3 ms·
Nice to see an intelligent comment from someone who actually read Rand (and sounds like they got something out of it) instead of just mouthing things that they
by dmfdmf 11y ago
Nice to see an intelligent comment from someone who actually read Rand (and sounds like they got something out of it) instead of just mouthing things that they heard about her.
For reasons that I won't explain, I think you are right about the FH being a better literary work than AS.
I also agree that her work in politics was not original because most of that work was already done by the others. Her achievement was to provide an ethical base for Capitalism without which it would perish in time. Her greatest achievements are in ethics and epistemology.
I disagree that "she oversimplifies and makes false dichotomies" and I believe that that view confesses a failure to understand the scope of her ideas. She has identified the fundamental error of Kant and his whole system of ideas has collapsed but most intellectuals today are incapable of seeing it. She didn't waste time arguing all the ways Kant is wrong and left that for others to do so the modern intellectuals dismiss her as "unsophisticated" and claim she didn't understand Kant when it is really the other way around.
What she did do was identify the fundamental principles at the base of any philosophy; the primacy of consciousness versus the primacy of existence. This is the battle today and the four philosophers who have staked out consistent positions are Plato/Kant (primacy of consciousness) and Aristotle/Rand (primacy of existence) so if its not obvious, I think she is a philosopher of first rank :-)
- IsaacL 11y agoYou've persuaded me to take another look at her philosophy. If you're still here, any books you'd recommend? Is Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology worth the read? I read Virtue of Selfishness which was OK -- I preferred the Romantic Manifesto as I felt her ideas in there were better worked out.
- dmfdmf 11y agoI would recommend Rand's Philosophy: Who Needs It then Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. The Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (ITOE) is good but is a bit technical and not everyone has the interest and motivation to read it. At the very least, if you can find it at a bookstore, read the intro because it does a good job of setting the historical context on why the theory of concepts is so important. BTW, in some ways The Romantic Manifesto which you mentioned is more difficult than the ITOE.
- IsaacL 11y agoDifficult in what way? (I ask as it's possible my unique mix of interests made it more accessible to me.) I'll take a look at your other books. Also, do you have an email address? I'd like to chat more. Mine is in my profile.
- dmfdmf 11y agoI'd be curious to know your background such that The Romantic Manifesto was an "easy" read. It was not easy for me. As for the difficulty of that book, the topic is one of the widest possible integrations in that she explains the psychological purpose of art, something I don't think anyone has ever done before. She connects the nature of concepts and abstractions to the nature of consciousness (finite) and the psychological (motivational) need to concretize our widest philosophic beliefs. It is truly an historic achievement. I will contact you privately.