Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The subject of Rigor and Ayn Rand's critics in academia.

Rate this topic


Lazariun

Recommended Posts

Today I sat with one of my philosophy professors in his office discussing some of our course material and tangential subjects that came up. One of these was Rand, and my influence to become a philosophy major due to her work. My professor was quite surprised by this, and I responded that that didn't surprise -me-, as many Philosophers claim that her philosophy isn't very rigorous. I myself am beginning to get some inkling of why they say this. Much of Rand's work seems scattered over several different writings, and a concise dialectic hasn't really been written. Even Peikoff's OPAR doesn't seem that in depth when compared to the Cogito.

Admittedly, my professor labored under some of the very common misunderstandings about Rand and Objectivism. I explained some of these that I understood, and he seemed opened to listening to them, but what this whole conversation has left me with is a desire to integrate Rand into the education I will receive in University. So how do Objectivist philosophers answer the claim that Rand's philosophy isn't rigorous?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say no amount of rigor will make it more true, and it is already rigorous enough to establish that it is true.

What about modern philosophy is rigorous? Can rationalism be rigorous? Rigorous means applying strict standards. But the standards of evaluation are precisely what is under dispute. By the standard of being true, only Objectivism is or could ever be rigorous.

But yes, we surely need more books on Objectivism. Every chapter of OPAR could be exploded into dozens of books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say no amount of rigor will make it more true, and it is already rigorous enough to establish that it is true.

What about modern philosophy is rigorous? Can rationalism be rigorous? Rigorous means applying strict standards. But the standards of evaluation are precisely what is under dispute. By the standard of being true, only Objectivism is or could ever be rigorous.

But yes, we surely need more books on Objectivism. Every chapter of OPAR could be exploded into dozens of books.

Yes, modern philosophy is largely a collection of books filled with word soup. Ayn Rand blows the vast majority of that out of the water.

Now, there are Objectivist philosophers in academia, e.g. Tara Smith, who fill out many details of Ayn Rand's work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how do Objectivist philosophers answer the claim that Rand's philosophy isn't rigorous?

Frankly, I have no idea of what they mean by "rigorous" if they are going to consider, say Kant or Descartes to be rigorous. What they usually mean is that Ayn Rand didn't discuss many of the "problematic" things that they love to get involved in, which have nothing to do with living on earth. Atlas Shrugged is very rigorous, if by that you mean logical as in non-contradictory identification of the facts of reality as given by the senses. What is not rigorous is going around trying to figure out the noumena when there is absolutely no evidence for it whatsoever. They are very good at rationalism, of getting caught up in strings of premises that have no connection to reality. So I would say they are the ones who are not rigorous.

By the way, be careful that you understand Objectivism well enough before studying philosophy under these guys, or they will turn you into one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today I sat with one of my philosophy professors in his office discussing some of our course material and tangential subjects that came up. One of these was Rand, and my influence to become a philosophy major due to her work. My professor was quite surprised by this, and I responded that that didn't surprise -me-, as many Philosophers claim that her philosophy isn't very rigorous. I myself am beginning to get some inkling of why they say this. Much of Rand's work seems scattered over several different writings, and a concise dialectic hasn't really been written. Even Peikoff's OPAR doesn't seem that in depth when compared to the Cogito.

Admittedly, my professor labored under some of the very common misunderstandings about Rand and Objectivism. I explained some of these that I understood, and he seemed opened to listening to them, but what this whole conversation has left me with is a desire to integrate Rand into the education I will receive in University. So how do Objectivist philosophers answer the claim that Rand's philosophy isn't rigorous?

The discredit Ayn Rand because her ideas are clear. Ideas presented clearly belong in childish dreams, not in serious academia. They have an anti-mind philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The complaint I've heard about Rand is that her philosophy is too "simplistic". The rebuttal is of course to propose that other simplistic explanations be done away with, starting with the concept of God and moving through to others like E=MC2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even Peikoff's OPAR doesn't seem that in depth when compared to the Cogito.
Perhaps this is the essential difference, and the fact that sets Objectivism apart from other philosophies methodologically. The method of Objectivism is to identify fundamental facts, and then elaborate consequences by adding a nuance (as Smith and Peikoff, especially, have done). Thus Objectivism starts at the level of broad generalizations. It seems to me that the dominant method, followed by other philosophies, is to start at the nit-picky level. This means that many fundamental concepts must be simply taken for granted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps this is the essential difference, and the fact that sets Objectivism apart from other philosophies methodologically. The method of Objectivism is to identify fundamental facts, and then elaborate consequences by adding a nuance (as Smith and Peikoff, especially, have done). Thus Objectivism starts at the level of broad generalizations. It seems to me that the dominant method, followed by other philosophies, is to start at the nit-picky level. This means that many fundamental concepts must be simply taken for granted.

