I’m a big fan of Rand, and I liked her Objectivism work too, but exposure to a lot more philosophy, LW, and college-level math ruined a lot of her non-fiction work for me.
I once dated a ‘card-carrying’ Objectivist and it was, sadly, too much of a ‘religion’ for them and their fellows. They were very upset that I mentioned reading about Rand’s alleged abuse of diet pills or of her ‘reluctantly’ accepting the fact of evolution via natural selection.
But, subject to the law of equal and opposite advice, I still think her ‘message’ or ‘vision’ is important for a lot of people. She is the prime example, to me, of a ‘Kegan level 4’ (fiction) author.
Let’s get our ontology correct. She used philosophical tools to approach philosophical problems, and wrote essays on the results in philosophical terminology. That makes her a philosopher. If her results were incorrect, at worst she’s an incorrect philosopher like so many others throughout history who moved philosophy into “less wrong” territory.
The same is true of Buddhism, and Christianity too: in addition to being religions, they’re philosophies, making ontological and ethical statements and explaining how those were reached. And atheism, while a philosophical viewpoint, also has had religious social structures built around it, such as taboos against self-coding as religious.
Exploring the philosophical “realm” and “mining” new seams of gold ore (or fools’ gold) is what makes one a philosopher, whether one comes in with a pickaxe and mule like the ’49′ers or a bulldozer and dynamite like the industrial strip-miners.
I’m a big fan of Rand, and I liked her Objectivism work too, but exposure to a lot more philosophy, LW, and college-level math ruined a lot of her non-fiction work for me.
I once dated a ‘card-carrying’ Objectivist and it was, sadly, too much of a ‘religion’ for them and their fellows. They were very upset that I mentioned reading about Rand’s alleged abuse of diet pills or of her ‘reluctantly’ accepting the fact of evolution via natural selection.
But, subject to the law of equal and opposite advice, I still think her ‘message’ or ‘vision’ is important for a lot of people. She is the prime example, to me, of a ‘Kegan level 4’ (fiction) author.
She’s just not a philosopher.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree with a ton of her observations. As much as I agree with a ton of Buddhism. It is just not Philosophy.
Let’s get our ontology correct. She used philosophical tools to approach philosophical problems, and wrote essays on the results in philosophical terminology. That makes her a philosopher. If her results were incorrect, at worst she’s an incorrect philosopher like so many others throughout history who moved philosophy into “less wrong” territory.
The same is true of Buddhism, and Christianity too: in addition to being religions, they’re philosophies, making ontological and ethical statements and explaining how those were reached. And atheism, while a philosophical viewpoint, also has had religious social structures built around it, such as taboos against self-coding as religious.
Exploring the philosophical “realm” and “mining” new seams of gold ore (or fools’ gold) is what makes one a philosopher, whether one comes in with a pickaxe and mule like the ’49′ers or a bulldozer and dynamite like the industrial strip-miners.