How are the works of Ayn Rand regarded by academic philosophers?

Question

My cousin is reading Rand. I told him his time would be better spent reading Plato, Kant and Wittgenstein.

Answer 1

It is generally regarded as capitalistic cant. There may well be some things to learn from it, I read her novel, but it has that air of 'no-one will publish us except our own society' about it.
If your friend is a right-wing, capitalism lover, he/she will love it.

We should really stop treating Ayn Rand cultists so lightly. That is what they are. Ayn Rand's "thought" is a relic of the 20th century that has not survived with much philosophic distinction. Even in the period she and her disciples were active they were considered cranks. Rand, being a Russian born emigré is an extreme reaction against Bolshevism and the general leftist movement of the 1930s. She was also neo-communism's alter ego, demanding obedience and obsessed with the idea of her own 'rightness'.

The claim of reality and rationalism in her 'Objectivism' makes a mockery of those values when you consider the quasi-religious way she inculcated her adherents. She wrote a few wooden novels and watery imitations of Nietzsche and Thomas Carlyle. She is Milton Friedman, Joseph de Maistre, Joseph Stalin, Margaret Thatcher, but also none of them. Nothing she wrote hadn't already been written before and better. She was a woman who wanted to make her personal whims and desires into philosophy and ended up with confused contradictions.

When a lot of people are drawn to these exclusive movements it breeds the idea that it 'must be right' or 'there must be something in it', and that is how the Randists see themselves: purveyors of reality. When you consider that the Rand school believed that smoking was a 'moral obligation', it's clear that reality played no part in its 'ideas'. And, of course, there is no philosophy to speak of, only Ayn Rands wants.
It is unsurprising that people with confused or weak minds are drawn to Rand. Like religion or neo-communism or Nazism or cults, the answers are put on a plate in front of you, all you need to do is consume them.

A pity to have to write so much, but there are a lot of mugs around.

Listen here Annie (who probably thumbed me down) I taught philosophy at a respected university and I'm telling you that Rand and her objectivism are regarded as new age cranks. I don't say she IS a crank, but there is more to gain from many other philosophers.
You are a 'top contributor' because you suffer from verbal diarrhoea.

(edit) If you believe that using Washington's status as 'home of the objectivist theorists' camp is a good advertisement you are a bigger fool than you avatar makes you look. Curious isn't it that everything you dislike is 'socialist'. Put some spectacles on and read again , I wrote: 'that is how she is REGARDED'.

Answer 2

Some others have made interesting statements here, but in general, I think, we can dismiss the argument that her arguments were not good. That's not to say all her arguments were good, but actually to point out that for every bad argument Rand made we can and could find a worst argument in an academic loved philosopher. I believe fundamentally it's two reasons Rand is not considered a serious philosopher. The first, and the one already mentioned, is that she's politically on the right when the overwhelming majority within academy centers are on the left. Generally the left tries to deny seriousness to anyone on the right, unless it seems it must. Rand being a popular novelist actually helped leftists dismiss her arguments since it played into the notion that academics secretly harbor that anything popular must not be serious. The other reason Rand is not considered a serious philosopher is she didn't operate from within the academy world. Compare Rand to Leo Strauss and we can see the vast difference of how someone within and someone from without is treated. Strauss is hated by the Left with as much passion as Rand, but his arguments generally are treated seriously. He operated his entire life within the academic world and formed a legion of like minded students who are in the academic world. Rand didn't produce like minded students with academic degrees that slowly spread out within the academic world regardless of the hostility. Sadly the 20th century was the century that the lunatics of the academic world got to decide who wasn't a lunatic.

Answer 3

Reading Plato, Kant and other philosophers is certainly important and worthwhile if your cousin is interested in philosophy. It is essential to know the flip side of things. In the last several years, Ayn Rand has steadily been gaining credibility in academia. There are more and more Objectivist courses being held at universities than ever before thanks to the Objectivist Academic Center, and the Free Books Program offered by the Ayn Rand Institute has been gaining in popularity with teachers at the middle and high school levels. More than 700,000 books have been distributed, at their request. The number of students entering the ARI sponsored essay contests increases each year. Objectivist campus clubs are on the rise. And, her books continue to sell at an astonishing rate of 500,000 per year. So, while it may take a while longer for the Ivory Tower to be cracked, in the meantime readers continue to search for and find the Voice of Reason in Ayn Rand's works.

Answer 4

What do you know about Objectivism? Do you fully understand the epistemology? Ethics? I bet you don't. Most of the people that dislike Rand have no real idea what Objectivism is all about.

I've studied most of the major philosophers and the only one that made sense was Rand. I am living a great life and Objectivism played a large role in my success.

Objectivism is being taught in more universities all the time.

Take a look at what the Ayn Rand Institute is accomplishing.

Answer 5

Perhaps, the academic philosophers who would are against Rand are the very same characters portrayed in the Fountainhead, who are revered in their circles because they hold on to ghosts of ideas maintained by society to enchain the gullible, and thus maintain the pedestals they stand on..

This page, however, have the type of people the subject author had reached, and who attest to the fact a growing number in the academe - admire the works of Ayn Rand.

The architect Roark is again in trial. Would presenting to the armchair romanticists the technical plans, terrifyingly beautiful because of functionality rather than adorned with useless decor, absolve him? Or would he need to stand once more before them, and rather than be silent, lecture them on the subject of "man, the creator"? That he is First and Last, for he is the platform the world stands on?

Answer 6

Rand is seriously taken by many people who will not publicly state their approval of her. They don't wish to be "tainted" by the opinions of people like you. But you would be surprised how many political philosophers in Washington are objectivists. The Cato Institute and others are examples. Objectivism is the single largest philosophy in Washington by percentage, but they still have a long way to go to overcome the socialist atmosphere of disdain for programs that seem not to be concerned with the "downtrodden."
If only people understood that Plato, Kant, and Wittgenstein have contributed to this mess, they would get over their squeemishness of Objectivism and see it for the rational philosophy it is.

Answer 7

The official 'company line' for the majority of universities is the antithesis of Rand; subjectivism, socialism - Plato, Kant, etc. The philosophers that I have privately contacted (unofficially) agree with Rand on many points (especially epistemology) but bail when they realise the necessary implications. Their bread and butter depends on conforming to the 'status quo' and so they are 'forced' into an impossible compromise; 'having' their (subjective) cake whilst attempting to logically 'eat' it...

"In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.

"In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.

"When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side."

Answer 8

Ayn Rand's 'objectivism' is a stereotypical version of "philosophy for wannabee intellectuals". The only reason it spreads through America is because they give away as many books as possible, recruit people into a club-like atmosphere and give people that religious feeling of having found the truth at last.
Anything in Ayn Rand worth discussing is buried under a mountain of rubbish. When you get to it, you see that it wasn't so profound after all.

Answer 9

And he should look at Kierkegaard, Sartre and William James, as well.

Rand is just not a careful thinker. She used equivocation and made unwarranted assumptions all the time. When she was right, she was unoriginal. She argues with her opponents not by refuting them but by psychologizing them and attacking their motives.

I will give her credit for ONE thing. She wrote "We the Living." It was a pretty good novel.

Answer 10

Rand is simply pop philosophy at best and of a poor kind in my book.
Don