A Philosophy Professor Discusses Ayn Rand in his Ethics Class

[Gazpacho]

Also the reason Rand isn't normally discussed in philosophy courses is that her ideas are, philosophically speaking, juvenile and not worth engaging with.

Her ideas are not "juvenile" inasmuch as they were widespread among bourgeois intellectuals of the 18th and 19th centuries. But that is a problem for getting a response from the philosophical community. Much of what she had to say was not new, but had been advanced long before and criticized long before and there wasn't much point in responding again. The dynamics of this are somewhat hidden from her fans because she tended not to credit her intellectual predecessors other than Aristotle and occasionally the American founders.

Matthew Sciabarra has, I think, made the most serious effort to review Rand as a legitimate philosopher and a figure in the history of ideas. For this favor he was denounced by — guess who — the ARI, because he suggested she was influenced by Hegel even though she ranked him as one of the arch-enemies of man. Sciabarra was also an editor for another book I saw recently, Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand.

 

[Dinwar]

Are you going to address the thread topic, the arguments made by the philosophy professor, at some point?

I have.

I've yet to encounter a philosophy professor that dealt with Rand at all.

If you're not going to read my posts, that's not my responsibility.

Also, your double standard is noted. Unless you're going to criticize the Rand critics who have ignored the thread topic entirely? (I haven't--I addressed the thread topic, then addressed a side issue.)

Also the reason Rand isn't normally discussed in philosophy courses is that her ideas are, philosophically speaking, juvenile and not worth engaging with.

Thank you for proving my point about Rand's critics. This criticism has absolutely no substance, rests on the assumption that we will accept any unevidenced claim merely because it is anti-Rand, and is an Argument from Intimidation.

If you want to criticize Rand, I'd be willing to discuss it. However, I expect you to hold to the same rules in this conversation as you'd hold in any other. If you want to criticize Rand's ideas, please present SPECIFIC ideas that you object to, and SPECIFIC reasons for your objections. Mere generic "They're juvenile" style criticisms simply have no place in a serious discussion.

The dynamics of this are somewhat hidden from her fans because she tended not to credit her intellectual predecessors other than Aristotle and occasionally the American founders.

That's why I like Dr. Hsieh. She does cite such predecessors. She also points out the differences (people who claim that Rand's ideas were already discussed tend to have a very shallow understanding of her ideas).

 

[Beelzebuddy]

If you want to criticize Rand, I'd be willing to discuss it. However, I expect you to hold to the same rules in this conversation as you'd hold in any other. If you want to criticize Rand's ideas, please present SPECIFIC ideas that you object to, and SPECIFIC reasons for your objections. Mere generic "They're juvenile" style criticisms simply have no place in a serious discussion.

Arguing like that would not be holding to the same rules as any other conversation. This is the Religion forum, sir; the tomatoes you were handed on your way in are not there in case you get hungry. Presenting "it's juvenile" as an acceptable argument is de rigeur around here. That doesn't change just because it's your sacred cow on the chopping block.

I'd argue this ridiculously cultish devotion to Rand is the biggest hurdle Objectivism currently faces. Whatever the merits of the philosophy, the woman chosen to represent it was a nut. A joyless, hypocritical sourpuss with an odd rape fetish, who couldn't pull her head from her ass long enough to have a polite conversation with Jim Freaking Henson. She's not the person you want people thinking of when they hear "Objectivism." You'd be better off disowning her entirely, and presenting a completely new face with the same ideas behind it.

 

[Mister Earl]

I'd argue this ridiculously cultish devotion to Rand is the biggest hurdle Objectivism currently faces. Whatever the merits of the philosophy, the woman chosen to represent it was a nut. A joyless, hypocritical sourpuss with an odd rape fetish, who couldn't pull her head from her ass long enough to have a polite conversation with Jim Freaking Henson. She's not the person you want people thinking of when they hear "Objectivism." You'd be better off disowning her entirely, and presenting a completely new face with the same ideas behind it.

I was going to write up a lenghtly post detailing my feelings, when I saw that Beelzebuddy already did so in a far more concise manner than I could have.

