5 ms·

You are horribly misinformed. Opinions or merits of the book aside, Ayn Rand is viewed as a crackpot and is generally (I'm sure there are exceptions) not taken

by jgg 13y ago

You are horribly misinformed. Opinions or merits of the book aside, Ayn Rand is viewed as a crackpot and is generally (I'm sure there are exceptions) not taken seriously in academia, and I have never heard of any public highschool that views Atlas Shrugged as critical reading.

mdellabitta 13y ago
We read "The Fountainhead," if that's anything. Doesn't mean the rest of what you said is wrong.
- jgg 13y ago
  I definitely should have been more clear. I meant that in terms of formal philosophy, she isn't usually ranked up there with Plato, Nietzsche or Kant, and that as far as literature goes, I haven't seen too many highschools advocating Atlas Shrugged. Universities might (I'm not really sure), but even then, I'm not sure it's really regarded as a "classic." I don't think everything she has to say is bad, wrong or unimportant, even if I think she was nutty, verbose and a poor writer, but I was pointing out that she isn't nearly as important, from my perspective, as the OP claimed.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    I have never heard of any public highschool that views Atlas Shrugged as critical reading It's (been) required reading at West Point, amongst other places in the US. High-school reading lists are probably poor indicators: Plato, Nietzche, and Kant would be Atypical if not unheard of (if that is your standard). Atlas shrugged has other interesting reasons to read it, however. Its main theme is actually dealing with assholes at work. Academics are embarrased by it, because its filled with "non-collegial" behaviour. But that just means they don't get out much. Economics as a field which assumes opportunistic and deceitful behaviour are non-events. Atlas Shrugged is a great reminder of the fallacy in that. A typical Economist would consider Rand a "Crackpot", for using opportunistic and deceitful behaviour as basis for an empirical philosophy. But consider that lawyers get paid to write contracts to mitigaet the very dangers that economists assume away. Your Lawyer will tell you...never trust an Economist...theyre all crackpots and live in Ivy towers. =D As a side bar, have you actually read Nietzche? I think academics (and a few of his old landlords) would consider him more of a "crackpot" than Rand. Clearly Rand and Nietzsche have nothing in common? Perhaps other than its the lie that tells the truth.
    - FreakLegion 13y ago
      Plato and Nietzsche are far from atypical. Being two of the West's most literary philosophers, they routinely turn up in high school. Excerpts from Plato's Repulic (e.g. The Allegory of the Cave) and any of Nietzsche's aphoristic works are especially common. Academics are embarrased by it, because its filled with "non-collegial" behaviour. But that just means they don't get out much. Where on earth are you getting this? Academics celebrate texts far less collegial than Rand's. Rand's work, as literature, is dismissed because, as literature, it isn't very good. Her work isn't taken seriously or engaged with philosophically for other reasons, but propriety isn't one of them. To invoke the ancient stereotype of the "stuffy academic" is ludicrous. Academics today are probably the most open-minded, least proprietous group around. I think academics (and a few of his old landlords) would consider him more of a "crackpot" than Rand. I can't speak to the attitudes of his old landlords, but no, modern academics do not consider him a crackpot. For political reasons he was in and out of favor around the times of WW1 and WW2 (due to the misappropriation of his work by various groups, most famously the Nazis), but he's never ceased to be hugely important to continental philosophy, and Walter Kauffmann set the record straight and rehabilitated his image for the English-speaking world decades ago.
