Ayn Rand: yawn
At least among professional philosophers, that is the almost universal feeling about the “philosopher” of the hour. Whether you agree or disagree with her views, there’s little in Rand that isn’t better developed in Plato (in the mouth of Callicles or Thrasymacus), in Nietzsche, or in libertarians such as Robert Nozick. The sanctimonious Rand is better if you’re young and looking for a religion, but not so good if you want a deep understanding of the issues.
I concede that this *could* just be a snob’s view of things. To suggest that it isn’t, here’s some evidence from my own behavioral dispositions.
Give me any particular Randian *thesis*–ethical egoism, say–and my blood gets flowing; I’ll spontaneously work through the angles–the better and worse formulations, the lines of defense, the different problems, and the key examples. But ask me to talk or write about Rand’s “philosophy” itself, and I honestly can’t help thinking I should really be cleaning the bathroom, or opening old mail, or making a dental appointment. Even the thought of continuing this blog post for very much longer makes me wonder …. Is 30 Rock is on?
I don’t feel this way when the Rand-influenced student shows up at my office hours. That’s because we wind up talking about specific theses, usually as defended by other philosophers, and the different sides of the issue, with the aim of basic understanding.
My feelings won’t of course count for much if *I’m* a snob. I hope I’m not, and I don’t think I am. But there you go, for what it’s worth (whatever that is).
On the other hand, for a achingly hilarious critique, see George Saunder’s “I Was Ayn Rand’s Lover.”
