book, Ayn Rand: Russian Radical. The book merely focuses on the genesis of Rand's ideas, not whether those ideas correspond to empirical reality. But isn't that the most important question about any philosophy--whether or not it's true? As to whether Rand's philosophy is true, I think those who have griped about the tautological nature of some of Rand's assertions have come pretty close to hitting the nail on the head. Rand's philosophy is primarily verbalist in content: she attempts to determine matters of fact through the manipulation of moral, logical and even rhetorical constructions. Scientifically validated evidence plays little if any role in her cogitations. As one example, consider her view of human nature, which may be the most fundamental part of her whole philosophy. She asserted that men literally create their own characters. This extraordinary is not backed by a single shred of empirical evidence. If what we need in academia is more knowledge (i.e., facts about reality) and less words (i.e., worthless verbal speculation), then Rand has no place there. But the same could be said of many other authors taught in academia, especially those of a leftist/nihilist leaning, such as the deconstructionists.
JOIN THE DEBATE Be sure to include your name and affiliation. Legitimate requests for anonymity will be honored. Submissions may be condensed or edited for clarity.
| ||||||||
previous response
Copyright © 1999 by The Chronicle of Higher Education