Philosophy

I just started an introduction to philosophy course and my "teacher" told the whole class, as well as me, that Ayn Rand is not a philosopher and that just because -ism on the end of a word doesn't make it a philosophy. He also proceeded to say that if anyone over the age of 21 is reading Ayn Rand that "their is something wrong with that person." Is this man correct? I mean, I believe that Ayn Rand is a philosopher and that objectivism is a philosophy, am I wrong?

Comments

It sounds as though you really touched a raw nerve given your professor's (or "teacher's") reaction! It might not be a great idea to write your first paper for him or her defending Rand, but, on the other hand, if your professor is truly philosophical in the best sense (open to counter-arguments) maybe that is a challenge you should consider!!!! In fact, it might even be a great learning experience for both you and the professor to not let the issue be settled by his or her pronouncement.

On Rand and Philosophy: Rand was certainly an intelligent writer who engages important philosophical ideas and she was an effective novelist. Last spring I actually did a tutorial / independent study with a student on Rand's work; I believe both the student and I found the project rewarding. In the general sense of the word "philosophy" and "philosopher" I see no reason not to use both with respect to objectivism and of her, but this is not at all widely recognized in the profession. I could be wrong about this, but I do not think she is listed in any of the current, major encyclopedias of philosophy, though I just looked up The Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion edited by William Reese and see that she did make it into that one. Her position might be similar to another popular write, C.S. Lewis. Lewis is in the second edition of the Macmillan Encyclopedia and he does get cited by philosophers of religion from time to time (one of Lewis's arguments has been re-formulated by a very famous philosopher of religion, Alvin Plantinga), but Lewis's work is probably not considered to be up to the highest standards one expects from figures in standard histories of philosophy. This is not necessarily a huge put-down. After all, Thoreau is not standardly included in histories of philosophy, but certainly he was (in the general sense) deeply philosophical and culturally significant (as well as a hero, in my view).

I will hazard a guess as to why your professor reacted a bit negatively and made the comment about age (being under or over 21). Rand is a very energetic thinker who prizes health and strength. I hope you will not be offended by this, but I think she may even be described as an aristocratic thinker or philosopher. One of my colleagues describes her as "Nietzsche without the fun"; I would differ as I have had more fun reading her than Nietzsche but she does, like Nietzsche, have very little empathy for the weak or injured or vulnerable. (I should add that Nietzsche is a nuanced thinker, and thus my description of him should be treated as a rather broad generalization.) Possibly your professor was of the mind that Rand is the kind of thinker (I will say philosopher) who appeals to the healthy, the strong person who has great potential to play a powerful role in life. But (maybe this is what the professor was thinking) once you are over 21 and you see the precious value of persons of all abilities and positions, you will come to a more encompassing, maybe even compassionate philosophy.

Good luck with your course!!!!!!!! I probably have some typos in the above reply, but be sure to correct your spelling when you submit your first paper, e.g. I assume you meant to write "There is something...." rather than "Their is....." OK, a bit pedantic, but I am trying to help!

Read another response by Charles Taliaferro

Read another response about Philosophy