Thank you. I am in agreement.

 

[joesixpack]

... A joyless, hypocritical sourpuss with an odd rape fetish, who couldn't pull her head from her ass long enough to have a polite conversation with Jim Freaking Henson. ...

I am reading that link and laughing my ass off. Jesus she is hilarious!

 

[calebprime]

Arguing like that would not be holding to the same rules as any other conversation. This is the Religion forum, sir; the tomatoes you were handed on your way in are not there in case you get hungry. Presenting "it's juvenile" as an acceptable argument is de rigeur around here. That doesn't change just because it's your sacred cow on the chopping block.

I'd argue this ridiculously cultish devotion to Rand is the biggest hurdle Objectivism currently faces. Whatever the merits of the philosophy, the woman chosen to represent it was a nut. A joyless, hypocritical sourpuss with an odd rape fetish, who couldn't pull her head from her ass long enough to have a polite conversation with Jim Freaking Henson. She's not the person you want people thinking of when they hear "Objectivism." You'd be better off disowning her entirely, and presenting a completely new face with the same ideas behind it.

(everyone, feel free to ignore this. But I don't feel like erasing what I've written, even though I have nothing important to say here. )

I read the dialog, and while I have no position on Ayn Rand -- never having read her work -- I don't think that dialog is necessarily a fair test of her character. However, if it's consistent with everything else that is known about her, ok. As people here would say, it's just one more data point.

She probably didn't know too much about Henson.

As a self-styled serious intellectual, she seems to dislike mad hatter roundtables of this kind.

Whoever thought of this grouping deserves some of the blame for the snippiness that results from the mismatch.

It's a stylistic mismatch a little like the Monty Python episode where Karl Marx appears on some TV game show, and stumbles over the question about football.

Nietzsche, of course, was spared the kind of scrutiny he would have received had he lived to have followers, or had he attempted to put some of his ideas into action. So in a sense his ideas remain ambiguous, because he never lived to put any program in practice, nor did he finish any large systematic work. I sometimes wonder how he would have fared, because I love his writing.

I mention him because he's mentioned (very superficially) in the dialog, and because he's considered to be one influence on Rand.

He's sort of a symbol of something for people who've never read him, like Rand is.

I very much doubt he would have been an enthusiastic supporter of social darwinism or capitalism.

But Rand lived to lead a group of people, for better and for worse.

In the dialog, what Rand keeps affirming is each individual's search for happiness. There isn't really much that she's saying that is either particularly fresh, or particularly objectionable. I suppose you have to understand it mainly in the context of her fight against collectivism, socialism, and Christian morality.

 

[Brainache]

(everyone, feel free to ignore this. But I don't feel like erasing what I've written, even though I have nothing important to say here. )

I read the dialog, and while I have no position on Ayn Rand -- never having read her work -- I don't think that dialog is necessarily a fair test of her character. However, if it's consistent with everything else that is known about her, ok. As people here would say, it's just one more data point.

She probably didn't know too much about Henson.

She knew who Oscar The Grouch was and didn't like Henson's comparison. I thought it was funny.

As a self-styled serious intellectual, she seems to dislike mad hatter roundtables of this kind.

Whoever thought of this grouping deserves some of the blame for the snippiness that results from the mismatch.

It's a stylistic mismatch a little like the Monty Python episode where Karl Marx appears on some TV game show, and stumbles over the question about football.

...

And almost as hilarious. I enjoyed the juxtaposition of Yoko's and Rand's conflicting Ideologies.

But my favourite bit was this:

SIDNEY NOLAN
I agree Jim. We should work together on a puppet saga about Ned Kelly. Sometime maybe. Who knows.

How awesome would that have been? A Muppet Movie about Sidney Nolan's version of Ned Kelly...

Someone get Jason Segel on the phone right now and make this happen!!!

 

[Gazpacho]

I have my doubts as to that transcript's authenticity.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

(snip)

Oh, I'm sure. If we're being charitable, I'd say she was just understandably grouchy at having her serious philosophical outlook sat at the same table as children's television and Yoko Ono. However, since having to depend on charity is a moral failing and a cardinal sin in her eyes, we needn't be charitable.

