[JeffL]

Although unpopular with many people, Ayn Rand approached philosophy in some ways as you are proposing. She strove to discover general principles that, once grasped, change the way one acts. Personally, reading and understanding her philosophy has changed my life and the decisions I make a great deal.

For anyone interested, I have a site http://www.ImportanceOfPhilosophy.com that explains why I think philosophy is so important and which is mainly based on Ayn Rand's philosophy.

[byrneseyeview]

One of the ways I (and others) knock Ayn is that she didn't have an effect on later developments in philosophy. But she did have an effect on people's lives. By pg's definition, is she more relevant -- or is she reheated Nietzsche with some Stirner stirred in?

[neilc]

IMHO Rand is vastly different from Nietzsche. There is obviously some degree of influence, but Nietzsche is subjective, anti-systematic and anti-rational, while Rand is almost the canonical example of a philosophy that attempts to be objective, systematic and rational.

As for Rand's limited influence on subsequent development in philosophy, that's an interesting point. Why is this the case? Even if you disagree with Rand's philosophy, I think it's pretty outrageous that her work isn't even mentioned in more university philosophy programs. There are only a few other philosophers whose work provides as complete a system for understanding reality, the nature of knowledge, and the nature of ethics (I'd include Aristotle, Plato, and Hegel as others that are similarly complete, but there aren't too many after that).

So why is Rand's work not taught more often? I'd say that is mostly the result of the biases and predilections of the typical university philosophy department.

[axiom]

This is changing very quickly these days. Rand is mentioned in most courses on contemporary philosophy. Her ethics is usually called "enlightened self-interest" or "rational egoism."

There are now quite a number of Ayn Rand philosophy chairs at various high profile universites in the country.

It's funny, but one of the reasons Rand is coming into universities these days is the attitude that no theory is any better than any other i.e, subjectivism. The very thing that Rand spent so much time attacking! (I got this from talking to the guys who run the Ayn Rand Institute, which is largley responsible for these developments.)

Edit: Regarding Nietzsche, you are 100% corrent. For what it's worth Rand was adamant that her ethics was nothing like Nietzsche. Here's the most positive thing she had to say about him: "as a poet, he projects at times (not consistently)a magnificent feeling for man's greatness, expressed in emotional, not intellectual terms."

[kaufmajm]

Re: Rand's ethics being nothing like Nietzsche's...

When you really dig into Rand, her ethics are essentially a modernized version of Aristotle's virtue ethics. Most of her ethical theory revolved around core values (Reason, Purpose, Self-Esteem) and virtues that supported these values (Pride, Rationality, Integrity, Productiveness, Independence, and Justice). Many argue she left out a few important virtues like benevolence, but overall it's a pretty good and useful list. She didn't necessarily agree with Aristotle's "Doctrine of the Mean" (virtue is the mean between two extremes), but otherwise her ethics are very Aristotelian.

[gwenhwyfaer]

No, it's for the same reason that intelligent design isn't taught in biology classes, or that the timecube theory isn't taught in physics classes, or that homeopathy isn't taught in med school. Rand's output was pseudophilosophy.

[neilc]

On what grounds would you call Rand's work "pseudophilosophy", rather than philosophy proper? Just because you don't like something does not mean it is automatically disqualified from the class of philosophies.

I think that to qualify as a philosophy, something must be a system of thought that proposes a notion of metaphysics, epistemology, and a system of ethics. Rand's "output" obviously qualifies, whether you happen to agree with it or not.

Intelligent design and time cube theory ought not to be taught because they can be objectively verified as false. Such a test plainly does not apply to philosophy -- and even if it did, it would disqualify plenty of philosophers who are taught, such as the pre-Socratic philosopher Thales.

[gwenhwyfaer]

> On what grounds would you call Rand's work "pseudophilosophy", rather than philosophy proper?

Well, for a start, there was the fact that she reviewed, and dismissed on "philosophical" grounds, a book of Immanuel Kant's after she read the back cover. Sure, that's an example, but by no means an atypical one. She dismissed nearly everything after Aristotle, usually on superficial grounds. Such wholesale dismissal of the established field, such grandiosity of claims (especially in the face of such shallow thinking) has direct parallels with pseudoscience.

