>> |
>> | The Center, based in Spotsylvania, Virginia, is closely affiliated
>> with
>> | the Ayn Rand Institute. Rand was the philosopher who laid the
>> | intellectual groundwork for Reaganism (Alan Greenspan is a Rand
>> fan) --
>> | no law restraining corporate power is a good law.
>
>
>Excuse me, I have to gag.  Rand was NOT a philosopher, though she may have
>claimed as much.  She couldn't get her political theories straight in any
>of her work.


Ben,
I'm interested in your opinion of Rand and wonder what your (mostly)
unstated reasons are for asserting that she is not a philosopher.  Is it
because she worked primarily in the medium of fiction?  By that standard,
Iris Murdoch wouldn't count as a philospher.  Is it because she didn't
possess professional academic credentials as a philosopher?  Lots of
important philosophers in the past didn't hold academic posts.  Or perhaps
are you more comfortable in categorizing her (with J.S. Mill) as an
economist rather than as a philosopher (as they do on the Dead Economists
Society web page: http://cac.psu.edu/~jdm114/ )?

Hmmm.  Or is it that you simply don't AGREE with her philosophy? i.e. with
her radical individualism and its basis in ethical egoism.  "She couldn't
get her political theories straight in any of her work," as you put it.  Do
you think she was simply *wrong*?  But surely this can't be a reason.
Thinking a philosopher is wrong is no grounds to dismiss him/her as a
philosopher.   I personally think Tom Regan is wrong most of the time.  I
still consider him a philosopher.

Or perhaps you meant to argue that "Rand was not a GOOD philosopher," for
other reasons.  That would make more sense.  Your brief argument, however,
seems to be:

(Novelist) Rand (foolishly) claimed to be a philosopher;
Her political theories were wrong;
Therefore, "Rand was NOT a philosopher."

Maybe I'm missing some of your supplementary premises?  I bet that's it.

Here's another consideration.  Sociologists of science sometimes refer to
the "boundary-work" that scientists engage in to draw a line between
legitimate "science" versus everything else; although the concept is
applicable to other academic disciplines and to other professions.  [See
for example Gieryn, Thomas F. 1983. Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of
Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies
of Scientists. American Sociological Review 48 (December):781-795.]  Gieryn
writes that "Boundary-work is . . . a rhetorical style common in 'public
science' . . . in which scientists describe science for the public and its
political authorities, sometimes hoping to enlarge the material and
symbolic resources of scientists or to defend professional autonomy" (782).
You see boundary work e.g. in discussions of pure vs. applied science;
evolutionism vs. creation science; etc.

The claim coming from a philosopher that someone else is NOT a philosopher
sounds an awful lot like boundary-work:  It's like saying, "I do real
philosophy, whereas so-and-so is nothing but a phony."  Now, in the case of
science, the benefits of such line-drawing are obvious: garnering research
funding, improving one's status, etc.  But the benefits in philosophy are
less obvious.  Why would someone want to draw the circle around
"philosophers," and then leave a figure like Ayn Rand out of the circle?

I mean, why then would you bother teaching Ayn Rand to your
undergrads--aren't you in this case just wasting these philosophy students'
valuable time and hard earned tuition dollars?

Just curious,
Jim T.

I teach her to my undergrads, but that's only because she
>makes a terrific punching bag.
>
>Phew.  Sorry.  Anyway, interesting post.  Thanks.
>
>Ben Hale