I have my doubts as to that transcript's authenticity.

That's possible. I didn't do much more research than stumbling across it on BoingBoing one day.

 

[Craig24]

Arguing like that would not be holding to the same rules as any other conversation. This is the Religion forum, sir; the tomatoes you were handed on your way in are not there in case you get hungry. Presenting "it's juvenile" as an acceptable argument is de rigeur around here. That doesn't change just because it's your sacred cow on the chopping block.

Are you seriously trying to justify this approach by making reference to the title of the forum? That's pretty bad. I mean.. that's just bad. If the childish critics of Rand cannot be bothered to examine and judge the merits of what Rand was proposing then I have no reason to think what is being ridiculed is actually understood. If this is a case of treating Rand's theories, propositions and conclusions as if they were in the same general category as the arbitrary religious claims of the supernatural, then, God help you all (no pun intended), you are demonstrating that you don't even know what Objectivism is.

 

[eight bits]

I have my doubts as to that transcript's authenticity.

As Richard Feynman once said, this may have some relevance to our inquiry.

http://www.arpanetdialogues.net/disclaimer/

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I don't like omnislashing, but you really are concatenating two ideas here so I'll have to split your paragraph apart.

Are you seriously trying to justify this approach by making reference to the title of the forum? That's pretty bad. I mean.. that's just bad.

Not the title, but the nature. It would be nice if we were all a good bit more polite, but I personally can't think of a way to enforce such without compromising the principles of the forum re: critical assessment of ideas. Allowing any party to unilaterally dictate what topics and arguments are kosher would provide a host of options for the discerning proselytizer to (very politely) evade scrutiny.

If the childish critics of Rand cannot be bothered to examine and judge the merits of what Rand was proposing then I have no reason to think what is being ridiculed is actually understood. If this is a case of treating Rand's theories, propositions and conclusions as if they were in the same general category as the arbitrary religious claims of the supernatural, then, God help you all (no pun intended), you are demonstrating that you don't even know what Objectivism is.

Actually, yes, it is in the same general category. Not as a religion, but a personality cult. You have the flawed but charismatic personality at the front of the party, the use of nonstandard definitions for common vocabulary (ex: "altruism") with absolutely no effort or desire to phrase beliefs in a manner approachable to outsiders (go on, tell me they can't be). You have nested literature that you promote to the philistines, eg Atlas Shrugged, but deflect criticism of its presented philosophy by saying that, well, that's not what the philosophy's really about, here's some more books, and by the time you get to what the Thetans actually are you're so far down the rabbit hole you couldn't find your way out if you wanted to.

I'm afraid those are symptoms of a cult, and as such, this is the correct general category. Perhaps I am demonstrating that I don't even know what Objectivism is. But I know what the above is. Which brings me back to my original point: ditch Rand, and the rest of the skeezy cult crap, guys, and maybe more people will deal with you on the level.

 

[Dinwar]

Thank you all for reminding me, yet again, why I don't debate Objectivism on JREF. Not a single one of you "skeptics" has bothered to so much as reference an idea you consider flawed; instead, you consider character assassination to be a sufficient substitute for serious argument. Odd how the skeptical community will accept any shoddy argument so long as it supports certain a priori conclusions.

 

[Akri]

the use of nonstandard definitions for common vocabulary (ex: "altruism") with absolutely no effort or desire to phrase beliefs in a manner approachable to outsiders

So how does anyone stop being an outsider, if they can't ever understand the terminology being used?

I'm afraid those are symptoms of a cult

With the exception of the "flawed but charismatic personality at the front" they're also the symptoms of pretty much any complex field of study with it's own internal jargon.

ditch Rand, and the rest of the skeezy cult crap, guys, and maybe more people will deal with you on the level.

I've seen conversations where Objectivists try to discuss the philosophy without talking about Rand at all. The other side almost always insists on making it about her anyway.

