From: jaf@wucs1.wustl.edu (Andy Fingerhut)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Request for critiques of Objectivism, and for intro's to philosophy
Date: 12 Sep 92 22:05:22 GMT
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.


My name is Andy Fingerhut, and my chosen field of study is computer
science, with a little dabbling in mathematics and physics.  Until
about a year ago, I was never interested in philosophy because what I
knew of it either confused me or seemed like pointless discussions
with little or no application to living my life.

What changed this interest was reading "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand,
suggested to me by my girlfriend.  I have scanned the Usenet
philosophy groups for a couple of months now, and have gotten the
impression that Ms. Rand is not considered to be a very worthy
philosopher by many.

Leaving aside her philosophy for a moment, I think that one good thing
that can be said for her work (especially "Atlas Shrugged" and a
pamphlet titled "Philosophy: Who Needs It?") is that it can motivate a
person to learn some philosophy.  Now, I know that a response of some
of you will be "Maybe so, but it certainly biases your further study."
I would reply that this is true to some extent of any philosopher's
work which one first studies in depth.  A possible difference in
starting with Rand is the degree to which she attacks other
philosopher's ideas, usually without many details about their work.  I
don't know enough about other philosopher's works to know how well she
represents their positions, or to know if other philosopher's make
similar attacks on one another.

Now, considering her philosophy, I think that there are some
properties of it that attract those who have been "turned off" by
philosophy.  These are highly summarized statements, in no way a
complete list of Rand's views, and are not the way Rand states them,
so don't attack them as hers.

(1) Something exists.  This includes consciousness, but also a "real
world" which is not subject to direct control by anyone's
consciousness (that is, existence has primacy over consciousness).

(2) The senses are a valid means of gaining knowledge about reality,
although not infallible.

(3) A person's use of consciousness and (optionally) reason is not
infallible, but that does not automatically discount it as a useful
faculty for understanding, i.e., knowledge of reality is not
impossible.

These are things that sound very plausible to one not versed in
philosophy, and this plausibility is another reason for Objectivism's
popularity, IMHO.

I would be interested to know if anyone reading this has studied
Objectivism as well as a sizable amount of other philosophy, and what
their views are on Objectivism.  If anyone knows of critical articles
or books (other than Nathaniel and Barbara Branden's books), I would
also be interested in knowing about them.  I'll be glad to summarize
and post any information I get.

On a separate note, I would like to make a summary of several books
available that may be good introductions to philosophy.  I have one
book that seems well organized (can't remember the title or author
right now).  I would be willing to make this a file worth including in
a frequently asked questions (FAQ) posting for one or more of the
philosophy groups.  Speaking of the news groups, what are the charters
of talk.philosophy.misc, sci.philosophy.meta, and sci.philosophy.tech?
I don't know which newsgroup would be most appropriate for this post.

Thanks.

Andy Fingerhut
jaf@wucs1.wustl.edu
Washington University, St. Louis MO