> I would personally say that to qualify as a philosophy, something must be a system of thought that proposes a notion of metaphysics, epistemology, and a system of ethics. Rand's "output" obviously qualifies

...for a definition of "philosophy" you have pretty much quoted verbatim from her work, but without admitting that or even acknowledging the existence of alternative perspectives? You do see the problem with that, don't you...?

> Intelligent design and time cube theory ought not to be taught because they can be objectively verified as false.

No. They can't. That's the whole point of pseudoscience - if their claims were verifiable but wrong, it would just be forgotten. But pseudoscientists make unverifiable claims precisely in order to claim that because their claims have not been disproven, they should be given parity.

As for teaching Thales, how does one teach that Socrates was an advance if one does not teach what he was advancing from? Similarly, the Rutherford model of the atom is still mentioned in science classes - by your logic it should be forgotten as pseudoscience, but it wasn't. One cannot teach science without teaching that models are superseded by better models as they are created - that is the very nature of the scientific process. And the reason science and philosophy were commingled until a couple of centuries ago is that it's at the heart of the philosophical process too. One rejects models because one can demonstrate that an alternative model better fits the observable reality; one doesn't superficially reject them without bothering to understand them first because one finds their implications in disagreement with the conclusions one is seeking to prove!

[neilc]

> Well, for a start, there was the fact that she reviewed, and dismissed on "philosophical" grounds, a book of Immanuel Kant's after she read the back cover.

This is utterly irrelevant to the point in question. Rand's attitude toward other philosophers was pretty uninformed, I agree, but it is evidence of Rand herself being silly, superficial, etc., The point is that those are properties of Rand, not of her philosophy. To equate her (many) imperfections as an individual with inherent properties of her philosophy is essentially an ad hominem argument -- and it's even more debatable that merely dismissing the alternatives to one's theory automatically makes your own theory "pseudophilosophy".

As for my definition of philosophy, sure, it is also Rand's view, but I think it is fairly reasonable. Surely a philosophy must include some claims about 1. the nature of reality 2. our ability to understand that reality, if any 3. how we ought to act within that reality. If you think it's such a flawed definition, what definition would you prefer, and how does Rand's "output" not qualify?

As for ID/etc. being provably false, I agree with you, I mispoke. But I still don't see how you've proven, or even really supported, your argument that Rand is somehow "pseudophilosophy", and other systems of thought are "real" philosophy. That just sounds like superficial bigotry to me -- actually the same sort of thing you accuse Rand of, with respect to Kant.

[axiom]

1. You claim that she dismissed a book by Kant after reading the back cover.

Please provide a reference.

2. You don't like his definition of philsophy.

What definition do you like?

3. You claim pseudophilosophy should not be taught in philosophy classes.

Anyone and everyone agrees with that point. You still leave open the issue of whether Rand's work is in fact pseudophilosophy. Please support your claims.

[curi]

You can't verify (prove) that ID is false, or that there is no God, or anything like that. It isn't an issue for scientific tests, and certainty is never possible anyway.

[JeffL]

I have never understood how people can make this claim. It is so dishonest as to be ridiculous.

[gwenhwyfaer]

No. Dishonesty is dismissing any argument with which one disagrees as "dishonest" without actually making a substantive counterargument.

If you don't understand how people can make the claim, fine - but please do grasp that all this demonstrates is the paucity of your understanding.

[mdemare]

But there's a lot of pseudoscience being taught today. Maybe Rand shouldn't be taught, but why isn't it? Because of the form of her output (novels)?

[gwenhwyfaer]

Two wrongs don't make a right. I'd say it's more important to stop teaching pseudoscience in science classes than to use it as a justification for teaching pseudophilosophy in philosophy classes. And in general, novels should be taught in literature classes, not philosophy classes - although the example of L'Etranger suggests that there is room for crossover.

(Anyway, the majority of Rand's work takes the form of non-fictional essays. Her novels made her name, but it's clear she saw them only as means to an end.)

[kc5tja]

Actually, there is a good reason TO teach pseudo-science in science classes: to expose the student to literature which is not science. One of the most critical features that defines a person as a "scientist" is his healthy skepticism. This is very often NOT taught in science classes.

Since most pseudo-scientists have a genuine concern over some problem, and they have obviously acquired what little scientific exposure they did from their schooling, then I claim that if more science classes covered pseudo-science, explaining why it is not true science, then I predict a distinct drop in pseudo-science will result.

