She was neither. I would say she was a writer that more of right-wing libertarian conservative who invented her own philosophy of objectivism, which typically is just a resell of older classical philosophy done in a light-weight manner. And when her actual work are works of literature, so her philosophy is quite weak.I have only a glancing acquaintance with Ayn Rand, but my understanding thus far is that she tends toward fascism, not socialism. — Pattern-chaser
Yeah.The mods seem to get annoyed that Rand is asked about so frequently--I know other Rand threads have been deleted, too. Partially because it's the same thing over and over again. — Terrapin Station
she was a writer that more of right-wing libertarian conservative
[...]
But as typical, everything on the right is fascism according to many people... — ssu
I enjoy going back and forth with people who act like as much of an unjustifiably arrogant asshole as you do. — Terrapin Station
especially goad you into typing so much in response to short answers. — Terrapin Station
Re "the reasons I believe my answer was 'complete'"--what the heck would a "complete" answer be for this? — Terrapin Station
I can imagine the poor person who first picks up some of Rand's book, or listens to libertarians talking about Rand and then goes to this kind of Forum and asks quite innocently: "So, what do you guys think about Ayn Rand? Doesn't she have some good thoughts?" — ssu
People who stumble into a Scientology center (as ↪Ciceronianus the White alludes to), a meeting about the "Chronicles of the Girku", some evangelical group preaching the earth is 6000 years old, or that ISIS is the new caliphate and soon takeover the middle east and destroy all the infidels there and beyond and we should all submit ahead of the curve, or various online pseudo "quantum spiritualities", or any number of other crank philosophies -- many people may also be quite impressed and come here and say "don't they have some good ideas that should be taken seriously by this forum and academic philosophers?" as well as "there's a lot of people believing this and taking it quite seriously, isn't that evidence it has good arguments?".
What would you say to such people? — boethius
But as typical, everything on the right is fascism according to many people... — ssu
given that the government would be relegated down to a regalian function of maintaining property rights and a military for defense and security (primarily for upholding property rights) — Maw
Really? You think Ron Paul is a fascist? How bizarre.So someone an American describes as a "right-wing libertarian conservative" is pretty much a fascist, when seen from here. — Pattern-chaser
First ever??? What happened to Clement Attlee?If things go right, we here in the UK may soon see our first-ever socialist leader! — Pattern-chaser
You give people respect by making a well thought, informative response to their questions.What would you say to such people?
If you read my first comment on this thread, would you say something similar to someone impressed by any of the above, or is it not a good approach? — boethius
The minimal role of the government is the way a lot of right-wing libertarians especially in the US think. Not to be confused with the Libertarians-in-name-only type who talk about libertarian values and are for something else. Yet it's wrong to think that libertarians are fascists. Fascists believe in a strong centralized power, in big strong government. It's a typical charge that libertarians are against democracy. Yet what I've noticed this to be is just a critique about how well democracy actually functions.Ayn Rand's ideal reification of her Objectivist philosophy would effectively suspend representative democracy, given that the government would be relegated down to a regalian function of maintaining property rights and a military for defense and security (primarily for upholding property rights). — Maw
A lot of things sound fairly fascist to you. Especially much seems to be adjacent to fascism. Yet what yougave as example would be a plutocracy, which inherently isn't fascist.Sound fairly adjacent to fascism to me. — Maw
You give people respect by making a well thought, informative response to their questions. — ssu
The minimal role of the government is the way a lot of right-wing libertarians especially in the US think. Not to be confused with the Libertarians-in-name-only type who talk about libertarian values and are for something else. Yet it's wrong to think that libertarians are fascists. — ssu
As the late Umberto Eco noted, Fascism is a synecdoche. A "fuzzy totalitarianism" with "no quintessence". This is useful in both theoretical conceptualization, and as a bulwark against an encroaching fascism. — Maw
This question comes up periodically, and I thought I answered it again recently, but in a nutshell, it's a combo of
(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),
(b) she didn't develop or emerge from academic philosophy socially, and as unfortunate as it may be, it's much more difficult to "break in" to that world than it is to emerge from within its confines,
(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, and this is seen as an upshot of and justification for (b). 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
What nonsense is this? — Benkei
I'm not sure you understood what I wrote. Did what I write come off as an endorsement of Rand for some reason? — Terrapin Station
She's not taken seriously because objectivism is crap. — Benkei
I'm not sure you understood what I wrote. Did what I write come off as an endorsement of Rand for some reason? — Terrapin Station
But at least you have given the credible impression that you have still actually read her work. — ssu
Oh, so you agree with my point 'd' that the overwhelming reason Rand isn't taken seriously by academic philosophers is the low quality of her arguments. — boethius
Tons of stuff that's in the canon consists of low quality arguments. — Terrapin Station
Yes, please provide a list of these many academic philosophers who are as poor thinkers as Rand but are not only published but seriously studied by other academics. Let us compare the errors of the one with those of the latter and see for ourselves if they are similar and Rand is indeed unjustly not counted among the incompetent philosophers. — boethius
Are you unable to satisfy a simple request to backup your claim? — boethius
?And what is even your position here? That Rand should be taken seriously?
Demonstrate your case, cite her passages that are serious philosophy and explain to us why. — boethius
Or is your case only that we should be very, very concerned that the poor innocent ivy league freshman that attends the local "council of Rand" to quickly verify that there is no possible criticism of how money is accumulated, either by his family or anyone else and he should never for the rest of his life reflect on his devotion to whoever pays him the most as he launches his brilliant career in corporate America, and he can simply brush aside thousands of years of political philosophy that has grappled with the problem of corruption in government and vulnerability to a full take over by rich and powerful citizens, because it is easily solved by just viewing money as votes and "influence" is what everyone is doing anyway (look, these "philosophers" are doing it right here!), the rich just win while the poor lose -- that we should be overly concerned this poor boy with the depth of knowledge of a frisbee and the innocence of a soft eyed lamb will be slightly taken aback to find out that critical thinkers on the internet don't just throw out thousands of years of political philosophy when they hear "greed is good" and "altruism is evil" and "dollars should be votes" and "taxes are immoral and robbery ( ... but also deny any moral code that would be the basis to assert anything at all is immoral apart from self-interest ...)" and "there is no public good apart from the interest of individuals! ... construed in whatever way is needed to remove constraints on the rich while protecting their property, whether it's in the interest of anyone else or not, of which we will always claim they are policies for the public good anyway even though we literally just said the public good doesn't exist, only individuals. I. I am an individual."? — boethius
Actually I stated what I thought quite clearly about her if you would mind reading what people say. — ssu
But seems like your hunting for some Rand supporter to attack. To unleash some wait, it's coming... — ssu
However, the only other position here, of you and ↪Terrapin Station, seems to be she should be taken "a bit seriously", but not serious enough that you or Terrapin would quote anything she says to defend your view. — 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.