I think the fallacies with objectivism should be taught, especially in the USA, but there are other problems. I returned to community college to do some courses in literature. The first complete book I studied as a child was Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, well actually a play, when I was 10 years old. It was not considered unusual at the time.
In 2005, I learned in community college I would have to study for three years before I could read Shakespeare again, and I was first required to read Harry Potter for four months with people who could hardly utter more than four words in a row without immense effort. That is the reality of the USA now, and the diminishing number of people here who remember more educated days are slowly dieing off. — ernestm
[...] right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. -- Thucydides
Someone serious about discussing Rand's contentions would go back to the ancients Greeks, the Tao, the Upanishads, Buddha, Confucius, the Tora and the Gospel, and see, starting from the beginning of written history and in addition what insights archaeologists and sociologists have gained in to pre-history and non-written cultures, and from this starting point see how the issue is debated all the way to the present, then present the results of this inquiry and the critical positions that have been taken over the years and the arguments in favour of preferred premises and conclusions and against the primary contenders with them, followed by one's original ideas, if there be any (there is no problem with novel analysis of old ideas). — boethius
This question comes up periodically, and I thought I answered it again recently, but in a nutshell, it's a combo of — Terrapin Station
(a) initially she wrote fiction and it's difficult to move out of being pigeonholed (she's still popularly thought of as primarily a fiction author), — Terrapin Station
(c) she's seen as (i) not being a "systematic" philosopher and (ii) having a lot of wonky notions, having misunderstandings, etc. about previous philosophers and theories — Terrapin Station
Of course, many philosophers who are studied in universities, who are regularly published in academic journals, etc. also have issues with (i) and (ii), but they developed within academic philosophy. — Terrapin Station
There are plenty of authors, taken seriously in academia, that wrote fiction, — boethius
Didn't I write the word "initially"? — Terrapin Station
What does this change? There are plenty of authors that likewise wrote initially fiction that are taken seriously . . . Aristophanes, Shakespeare, Dante, Goethe, Hesse, Tolstoy — boethius
Which of those authors are you claiming are taught in philosophy departments as philosophers? — Terrapin Station
I didn't make any such claim, only that they all wrote initially and in some cases only fiction and are taken seriously in academic philosophy — boethius
What I was answering is why Rand isn't taught in an academic phil context. — Terrapin Station
You're agreeing that the authors you mentioned aren't taught in an academic phil context. — Terrapin Station
You've advanced the theory that it's for reasons extraneous to the quality of her arguments: — boethius
No, I didn't. That was part of the reasons that I gave. — Terrapin Station
Your points a, b and c, are all extraneous to the quality of argument. — boethius
(c) is about the assessment of her content. — Terrapin Station
It's assessment of only part of her content, the part dealing with views of other thinkers, it says nothing of what arguments she presents herself from first principles, the much more important part. — boethius
What does (c)(i) have to do with other thinkers? — Terrapin Station
"(i) not being a 'systematic' philosopher" also says nothing about quality of arguments. — boethius
Let's solve one thing at a time. — Terrapin Station
Of course, you can type and blah blah blah on and on as much as you want, but I'm only doing one thing at a time. I see it as more or less a disease to have to type so much in response to simple comments. Aren't you capable of keeping things brief and focused? — Terrapin Station
And yet you make 3 successive posts about more than one thing. What gives? — boethius
"You also never responded . . ." — Terrapin Station
Please provide a link and the reasons you believe your answer was complete and correct in the other discussion you mention. — boethius
She is a socialist... — mnoone
Please provide a link and the reasons you believe your answer was complete and correct in the other discussion you mention. — boethius
This question comes up periodically, and I thought I answered it again recently, but in a nutshell, it's a combo of — Terrapin Station
mplies you've already made answers that you consider satisfactory the issues raised here and are only here providing the nutshell version. — boethius
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.