COLLOQUY

THE QUESTION

RESPONSES

BACKGROUND

If Ayn Rand has something to contribute to philosophy, then her ideas will have to stand up to serious scrutiny against the more accepted philosophical traditions. For example, Mr. Rothering's post shows a very shallow understanding of Wittgenstein and what he was talking about when he called his own work "nonsense." That's not a knock against Mr. Rothering's mind, since Wittgenstein is extremely subtle and difficult, but I would suggest that those who support Ayn Rand to take a more unbiased view of her detractors and seriously engage the rest of philosophy. As much as professors of philosophy seem to be aloof and arrogant- trust me I understand - you can't dismiss Wittgenstein just because he's difficult.

Although Ayn Rand might have had some good ideas, the sorts of arguments I've read for "objectivism" don't hold up well at all. For example, the whole notion of objective vs. subjective, and the self-evident nature of objective knowledge, is a form of dualism that started to break down with Kant and continued to be eroded by thinkers like James, Dewey, Wittgenstein, etc. A Cartesian faith in "reason," doesn't fair well against a critique such as Peirce's. Likewise, the very notion of the "self" or the "self made self" is very dubious. An appeal to human nature, no matter how scientific, is not a valid basis for ethics, vis-a-vis, the naturalist fallacy. I fail to see why somebody who believes in self-interest and rationality wouldn't find it completely rational, if they could, to become a tyrant. To insist on the "inherent rights of an individual" is to insist on very metaphysical concept. Empathy for others, as Rorty might suggest, is a more empirically sound way defend unselfish behavior.

Perhaps I just don't understand Ayn Rand because I haven't read enough of her, but instead have read too many explanations of "Objectivism" by her less talented followers. After all, at this point, it doesn't matter what she said if all of her followers get it wrong. I also realize I'm not presenting a complete critique here, for this space is not appropriate for a complete discussion of a prolific writer. However I can say that it's absolutely counterproductive for Rand's supporters to defend her by citing how popular she is amongst successful people, or by calling the professional philosophers who disdain her, a bunch of narrow minded liberals. History is filled with popular demagogues that later proved to be wrongheaded, while more brilliant thinkers toiled in obscurity. Ayn Rand's popularity has nothing to do with whether or not her reasoning was good or bad.

I suspect that Ayn Rand gets a lot of support from people just looking for an intellectually respectable way to justify the lifestyle they already have. (To paraphrase James, "a lot of people believe they are thinking, when they're only rearranging their prejudices.") However, for the most part, people who like Ayn Rand seem fairly bright, and I suspect they're attracted to her philosophy because it supports something which appears to be confirmed by their own experience (value of the individual, the power of the free market, ability of competition to promote excellence). I also think Marx supports some good ideas (anyone who's ever been mistreated by an employer will know what I mean), but that doesn't mean his overall program, much less the program of his followers is a good one. Only an extensive and rigorous exploration of Ayn Rand's work, by a wide community of inquirers, will show us what kind of thinker she really was. (I was disappointed to read the post that suggested that "Ayn Rand doesn't need to be interpreted, she needs to be read." That sounds rather like fundamentalism).

Therefore, I hope serious scholars will do more than just call Ayn Rand a hack, and methodically critique her work. If she was just a hack, then she'll be definitively shown to be a hack, and all of her devotees with a real interest in learning will gain from that insight. (Those without a real interest in learning are lost anyway) If she was right, then all the better for everyone. As with most things, the best answer is probably somewhere in between.

-- Reed Miller, M.A. Boston U., Philosophy of Religion (posted 4/9, 4:07 p.m., E.D.T.)

previous response

next response

STEP 1: Your contact information (required)

Your name:

Your title & institution:

Your phone:

Your e-mail address:

STEP 2: Your comments (required)

STEP 3: Submit!

Check this box if you would like this submission to be considered for publication as a letter to the editor in the printed Chronicle.