From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Request for critiques of Objectivism, and for intro's to philosophy
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 05:17:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.220522.17755@wuecl.wustl.edu> jaf@wucs1.wustl.edu (Andy Fingerhut) writes:

>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.

That depends on whom you ask.  Asking most modern philosophers what they think
Rand is a little like asking Democrats what they think of George Bush, or asking
Catholics what they think of Hindus. I suggest that you form your own opinions
rather than try to conform to those of either those who look down on Rand, or
Rand herself.

I should add that Atlas Shrugged, while it does have considerable philosophical
content, should not be mistaken for philosophy.  Her other writings (and those
of other objectivists) on explicitly philosophical issues are more appropriate
issues for discussion in this news group.

>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.  

That's certainly true.

>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 find her attacks on other philosophers to be good in the sense of their
addressing the fundamental issues at hand, but sicne her intent is not
to offer a thorough refutation of each and every point of the other
philosophers, she doesn't teach you all the details of what the other guys
have to say as she goes.  I suggest that you go ahead and read the 
prominent works of these other guys and decide for yourself whether she
was right or not.  This is not easy, and will take quite a bit of time,
but it is the only way for you to find out for yourself who is right.
If all you do is ask for more opinions, you won't really know for yourself
who is right.

For what it is worth, I have been reading the books of most of Rand's "bad guys"
for some time, and I think she's right on the mark.

>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.

My evaluation is that her representations are accurate, but not a thorough
representation (though it's not really feasible to reproduce all of the twists 
and details of another philosophy in an essay...it would become a book in itself
rather than an exposition of Rand's own ideas, and also she was addressing, not
all of the details of these philosophies, but the parts she considered to be
the key fundamentals.

>Now, considering her philosophy, I think that there are some
>properties of it that attract those who have been "turned off" by
>philosophy.  

That is certainly the case with me.  Until I read Rand, I had pretty much 
written off the whole field of philosophy off as blatant nonsense. It 
would seem that you had the same experience.

One thing that really differentiates Rand from other philosphers is that
she starts at "the most fundamental" issues rather than the "issues that
most interest me".  This allows her to avoid the mistakes of folks like
the linguistic and theological philosophers.

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

Not only are they plausible, but that they are undeniable (which is why 
they are axiomatic).

>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.  

I have read a wide range of philosophers, and I still think Rand is right
on all of the important philosophical issues she addresses in her writing.
If you like, I can recommend a reading list for you to check all this
out for yourself.

>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.

I have read several.  "An Answer to Ayn Rand" by John W. Robbins (which 
is a critique from a Christian point of view) seems to be the best informed,
but my evaluation is that it gets bogged down in picky semantics without
addressing the issues themselves very well.  "The Philosophic Thought of
Ayn Rand" edited  by Douglas Uyl and Douglas Rasmussen is a much more academic 
analysis of Rand's philosophy, and the essays seem to be a bit more honest than
the Robbins book, but it suffers from a pretty weak understanding of what
Rand's positions actually were (something not at all uncommon in this newsgroup
too).  Another Rand commentary is "The Ayn Rand Companion" by Mimi Gladstein. 
It is much more sympathetic than the other two, but has a few odd 
interpretations of Rand's ideas, but that aside, it's not too bad.  George 
Smith's "Atheism, Ayn Rand, and other Heresies" is much like Nathaniel
Branden's biography in that it says both good and critical things about Rand
without offering terribly in-depth philosophical analysis. 

>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.  

One general recommendation I can offer is that it almost always more 
enlightening to read the original works than commentaried by other writers.
That said, I suggest the following:

"The Story of Philosophy" by Will Durant - A good overview to get you oriented.
"Critique of Pure Reason" by Immanuel Kant - This should give you a taste of
what Rand is so upset about.  It's hard to get through, but even if you just
read a bit, you will get the idea of where he's coming from.
"The Portable Nietzsche" translated byWalter Kaufmann - This is a good
collection of Nietzsche's work.  I really like the "Viking Portable Library"
collections in general.  I also recommend that you avoid translations by 
folks other than Walter Kaufmann, his translations are much better than some
others I have read.
"What does it All Mean?" by Thoman Nagel - This is a very short book which 
gives a good summary of the important philosophical issues from a pretty
conventional modern viewpoint.
"Arthur Schopenhauer - Essays and Aphorisms" from Penguin Classics - This 
should be more Schopenhauer than you can stomach.  The Penguin Classics
series is quite good in general.  I have a couple dozen of them.
"On Liberty" by John Stewart Mill - It's a pretty straight forward view of
utilitarianism.
"Confessions" by St. Augustine - Where did the Christians get such strange
ideas?  Read this and find out.
"A Theory of Justice" by John Rawls - Judge for yourself whether Rand's 
critique was correct.  Typical modernist muddled thinking on social issues.
"Tractatus Logico Philosophicus" by Ludwig Wittgenstein - A simple exposition
of Wittgenstein's early views.  See whether the linguistic analysis positions
make any sense or not.
"Being and Nothingness" by Jean Paul Sartre - Shows the kind of thinking
being done in the Existentialist school.
I also recommend reading collections by Plato and Aristotle to help get a 
grounding in their perspectives (I have several and I wouldn't recommend
one over another.)


How much of Rand's writings have you read?  I wouldn't say that by reading
just Atlas and the "Philosophy: Who Needs It?" pamphlets you can get a very
thorough view of Rand's views in much depth (though you probably have a good
overview now).

Good luck!

--Brian



Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta