kpmancus@phoenix.UUCP (05/20/87)
This seems like the best newsgroup on which to find a philosopher, so
here goes.
I have been reading some of Ayn Rand's writings lately, and while I don't
agree 100%, she generally seems to make sense. But as far as I can see,
the "mainstream" of philosophy has completely ignored her. Could some
kindly philosopher out there tell me the reason for the neglect?
-Keith Mancus <6106728@PUCC>
<kpmancus@phoenix.PRINCETON.EDU>aweinste@diamond.bbn.com.UUCP (05/20/87)
> I have been reading some of Ayn Rand's writings lately...
AAAARRRRRRRRRRGH! There's no escape! Head for the hills!
A former reader of talk.philosophy.misc.,
Anders Weinsteinturpin@ut-sally.UUCP (Russell Turpin) (05/21/87)
In article <318@phoenix.PRINCETON.EDU>, kpmancus@phoenix.PRINCETON.EDU (Keith P. Mancus) writes: > > I have been reading some of Ayn Rand's writings lately, and while I don't > agree 100%, she generally seems to make sense. But as far as I can see, > the "mainstream" of philosophy has completely ignored her. Could some > kindly philosopher out there tell me the reason for the neglect? > > -Keith Mancus <6106728@PUCC> > <kpmancus@phoenix.PRINCETON.EDU> Actually, you have this just the other way around. It is Ayn Rand who ignored mainstream philosophy, including old criticisms of some of the very arguments she used. When she does consider mainstream philosophers, for example, when vilifying Kant, she often misses the point of what they wrote. Russell
rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) (05/22/87)
In article <6033@diamond.BBN.COM> aweinste@Diamond.BBN.COM (Anders Weinstein) writes: >> I have been reading some of Ayn Rand's writings lately... > >AAAARRRRRRRRRRGH! There's no escape! Head for the hills! > >A former reader of talk.philosophy.misc., >Anders Weinstein Why is it that just mentioning the name of Ayn Rand causes such hostile reactions? This person wasn't even spouting Rand doctrine as gospel, as I have seen many times (and that can be annoying). He was asking for information. He, much like me, has apparently read some works by Rand, thought they were interesting, and had some questions. If I remember his exact words (omitted by the author here) he said that he didn't agree fully with Rand, but she seemed to make some sense, yet mainstream philosophy ignores her. More than that, it seems, they scowl at her and her followers with remarks like this every chance they get. I'm not speaking as an Objectivist or anything, since I'm not one. But you have to admit, it makes you wonder why the philosophers and many others shout down Rand and Objectivism so loudly. Perhaps it's because she does have it all absolutely right, and recognizing this would put the philosophers out of a job. ;-) I don't really believe that, of course. From what I've read of Rand, she has some excellent ideas about the nature of philosophy, knowledge, and ethics that she doesn't actually put in practice as objectively as she thinks she does. But it's still interesting to see so many people so anxious to mock this set of ideas. When that many people mock something that ferociously without bothering to acknowledge it seriously, I tend to think that maybe it's something worth looking at. -- Rhonda
eli@haddock.UUCP (Elias Israel) (05/23/87)
In article <1045@chinet.UUCP>, rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) writes: > In article <6033@diamond.BBN.COM> aweinste@Diamond.BBN.COM (Anders Weinstein) writes: > >> I have been reading some of Ayn Rand's writings lately... > > > >AAAARRRRRRRRRRGH! There's no escape! Head for the hills! > > > >A former reader of talk.philosophy.misc., > >Anders Weinstein > > Why is it that just mentioning the name of Ayn Rand causes such hostile > reactions? This person wasn't even spouting Rand doctrine as gospel, as > I have seen many times (and that can be annoying). He was asking for > information. He, much like me, has apparently read some works by Rand, > thought they were interesting, and had some questions. If I remember his > exact words (omitted by the author here) he said that he didn't agree > fully with Rand, but she seemed to make some sense, yet mainstream > philosophy ignores her. More than that, it seems, they scowl at her and > her followers with remarks like this every chance they get. I have to agree and repeat the question: If you have a better idea, say so and prove it. I, too, have some problems with Objectivism, but I think that the epistomology upon which it is based is sound. Ayn failed to finish the work that she started largely because, like most of us, she had some failings and insecurities. She did not understand the joy of doing something *just because it feels good*, even though she would do so often with her "tiddly-wink music" which she loved for no _intelectuall_ reason. She did not understand someone who could make light of themselves because she thought that showed a lack of purpose (a cardinal sin for an objectivist). If you'll pardon the language, my SO has said that the problem with Objectivists is that they Make Love, but they never *fuck*. She loved her friends intensely, but always kept them "on trial". One slip up, perhaps even admitting that the sight of mountains seemed more beautiful than majestic skyscrapers, was "proof" to Ayn that someone was, deep inside, anti-intellectual, an enemy. She obviously could not see, even in herself where it was manifested most strongly, the human need for companions with whom one feels _accepted_, people with whom one feels to belong. Still, with all of the problems, I think that Ayn had pinpointed the intellectual reasons for the battle between Communism and Capitalism. She gave moral sanction to a section of the workforce that has traditionally been regarded as leeches and vampires, showing indeed that EVERYONE has a contribution to make and no one should be prevented from enjoying the fruits of their labors (manual or intelectual). > I'm not speaking as an Objectivist or anything, since I'm not one. But Nor am I (at least, I doubt that Leonard Peikoff would call me one. Perhaps Barbara Brandon would). Reading "The Passion of Ayn Rand" saddened me. It is ironic, I think, that Rand could have learned an important lesson from one of her own characters. In her book _Atlas Shrugged_, the one character that learns something new and deals with the knowledge by adapting his behaviour and feeling comfortable with the change is Hank Reardon. Reardon knew what Rand did not. Philosophies of life do not spring fresh and complete from one's head like Athena from the head of Zeus, but are learned from the passing of time and experience. Illogical or irrational actions are not proof of someone's villainy any more than rational ones are proof of heroism. For these reasons, I cannot accept that Objectivism (as it now stands) is a complete philosophy. Nevertheless, large portions of it remain as the cornerstone of my philosophy. > you have to admit, it makes you wonder why the philosophers and many others > shout down Rand and Objectivism so loudly. Perhaps it's because she does > have it all absolutely right, and recognizing this would put the philosophers > out of a job. ;-) I don't really believe that, of course. From what I've > read of Rand, she has some excellent ideas about the nature of philosophy, > knowledge, and ethics that she doesn't actually put in practice as objectively > as she thinks she does. But it's still interesting to see so many people > so anxious to mock this set of ideas. When that many people mock something > that ferociously without bothering to acknowledge it seriously, I tend to > think that maybe it's something worth looking at. > -- Rhonda Yes, sometimes the supposed opinion of "the masses" is a good guage for what one should strive to avoid opining. Elias Israel Boston, MA ima!haddock!eli
walton@tybalt.caltech.edu (Steve Walton) (05/24/87)
I read _Atlas Shrugged_ and was frankly bored. And if I wanted to
read discussions about it on USENET, I'd read talk.philosophy.misc, to
which I have directed followups. Flames to /dev/null.
Steve Walton, guest as walton@tybalt.caltech.edu
AMETEK Computer Research Division, ametek!walton@csvax.caltech.edu
"Long signatures are definitely frowned upon"--USENET posting rulesandrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (05/25/87)
In article <318@phoenix.PRINCETON.EDU> kpmancus@phoenix.UUCP (Keith P. Mancus) writes: > I have been reading some of Ayn Rand's writings lately, and while I don't >agree 100%, she generally seems to make sense..... NO, MASSA! NO, NO!!! NO Ayn Rand discussions on this newsgroup! *****PLEASE***** this is for technical discussions on the philosophy of science and mathematics!!!!! If *that woman* has ever discussed such topics, feel free to post her thoughts on that... otherwise, DON'T post something about philosophy or pseudo-philosophy or politico-philosophy here just because it has the word "philosophy" in the newsgroup name. in fear & trembling for the future of the newsgroup, --Jamie. ...!seismo!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!andrews "Oh, my Lolita, I have only words to play with"
turpin@ut-sally.UUCP (Russell Turpin) (05/27/87)
In article <1411@ubc-cs.UUCP>, andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jamie Andrews) writes: > NO, MASSA! NO, NO!!! NO Ayn Rand discussions on this newsgroup! > *****PLEASE***** this is for technical discussions on the > philosophy of science and mathematics!!!!! If *that woman* has > ever discussed such topics, feel free to post her thoughts on > that... otherwise, DON'T post something about philosophy or > pseudo-philosophy or politico-philosophy here ... > --Jamie. Rand did write a short work on what she thought was epistemology. (It was actually more along the lines of intuitive psychology. Another example of what happens when an author doesn't understand what others have written in the subject area.) Russell food for programs . . . . end food for programs7