Yes, I think you've nailed it. When other philosophers start with for example, a moral question, one needs to back all the way up to the metaphysical assumptions that underlie the conclusion, in order to properly evaluate the original moral question. Usually this is no simple task, but Rand and Peikoff were/are quite good at boiling complex questions down to their fundamental, understandable level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, be careful that you understand Objectivism well enough before studying philosophy under these guys, or they will turn you into one of them.

I think I have a decent understanding. It helps that I came to many of the same conclusions as Rand before I encountered her, but she helped me untangle my mixed premises and discard some bad ideas. I've read AS, VoS and OPAR. My grasp is strong, although in discussion with a philosophy professor it can be a chore to explain. I haven't completely integrated it to the point I can seamlessly debate and refute every claim thrown at me. But no worries, I have no intention of becoming an intrinsicist anytime soon. :)

I did think it was interesting that this professor's favorite philosopher was Hegel. I don't know much about him, but I gather that he was an influence on Marx. Most of the time as I described Objectivism's take on the topics we were discussing he would interject and say, "Oh, well, that's Locke." or "Well, that's Hobbes." or "That sounds like Kant's Categorical Imperative sloppily mashed with Nietszche." His general complaint seemed to be that she didn't come up with anything new. That immediately seemed niggling to me though. From what I can see, very few philosophers have come up with any completely original ideas since Plato and Aristotle. They all seem like variations on the same ideas. Rand seems original in that she argues from the validity of the senses, accepts only what reason dictates and doesn't accept the mixed results of other philosopher's packaged ideas. Sure, there are some similarities, and maybe she was influenced, but that didn't strike me as the kind of damning dismissal he couched it as. Besides, if we were dismissing people's ideas on the grounds of influence I think he'd be on much shakier legs.

There is one thing I do like about this man though. He didn't immediately dismiss me or my positions. He seemed interested in learning, and regarding Relativism he said: "Relativism disgusts me also. I think it should disgust anyone who loves truth."

Edited by Lazariun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the time as I described Objectivism's take on the topics we were discussing he would interject and say, "Oh, well, that's Locke." or "Well, that's Hobbes." or "That sounds like Kant's Categorical Imperative sloppily mashed with Nietszche." His general complaint seemed to be that she didn't come up with anything new.
This is a exemplification of the prevalent disease of excess historicism and deference that has plagued philosophy since the early Greeks. For example, read the Theaetetus and see how "the author" constantly pays homage to wrong-headed ideas. The result of this trend has been to veritably reduce philosophy to pigeonholing ideas, and taking the idea of "dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants" as an axiom of philosophical development.

Whereas a typical academic philosophical paper will easily be occupied in the first half with a review of prior history and half of the remainder of the paper by justifying the current idea by reference to prior philosophizing on the topic, Objectivist philosophical writing typically cuts straight to the chase and states what the facts are, and what conclusions should be drawn from those facts. Of course an article written this way will never be accepted by a contemporary academic journal, and therefore many outlets for Objectivist writing have been non-academic. This of course encourages academic philosophers to believe that Objectivism "lacks rigor".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I have a decent understanding. It helps that I came to many of the same conclusions as Rand before I encountered her, but she helped me untangle my mixed premises and discard some bad ideas. I've read AS, VoS and OPAR. My grasp is strong, although in discussion with a philosophy professor it can be a chore to explain. I haven't completely integrated it to the point I can seamlessly debate and refute every claim thrown at me. But no worries, I have no intention of becoming an intrinsicist anytime soon. :)

I did think it was interesting that this professor's favorite philosopher was Hegel. I don't know much about him, but I gather that he was an influence on Marx. Most of the time as I described Objectivism's take on the topics we were discussing he would interject and say, "Oh, well, that's Locke." or "Well, that's Hobbes." or "That sounds like Kant's Categorical Imperative sloppily mashed with Nietszche." His general complaint seemed to be that she didn't come up with anything new.

That is absurd. Her ethical theory is original. Her theory of concept formation is original (the idea of measurement omission). Her concept of "non-initiation of force" is original. Her method of validating her premises is original. And the whole thing is an integrated system of thought, which makes her a throw back to the Greeks, something she would be proud of. As an integrated system of thought, there isn't anything as good out there.

Also keep in mind that Ayn Rand rejected most of modern philosophy. She threw it on the scrap heap, because it was all built on faulty premises going back to at least Hume.