      - 001sky 13y ago
        As a historical point, Nietszche was considered "unemployable" by german Academia following Zara. and BGE printed on his own dime. He was widely (wrongly) viewed as tin foil hat (nihlist, etc) for 100 years. PG's great essay on the history of philosophy doesn't even mention him (http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html). Nevertheless, look where he ends up... In the humanities you can either avoid drawing any definite conclusions (e.g. conclude that an issue is a complex one), or draw conclusions so narrow that no one cares enough to disagree with you. The kind of philosophy I'm advocating won't be able to take either of these routes. At best you'll be able to achieve the essayist's standard of proof..." Sound familiar? Slightly Nietzshean? Likewise, Rand's heterodox views have made her about as popular as Larry Summers at a "women in STEM" mixer, but then she pre-dated by 50 years the 3 [economics] nobels that took Nietszchen epistimology seriously (1991, 2002, 2009). People still confuse here work with being expositions of free-market economics. This of course is non-sensical. What is relevant and unique is that she takes seriously the key omitted behavioural assumptions of neo-liberal Economics. Which is a contr-indication of blind support for neo-liberal economics.[1] Her work is most intersting in its analysis of the internal workings of firms, a point directly off the map of neo-classical economics (Coase: the nature of the firm 1932, nobel 1991), in particular the non-market (hierarchy) driven decisioning mechanics. The nature of these dynamics (ie, expositions of opportunism and bounded rationality), are precisely the types of discussions dismissed by post-frege philosophy as 'crackpot', in the sense of not being formalistically relevant to Academic philosophy (viz: At best you'll be able to achieve the essayist's standard of proof). But these topics are slightly more interesting than that. And not exactly the work of a "crackpot". _______ [1] Ironically, "L"iberal interventionist economic types have a greater problem with her critique of "conservative" economics. Her critique of the neo-classical assumptions also applies to its derivatives, including the variant of neo-classical commonly known as 'welfare' economics. This is the modern "L"iberal branch of economics. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_economics
  - scribble73 13y ago
    Ayn Rand's Atlas and Fountainhead are literature in the same sense that Harriet Beacher Stowe's "uncle Tom's Cabin" is literature. These three pulp novels address important topics, but in shamefully oversimplified ways that almost defame the topics they present. Their authors both caught lightening in a bottle by accident. West Point has no business assigning either book to any class presented to a future Army Officer. I mean it: None. I would get rid of any instructor who required students to read either Atlas or Fountainhead. The heroes in both books behave immorally by any sane standard, in terms of what West Point Cadets are being taught in their other classes. Howard Roark commits a violent rape in Chapter Two -- later, he blows up a sky scraper. John Galt would simply be considered a terrorist today.
    - jgg 13y ago
      You replied to the wrong comment.
    - ropman76 13y ago
      So you want them only to read what has been "approved"? At that rate they should stop reading Noam Chomsky because he may have writings not favorable to the US Military. The idea of education (even at a US Military Academy) is let students read a diverse group of authors in order to make well informed moral decisions once they get into the field. Saying a book has "dangerous" ideas is akin to a people wanting to burn books because they object to what is being written.

