quote:
quote:
Thanks for at least making a coherent argument.

While it is true that Objectivism is not as strongly accepted by academics as other philosophies it is hardly the case it is ignored either. UNC, Pitt, and Texas all have supported research on both and the later 2 have tenured profs who are Objectivists. Rating the success of a philosophy by how popular it is with academics is hardly a pure argument. Most philosophy departments are overwhelmingly liberal.

I agree Rand's philosophy is popular with "lay" people (though I fail to see why that is a bad thing, the Philosophy profs I had in school were the ultimate ivory tower elitists that truly seemed to live in their own world). Rand dealt with reality and the human condition and instead of trying to change human nature people should accept it and work with it. People work in their own self interests and are going to be most strongly driven by that.

I also don't think Rand's philosophy is the whole story. Her combining of her philosophy with economic and political theory are what is interesting and rings true. Does Rand go too far in terms of lack of governmental intervention or relying on people operating in their self interest? Maybe, but that's an opinion. It's a worthwhile exercise to learn about different ideas that may conflict with your own.

Where'd you get the info on the faculty members at Texas and Pitt who are Objectivists? And while I understand your point a/b academics being overwhelmingly liberal in their politics I think it's safe to say most scholars don't reject Objectivism on political grounds. For one, once you start muddying philosophy w/ politics and economics you run into some labeling problems: for instance, Rand's brand of economics is a/b as liberal as it gets. The liberal/conservative divide in our native politics doesn't hold true across academic disciplines to say nothing of the politics of other countries. No, the real reason there aren't (m)any(?) academic philosophers is b/c Rand wasn't much of a philosopher. Her philosophy therefore has many structural problems: it doesn't say much useful a/b actually constructing and running a gov't, at times many of the tenets are in direct opposition w/ each other, etc.

And while I admire your instinct to seek out a diversity of opinions to challenge your own beliefs that doesn't mean you have to ascribe to Rand's philosophy any greater merit than it deserves.

Tara A. Smith-Professor of philosophy and holder of the BB&T Chair for the Study of Objectivism and holder of the Anthem Foundation Fellowship for the Study of Objectivism[2] at the University of Texas at Austin

LINK

James G. Lennox-Canadian by birth, Lennox is a founding member of the Ayn Rand Society, affiliated with the American Philosophical Association, Eastern Division, and has served frequently on its Steering Committee.

LINK

Rand was a classical liberal which is VERY different than the modern liberal. Her beliefs only really fit with Libertarians in today's politics.

I don't disagree that Rand's philosophy, politics, or economic theories were perfect or that I agree with all of them but I do think she was a lot more right than she was wrong. All philosophy has flaws as it is an inexact science by nature. Do I think Rand is Aristotle? No, but I would take her philosophy over Neitzsche.