Not every famous philosopher had a degree in philosophy or formal training in the field.<\/p>\n
We define\u00a0philosopher<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0<\/em>based on demonstrated rigor of thought and systemic reasoning. A philosophical system reflects coherent theories and models, regardless of the school of philosophy or sub-discipline. Ideally, the system respects known science and social science research at the time of the philosopher.<\/p>\n Ayn Rand<\/a> was not a philosopher<\/strong>.<\/p>\n What bothers me about this is that many progressives and liberals hold out Ayn Rand as an example of libertarian philosophy or conservatism.\u00a0Rand was neither libertarian nor conservative<\/strong>.<\/p>\n She was a writer with strong opinions, often contradictory. She aspired to be accepted as a philosopher without engaging in the rigorous analysis required. The only thread linking her thoughts is Rand herself: she was her own \u201cphilosophy\u201d through readers who don\u2019t understand the nature of philosophy as a discipline.<\/p>\n Libertarianism<\/strong> exists on a spectrum, from left to right, from individualism to collectivism. The coherence begins with utilitarianism\u00a0<\/strong>and incorporates\u00a0ethical egoism<\/strong>. The more utilitarian model, often a more \u201cleft-leaning\u201d libertarianism, supports maximizing benefits for a majority of people. The egoists focus on the self, and that is why they are often conflated with Randian greed.<\/p>\n What libertarians agree on:<\/p>\n Libertarians disagree on some rather significant matters, too. These include:<\/p>\n Rand didn\u2019t have such foundational, consistent, philosophical foundations for her ideas. She was not an ethical egoist.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve written about the problems of Rand and conflating Rand with libertarians in the past. Recently, Scotty Hendricks offered a detailed explanation of why Rand shouldn\u2019t be considered among libertarian philosophers or Austrian economic<\/a> theorists.<\/p>\n The problem with Ayn Rand? She isn’t a philosopher<\/a><\/p>\n January 29, 2018 by SCOTTY HENDRICKS<\/p>\n Ayn Rand\u2019s philosophical work is not taken seriously by academia because it isn\u2019t very good\u2026.\u00a0Before the flame war starts, let me explain why.<\/p>\n Ayn Rand\u2019s fundamental problem is that her arguments aren\u2019t great. They often don\u2019t support the conclusions she wants them to, or they reach conclusions that seem incoherent. Well-reasoned arguments are the critical difference between a person giving their opinion and a philosopher, and she often failed to provide them.<\/p>\n This isn’t to say that a person cannot be a respected philosopher while not working at a university and primarily writing books that are fun to read. Albert Camus<\/a> stands out as an example of it being very possible.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Exactly. Brilliant philosophical thinkers exist without academic credentials. Camus was a philosopher. I would argue Dostoevsky was a philosopher and so was Kafka. These literary thinkers proposed coherent views of life as experienced and coherent value systems. You do not need a doctorate in philosophy to be an important thinker in the discipline. Likewise, we often forget that Adam Smith predated degrees in economics and John Maynard Keynes<\/a> did not complete his degree in economics. Degrees are not the only marker of expertise.<\/p>\n Rand should never be held out as an example of deep thought, any more than I would cite Marx<\/a> as an example of precise scholarship. But at least Marx had a coherent framework onto which he grafted some scholarly errors. Rand was no Marx, regardless of what her cult might believe. Marx\u2019s errors might have been from ignorance, honest mistakes made when offering examples from history.<\/p>\n I can respect Marx. He made mistakes and misstated some history, but he aspired to scholarship and studied the works of other scholars. There\u2019s little evidence Rand truly understood the schools of thought to which she aspired to respond. She was a sloppy thinker, period.<\/p>\n In his essay ‘On the Randian Argument’ libertarian philosopher\u00a0Robert Nozick<\/a>\u00a0pointed out that Rand’s meta-ethical arguments were unsound and didn’t resolve the is-ought problem as she’d hoped. Libertarian philosopher Michael Huemer<\/a> has suggested that her ethics are incoherent<\/strong>. Her arguments for what the chief goal of human life is all use\u00a0changing definitions constantly and seem to drive towards three incompatible ends rather than the one she said she was driving at.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As I mentioned above, Marx \u2014 whom I consider extremely problematic \u2014 studied other disciplines to the best of his ability. He understood other perspectives and engaged them vigorously. Though I find the\u00a0labor theory of value<\/strong> to be flawed, Marx was working from a contemporary understanding of what constitutes a product. Today, we know that\u00a0labor can be conceptual<\/strong>, which is why a Facebook or Twitter might be more valuable than a General Motors or Ford.<\/p>\n Knowing current scholarship and knowing opposing perspectives \u2014 and respecting those with whom you disagree \u2014 is necessary within an academic discipline. Philosophy should be more than name-calling and fallacious arguments. Rand, however, was against other ideas, but what was she for? And her writings rarely manage to defend her own ideas against scrutiny. Any first-year philosophy student should be able to dissect Rand the \u201cphilosopher\u201d if not Rand the creative writer.<\/p>\n Being aware of and accepting towards potential objections to your work is philosophy 101. Even Plato, who was very bad at it, did it from time to time. But any outside observer would think that Rand found disagreement to be objectionable in itself.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Murray Rothbard<\/strong>,\u00a0William F. Buckley<\/strong>, and many other thinkers on the right disliked Ayn Rand<\/a> and her greedy, self-serving pseudo-philosophy. Buckley famously compared reading\u00a0Atlas Shrugged<\/em>\u00a0to self-flagellation. And, for an atheist, Rand\u2019s followers are cultish in their passion. They don\u2019t like to analyze her works, any more than she wanted to have her works subjected to analysis.<\/p>\n\n
\n