by jgg 13y ago

mdellabitta 13y ago

We read "The Fountainhead," if that's anything. Doesn't mean the rest of what you said is wrong.

jgg 13y ago
I definitely should have been more clear. I meant that in terms of formal philosophy, she isn't usually ranked up there with Plato, Nietzsche or Kant, and that as far as literature goes, I haven't seen too many highschools advocating Atlas Shrugged. Universities might (I'm not really sure), but even then, I'm not sure it's really regarded as a "classic." I don't think everything she has to say is bad, wrong or unimportant, even if I think she was nutty, verbose and a poor writer, but I was pointing out that she isn't nearly as important, from my perspective, as the OP claimed.
- 001sky 13y ago
  I have never heard of any public highschool that views Atlas Shrugged as critical reading It's (been) required reading at West Point, amongst other places in the US. High-school reading lists are probably poor indicators: Plato, Nietzche, and Kant would be Atypical if not unheard of (if that is your standard). Atlas shrugged has other interesting reasons to read it, however. Its main theme is actually dealing with assholes at work. Academics are embarrased by it, because its filled with "non-collegial" behaviour. But that just means they don't get out much. Economics as a field which assumes opportunistic and deceitful behaviour are non-events. Atlas Shrugged is a great reminder of the fallacy in that. A typical Economist would consider Rand a "Crackpot", for using opportunistic and deceitful behaviour as basis for an empirical philosophy. But consider that lawyers get paid to write contracts to mitigaet the very dangers that economists assume away. Your Lawyer will tell you...never trust an Economist...theyre all crackpots and live in Ivy towers. =D As a side bar, have you actually read Nietzche? I think academics (and a few of his old landlords) would consider him more of a "crackpot" than Rand. Clearly Rand and Nietzsche have nothing in common? Perhaps other than its the lie that tells the truth.
  - FreakLegion 13y ago
    Plato and Nietzsche are far from atypical. Being two of the West's most literary philosophers, they routinely turn up in high school. Excerpts from Plato's Repulic (e.g. The Allegory of the Cave) and any of Nietzsche's aphoristic works are especially common. Academics are embarrased by it, because its filled with "non-collegial" behaviour. But that just means they don't get out much. Where on earth are you getting this? Academics celebrate texts far less collegial than Rand's. Rand's work, as literature, is dismissed because, as literature, it isn't very good. Her work isn't taken seriously or engaged with philosophically for other reasons, but propriety isn't one of them. To invoke the ancient stereotype of the "stuffy academic" is ludicrous. Academics today are probably the most open-minded, least proprietous group around. I think academics (and a few of his old landlords) would consider him more of a "crackpot" than Rand. I can't speak to the attitudes of his old landlords, but no, modern academics do not consider him a crackpot. For political reasons he was in and out of favor around the times of WW1 and WW2 (due to the misappropriation of his work by various groups, most famously the Nazis), but he's never ceased to be hugely important to continental philosophy, and Walter Kauffmann set the record straight and rehabilitated his image for the English-speaking world decades ago.
    - 001sky 13y ago
      As a historical point, Nietszche was considered "unemployable" by german Academia following Zara. and BGE printed on his own dime. He was widely (wrongly) viewed as tin foil hat (nihlist, etc) for 100 years. PG's great essay on the history of philosophy doesn't even mention him (http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html). Nevertheless, look where he ends up... In the humanities you can either avoid drawing any definite conclusions (e.g. conclude that an issue is a complex one), or draw conclusions so narrow that no one cares enough to disagree with you. The kind of philosophy I'm advocating won't be able to take either of these routes. At best you'll be able to achieve the essayist's standard of proof..." Sound familiar? Slightly Nietzshean? Likewise, Rand's heterodox views have made her about as popular as Larry Summers at a "women in STEM" mixer, but then she pre-dated by 50 years the 3 [economics] nobels that took Nietszchen epistimology seriously (1991, 2002, 2009). People still confuse here work with being expositions of free-market economics. This of course is non-sensical. What is relevant and unique is that she takes seriously the key omitted behavioural assumptions of neo-liberal Economics. Which is a contr-indication of blind support for neo-liberal economics.[1] Her work is most intersting in its analysis of the internal workings of firms, a point directly off the map of neo-classical economics (Coase: the nature of the firm 1932, nobel 1991), in particular the non-market (hierarchy) driven decisioning mechanics. The nature of these dynamics (ie, expositions of opportunism and bounded rationality), are precisely the types of discussions dismissed by post-frege philosophy as 'crackpot', in the sense of not being formalistically relevant to Academic philosophy (viz: At best you'll be able to achieve the essayist's standard of proof). But these topics are slightly more interesting than that. And not exactly the work of a "crackpot". _______ [1] Ironically, "L"iberal interventionist economic types have a greater problem with her critique of "conservative" economics. Her critique of the neo-classical assumptions also applies to its derivatives, including the variant of neo-classical commonly known as 'welfare' economics. This is the modern "L"iberal branch of economics. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_economics
- scribble73 13y ago
  Ayn Rand's Atlas and Fountainhead are literature in the same sense that Harriet Beacher Stowe's "uncle Tom's Cabin" is literature. These three pulp novels address important topics, but in shamefully oversimplified ways that almost defame the topics they present. Their authors both caught lightening in a bottle by accident. West Point has no business assigning either book to any class presented to a future Army Officer. I mean it: None. I would get rid of any instructor who required students to read either Atlas or Fountainhead. The heroes in both books behave immorally by any sane standard, in terms of what West Point Cadets are being taught in their other classes. Howard Roark commits a violent rape in Chapter Two -- later, he blows up a sky scraper. John Galt would simply be considered a terrorist today.
  - jgg 13y ago
    You replied to the wrong comment.
  - ropman76 13y ago
    So you want them only to read what has been "approved"? At that rate they should stop reading Noam Chomsky because he may have writings not favorable to the US Military. The idea of education (even at a US Military Academy) is let students read a diverse group of authors in order to make well informed moral decisions once they get into the field. Saying a book has "dangerous" ideas is akin to a people wanting to burn books because they object to what is being written.