[neilc]

Actually, Rand had plenty of non-fiction output.

[brennen]

> while Rand is almost the canonical example of a philosophy that attempts to be objective, systematic and rational.

I tend to think of Rand's work as the canonical example of a philosophy that is defined primarily by its _claims of_ being objective, systematic, and rational.

[xentek]

> But she did have an effect on people's lives.

But isn't that the point? Its the only reason I have an interest in philosophy.

--

> didn't have an effect on later developments in philosophy

And in a sense, Paul was arguing against that in this essay. When you think about it, it was exactly this effect that has lead Philosophy to remain so stagnant for so many years.

[uuilly]

I agree with you. Ayn Rand basically says:

-People are self interested.

-This is not a bad thing.

I think those are pretty good axioms to build upon. I don't think Rand came up with a grand unified theory of human behavior but she started from the right place... As opposed to our Greek ancestors...

[geebee]

yes, but what is "self?" what is "interested?" How does the meaning change when you put "self interested" together as a phrase?

As Paul mentioned in his essay, you're already bumping into what words mean.

I can tell you what an integer is, what a square root is, and what a ratio is, and as a result, I can (by looking it up in a book and typing in the text, heh heh) prove that the square root of 2 can't be expressed as the ratio of two integers. But can we do the same thing with the phrase "self interested"? Without pushing the meaning of words out to their breaking point?

[forgotmylastone]

>I can tell you what an integer is, what a square root is, and what a ratio is, and as a result, I can (by looking it up in a book and typing in the text, heh heh) prove that the square root of 2 can't be expressed as the ratio of two integers.

Not without words you can't.

[geebee]

sure, but these words have precise definitions. Paul alluded to this when he wrote "in fact, it would not be a bad definition of math to call it the study of terms that have precise meanings".

"Ratio", "Square Root", and "Integer" have precise definitions, whereas "self interest" is imprecise.

[euccastro]

Define 'precise'. :P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_the...

[uuilly]

Ok but you're jumping down the rabbit hole to quickly. Physicists assume spherical cows, early mathematicians assumed only integers, why can't Rand assume that "self" is the thoughts and actions encased in one's skin? It is a good jump off point and a lot of useful philosophies can be derived from there. Sure they eventually break down once you push the definitions hard enough, but that just means the model needs to be refined. Newtonian Physics needed to be refined as well, that didn't mean it should have been scrapped.

[geebee]

I think there's an important difference here. Early mathematicians started with an exact definition that turned out to be incorrect (ie., that all numbers could be represented as either integers or the ratio of integers).

The refinement you're talking about here isn't so much a matter of modifying an incorrect but exact definition as it is clarifying an irrefutable but ambiguous definition.

That said, maybe something could come of this if you truly got to the very basic building blocks. For instance, an integer is just a definition - an exact one, but a definition nonetheless. So we can define a rational number as the ratio of two integers, and then build a refutable hypothesis from it - that all numbers are either integers or the ratio of integers.

I have serious doubts as to whether "self interest" could ever be defined as precisely as an integer, though.

[asdflkj]

Actually, there already is stuff that's far more refined (and empirically true) than Ayn Rand. It's called evolutionary psychology. Unfortunately, understanding it leaves one feeling rather unedified. It's like realizing that you've been a pawn in somebody else's game, and will continue to be one until your life ends. With Ayn Rand fans, this kind of message doesn't seem to be in demand.

[aaronsw]

Saying that evolutionary psychology is more true than Ayn Rand is damning with awfully faint praise.

[rms]

Any good links/more info on evolutionary psychology?

[aswanson]

Steven Pinker's papers and books, although you have probably already encountered those.

[kc5tja]

"Self" and "interested" never appear in isolation in the above example, so we can only speculate on their precise interpretations when used in isolation. However, the compound concept "self-interested" has a well-defined meaning, even in casual, every-day conversations.

Calling into question the meaning of "self-interested" is merely a filibuster.

[geebee]

I couldn't disagree more. "Self interested" absolutely does not have a well understood meaning in casual, every-day conversations. It's one of the most ambiguous terms out there.

Try this out: at a dinner party (one that you don't care if you're invited back), declare that "all people act out of self-interest, ultimately."

Odds are good that two people will disagree quite vehemently about this, and at the core will be a fundamental disagreement about what it means to be "self-interested".