As to Hegel, Hegel was the biggest influence in Germany in the 19th century. He was all the rage then. His ideas led to Communism, as he was a strong influence on Marx. Hegel was a Kantian, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thales mentioned rationalism above. That's right, the claim of current philosophy students and teachers to "rigor" is the insane detail and hyper analysis -- complete with diagrams, symbolic language and arrows -- they bring to bear on the starting formulation -- without needing the existents in the formulation to be real or their identity established. In fact they are insulted that you care about the validation of the existents.

I have encountered tremendously intense Christian Presuppositionalist philosophers that can manipulate this game for pages, replete with typical rhetoric and gaming associated with the Necessary/Contingent and Analytic/Synthetic speghetti. They consider themselves tremendously rigorous, as a result. However, if you challenge them on the existents themselves, they just say they are "divinely revealed."

I also wonder how much of Plato was new. As I get older it looks more and more like Eastern Religion of some sort to me. Just as I feel Jesus might have been an actual student of Plato's line, it is no stretch to imagine some wandering Eastern mystic directly informing Plato, or of Plato having traveled.

In the face of that, Aristotle holding that reality is 'this world of particulars' is new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have encountered tremendously intense Christian Presuppositionalist philosophers that can manipulate this game for pages, replete with typical rhetoric and gaming associated with the Necessary/Contingent and Analytic/Synthetic speghetti. They consider themselves tremendously rigorous, as a result. However, if you challenge them on the existents themselves, they just say they are "divinely revealed."

The Maverick Philosopher comes to mind - Binswanger recently went at it with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the claim that Objectivism lacks rigor in some regards is valid. And if it’s true, it’s not necessarily a knock against Objectivism, as I think that the “rigorous” alternatives to Objectivism are weaker philosophies, rigor or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Maverick Philosopher comes to mind - Binswanger recently went at it with him.

Yeah brian, i had him in mind. When he was attacking Ayn Rand for about a month a ways back I tangled with him. I was judged a rude and stupid Randoid syncohant and banned from posting. All I did was challenge him to validate existents back to objective reality with 'some method other than God" and for some justification for deploying synthetic/analytic necessary/contingent other than "Kant told me to do it."

I was also slammed by other Objectivist for my posts there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how do Objectivist philosophers answer the claim that Rand's philosophy isn't rigorous?
Rand's own books are not going to satisfy most Philosophy professors. They really do not speak to context that many of them hold. These folks have studied various philosophers and have also studied various objections to those philosophers. So, when your professor goes "Oh! that's Locke", part of his unstated conclusion is that he can dismiss that to whatever extent he already thinks Locke can be dismissed on that particular issue. Rand did not even write a book on Philosophy, other than ITOE. Peikoff's OPAR organizes Rand's ideas into a single book; so, it gives a professional philosopher something more concrete, but it is still not written to an audience of philosophy students.

Tara Smith's books are different. A book like "Viable Values" clearly addresses an audience of philosophy students. It is rigorous in the sense that it does not spend almost all its time on the presentation of the Objectivist viewpoint. Instead, it devotes a lot of time to exploring how other philosophers have attempted to answer a particular question, to arguments about the pros and cons of those approaches, and so on. Only books written at that level will begin to address academic philosophers.

So, the answer to "how do Objectivist philosophers answer the claim..." is that they should write books that are addressed to professional philosophers, in the way Tara Smith is doing.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the answer to "how do Objectivist philosophers answer the claim..." is that they should write books that are addressed to professional philosophers, in the way Tara Smith is doing.

While this is what the academician thinks of as rigorous -- writing about what other philosophers have had to say on various topics -- Objectivism has a different approach; and that is to start with observation of reality and create a philosophy from that. It is true that Ayn Rand didn't address much directly regarding what other philosophers had to say, but she came up with a philosophy that is true to reality, and not just analysis of other philosophers. In other words, Miss Rand didn't spend her time writing analysis or refutations of other philosophers, which is traditional going way back to Plato and Aristotle, she wrote about how Objectivism will help you to understand the world and live better in it. In other words, philosophy and being a professional philosopher does not involve analyzing other philosophers, it involves understanding existence and human consciousness. So, Objectivism does have a different approach. While it might be necessary to understand the total context of philosophy per se to be an academician, it is not necessary to be an Objectivist. Understanding the total historic context is important to some -- I have a degree in philosophy and I found it helpful -- Objectivism is a philosophy for every man who wants to understand the world, and it not just for academics. And that is a crucial difference. Ayn Rand understood that every man needs a philosophy, and that it is not just for professional philosophers, and that is why the academician despises her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While this is what the academician thinks of as rigorous -- writing about what other philosophers have had to say on various topics -- Objectivism has a different approach; and that is to start with observation of reality and create a philosophy from that.
The original poster was not asking how one discovers a philosophy or how one explores it in depth. He was speaking about a specific criticism. That criticism will not go away unless one presents Objectivism in a certain way. In essence, one has to present it taking into account the context of one's audience. If that audience is a set of regular folk, one does not have to do anything more than what Rand has already done. However, if that audience is an audience of professional philosophers, one has to take their context into account. This does not imply that one starts with some arbitrary nit-picky question. However, it does imply that one has to take a slightly "meta" approach. It means that one has to take into account what others have said, frame those views into a certain meta-philosophical framework, use that framework to critique the major alternatives, and finally demonstrate where Objectivism fits into that framework and why it gets around the various critiques. In addition, one must demonstrate a fairly detailed knowledge of alternative philosophies.