 

[marplots]

Thank you all for reminding me, yet again, why I don't debate Objectivism on JREF. Not a single one of you "skeptics" has bothered to so much as reference an idea you consider flawed; instead, you consider character assassination to be a sufficient substitute for serious argument. Odd how the skeptical community will accept any shoddy argument so long as it supports certain a priori conclusions.

Here is an idea I consider flawed: "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." -- Ayn Rand

I do not think man is an heroic being. I think man is nothing more (or less) than an expression of natural law and random chance. As an extension, I do not think productive achievement is his noblest activity, since nobility and honor have no place in the materialist schemata.

Does that suffice as presenting one of her philosophical ideas and taking issue with it instead of the person?

 

[Stamuel]

To answer the OP, I have not had a philosophy professor who took Rand very seriously. Being a philosophy PhD student I have had several philosophy professors. From what I have heard, most analytic philosophers who have looked into her philosophical works have found her arguments atrocious and not worth serious study. Those who have not read her works tend to avoid her for a few reasons: accepting the assessment of others, being put off by her popular drivel like Atlas Shrugged, being put off by exposure to obnoxious randroids who derail philosophy classes. Or, they are not interested in ethical or political philosophy.

I am prepared to accept that most of those who dismiss Rand do not give her ideas a fair hearing, but instead ignore her because of the extreme creepiness of her and so many of her followers. However, I'd need some sense of what she said that is worth serious study.

 

[AlBell]

http://www.oocities.org/athens/Olympus/2178/rand.html

At least four factors have combined to discourage serious attention to her work by academic philosophers. First, she was prima facie unworthy of attention because her views were developed and expressed not in scholarly treatises but in novels and -- later -- in articles in which philosophical discussion was fused with cultural commentary and political advocacy. Her writing was often rhetorical and hyperbolic, directed to the mass readership accessible to a best-selling author instead of to the rather more critical audiences of the output of university presses.[3] A second factor leading to neglect was that the particular positions she held -- including an uncompromising defense of rational self-interest in ethics and of laissez-faire capitalism -- were quite distant from the overwhelming mainstream consensus (when she wrote) in favor of some form of welfare-state liberalism. A further factor which has contributed to neglect of Rand's ideas is that her arguments are often informal and inductive. They are presented by way of her fiction, and, so far as this is the case, it is left to the reader to judge the psychological and social plausibility of dramatizations of her principles and their alternatives. Finally, and least excusably, Rand invited neglect, contempt, and opposition by employing her considerable rhetorical skills to denounce anyone who disagreed with her and especially modern philosophers as evil, corrupt, and irrational[4] which could hardly have endeared her to the profession.

Overwhelming mainstream consensus (when she wrote ... and here and now) in favor of some form of welfare-state liberalism fits many posters here.

 

[marplots]

http://www.oocities.org/athens/Olympus/2178/rand.html


Overwhelming mainstream consensus (when she wrote ... and here and now) in favor of some form of welfare-state liberalism fits many posters here.

This should not be a surprise if my own self interests are served by that worldview. One might say that the numbers tell the tale.

 

[Lithrael]

I have my doubts as to that transcript's authenticity.

Indeed. I did laugh pretty hard though. A less ambiguous explanation: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2011/04/so-reagan-signs-into-this-chatroom.html

 

[Gazpacho]

To answer the OP, I have not had a philosophy professor who took Rand very seriously. Being a philosophy PhD student I have had several philosophy professors. From what I have heard, most analytic philosophers who have looked into her philosophical works have found her arguments atrocious and not worth serious study. Those who have not read her works tend to avoid her for a few reasons: accepting the assessment of others, being put off by her popular drivel like Atlas Shrugged, being put off by exposure to obnoxious randroids who derail philosophy classes.

I think it plays into this, that convincing a novice that you grasp the ideas of Nietzsche, or Hegel, or Marx etc. is a very different task from convincing a career expert. In hindsight, Rand seems to have mainly learned about "hostile" philosophers at second or third hand. In true bourgeois form, she said that detailed study of their work was "intellectual slumming" and she had no taste for it.