Of course, I'm not recommending that one should do this as some type of out-of-context absolute. Personally, I would find it to be a boring task. However, for someone who is interested in philosophy and also interested in convincing academic philosophers, this could becomes a should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every academic publication must include contextualization, by way of establishing what is new to the instant publication. This follows from the nature of academic publications. The extent to which one weighs a paper down with the historical review is a matter of choice and also standards in the field. It has been de rigeur for millenia that philosophical works pay homage to the relevant giants in the field, often to a regrettable extent. My opinion is that Tara Smith has done an excellent job in her publications of contextualizing her work while not getting bogged down in pseudo-issues. I recommend her as a model for others having an interest in academic philosophy. (Not to diss other Objectivist academic philosophers, I simply haven't read their professional works).

The fundamental question is, do you want to pursue an academic career in philosophy? If not, then you can entirely ignore Kant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It means that one has to take into account what others have said, frame those views into a certain meta-philosophical framework, use that framework to critique the major alternatives, and finally demonstrate where Objectivism fits into that framework and why it gets around the various critiques. In addition, one must demonstrate a fairly detailed knowledge of alternative philosophies.

Of course, I'm not recommending that one should do this as some type of out-of-context absolute. Personally, I would find it to be a boring task. However, for someone who is interested in philosophy and also interested in convincing academic philosophers, this could becomes a should.

Yes, this is my interest.

The fundamental question is, do you want to pursue an academic career in philosophy? If not, then you can entirely ignore Kant.

I am strongly interested in it at this point. I love philosophy, and I think Rand is correct. I would like to help further Objectivism as the prevalent position in academia, as I believe that will have a trickle-down effect into the sciences and culture as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you ever write a book like that, I guess the most important thing is that the topic be of interest to you -- i.e. that you are inspired to learn about and tell others about the specific topic you choose. There are all sorts of topics and sub-topics one might explore.

Other than Tara Smith, take a look at John McCaskey's web-site. After the courses he teaches, you'll see some of his publications. All sorts of topics that could be of interest to a student of philosophy, though they don't always tie in to Objectivism.

Just today I was thinking that an interesting study could be done of various philosophers who leaned toward egoism. For instance, Epicurus, the Chinese Yang Chu (see text), the Indian philosopher Carvaka, and likely many others I've never heard of came to some type of egoistic morality. In what ways were they the same? For instance, did they share a certain epistemology or metaphysics, and if so why is that related to egoism? How were they different? Where did they go wrong? "Groping toward Egoism: A Study across the Centuries"... kinda thing. Lot of such topics that one can also tie in to Rand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From The Letters of Ayn Rand, a letter to philosopher John Hospers:

3. You write: "sometimes they (the teachers) seem to be concerned with minor or trivial points, especially when they employ technical language, as they must do to make progress in their particular field of knowledge." You imply that this is what I would oppose. Far from it: I hold that no point is minor or trivial, in any field of knowledge—I hold that philosophers, above all, must be as meticulously precise as it is possible to be, and I am in favor of the most rigorous "hairsplitting," where necessary—I hold that philosophy should be more precise than the strictest legal document, because much more is at stake—and I am in favor of the most technical language, to achieve such precision. But: I hold that minor or trivial points cannot be studied ahead of their major or basic antecedents—I hold that precision in the discussion of consequences is worthless, if it starts in midstream and leaves in a state of undefined, unidentified fogginess those matters which are known to be the causes of such consequences—and I hold that technical language is subject to the same rule as layman language, or slang, or anything that is to be defined as language, namely: that it must refer to reality and must denote something specific; if it does not, it is not language, but inarticulate sounds. (If, at this point, you are tempted to reply that "reality" is a "slippery" term, I will say that this is an instance of what I mean by the necessity of beginning any discussion by discussing fundamentals.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...