Hegel and The Philosophy of History


Recommended Posts

I am certainly going to try my best. :smile: It would be easier if it was just this class but I also have a Vietnam class from a teacher who has to say how evil Fox News is in every sentence. For the record, I do plan on becoming a college professor and when I do I am going to teach history as objectivly as possible. We shall see what happens, my one fear is that I am not nearly as patient as Ayn Rand was.

I took Macro-Economics from a dyed in the wool Keynesian, and look back on it as a good experience. If you think of this course as a "history of" the philosophy of history and you could get good things from it. At least you'll come out of it familiar with the lingo of the people you disagree with. And it'll make you a better debater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Guys/ Gals,

If anyone can explain to me how he viewed history and why Ayn Rand disagreed with it, it would be very helpful to me.

Thank You,

David C.

I have a serious problem with "literature in translation." If you are not reading it in the original, all you are getting is a second-hand interpretation. Myself, my first class in German was before the 7th grade at an experimental summer school at Western Reserve University (now Case-Western) in Cleveland. My SAT scores in German were higher than my SAT scores in English. I last used German for work when employed by the Carl Zeiss Foundation 1997-1998. That being as it may, I never read Hegel in German.

Hegel believed that the Prussian state was the highest Idea of History.

He believed that History has a Goal. It achieves this Goal by a processes of Dialectic. Opposites become new Beginnings.

Ayn Rand never to my knowledge addressed Hegel directly.

It is true that his philosophy is the basis for both communism and fascism.

Thank you so much, I agree the best way to form an opinion is from the source. I sadly don't speak German, though I would love to, I have been interested in trying Rosetta stone. By the way, just so it is clear it wasn't out of left field, I asked what Ayn Rand's opinion on Hegel was because on her lexicon website she mentioned him once or twice in a not so positive light. Just so everyone who has posted in this thread knows I have been doing research on the Hegel Dialectic and this site http://www.therightplanet.com/2014/01/hegelian-dialectics-for-dummies/ was quite helpful, I suggest anyone interested give it a read.

It may be true, as General Chang of the Klingon Empire, stated: "You have never read Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon!" (Star Trek VI, a line delivered by Christopher Plummer, with obvious relish)..

No doubt it is preferable to read an author in his native language. But even then, disputes arise over what a particular author really said, as witness the seemingly interminable disputes about what Marx (or Hegel, or Kant, or Nietzsche, or fill-in-the-blank ________) really said, or did he mean what it sounded like he said but when put in context we can see that he was really saying the opposite, etc., etc. Certainly in the case of these German gentlemen, even native speakers cannot agree what they were saying!

Some people love to learn multiple foreign languages so they can read an author in his native tongue. But, in fact, even then, a translation must still be made in that reader's head. But for most people learning multiple foreign is not practical, and they must rely on reading a single translation or comparing it with other translations..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...for most people learning multiple foreign is not practical, and they must rely on reading a single translation or comparing it with other translations.

Scott Fitzgerald's Tender Is The Night contains a remarkable bit of translation, as follows:

...he had projected a new work: An Attempt at a Uniform and Pragmatic Classification of the Neuroses and Psychoses, Based on an Examination of Fifteen Hundred Pre-Krapaelin and Post-Kapaelin Cases as they would be Diagnosed in the Terminology of the Different Contemporary Schools, Together with a Chronology of Such Subdivisions of Opinion as Have Arisen Independently.

This title would look monumental in German.

Ein Versuch die Neurosen und Psychosen gleichmassig und pragmatisch zu Einstufung auf Grund und Untersuchung von funfzehn hundert pre-Krapaelin und post Krapaelin Fallen wie diagnostiziert sein wurden in der Terminology von den verschiedenen Schulen der Gegenwart Zusammen mit einer Chronologie solcher Subdivisionen der Meinung welche unabhangig entstanden sind.

Let's see what Google Translate German>English thinks it means:

An experimental neuroses and psychoses were his equal bulky and pragmatic diagnosed to classification on the basis of and investigation of fifteen hundred pre Krapaelin and post Krapaelin traps like which arose independently in the Terminology of the various schools of presence together with a chronology of such sub-divisions of opinion have.

And just for fun, a little Hegel, per Google Translate:

This content does hereby made ​​the basis of the phenomenon; the law is that foundation itself, the appearance is the same content, but contains even more, namely the insignificant content of their directing. Determining the shape, whereby the appearance is distinguished as such by the laws, namely, a content, and also by a content of the law differentiated. The existence than ever immediacy also identical with itself of matter and form, which is indifferent and therefore content against its formal characteristics; it is the thingness with their properties and matters. But it is the content, its independent immediacy is only as a non-existence at the same time. The identity of the same with him in this, his non-existence but is the other essential content. This identity, the basis of the phenomenon, which constitutes the law, their own moment; it is the positive side of materiality, whereby the existence of publication.

Clear as mud to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assigned to read Hegel's Philosophy of History? Wow. What comes after that? Never mind.

Hegel is generally considered to be the philosophical forerunner of modern totalitarianism - both Naziism and of course he had a major infulence on Karl Marx who developed communist ideology based on a Hegelian dialectical foundation.One of the classic essays that tears Hegel's version of the dialectic to shreds, is "What is the Dialectic?," by Karl Popper, included in his collection of essays, Conjectures and Refutations. He also goes after Hegel in his monumental two-volume The Open Society and Its Enemies, which focuses on Plato and Hegel as the forerunners to the establishment of the totalitarian state.

Hegel is also discussed, from an Objectivist viewpoint, in Leonard Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels: The End of Freedom in America (1981). (Peikoff is the author, but Rand required him to make so many revisions that the book was delayed for about 14 years. On that basis, I think it would be fair to say that she is the co-author!) This book is about to be re-issued with a new title, The Cause of Hitler's Germany.

A contrary opinion on Popper from Voegelin: ""This Popper has been for years, not exactly a stone against which one stumbles, but a troublesome pebble that I must continually nudge from the path, in that he is constantly pushed upon me by people who insist that his work on the 'open society and its enemies' is one of the social science masterpieces of our times. … In that Popper violated this elementary vocational duty and stole several hours of my lifetime, which I devoted in fulfilling my vocational duty, I feel completely justified in saying without reservation that this book is impudent, dilettantish crap.".

I have heard most of those things are mischaracterizations.

Voegilin? The Eric Voegelin? No kidding. He may hold the record for being the most prolific author of learned but particularly dense commentaries on history. .Much of his writing has sunk into obscurity (or never rose from it) largely due to his inpenetrable writing style and long-winded commentary. Unfortunately, few can understand or agree upon exactly what he was saying, or what his point was. Voegelin refused to ally himself with any particular modern ideological viewpoint, left or right. Nevertheless, some Christian conservatives in the 1970s, seized on what they thought were really profound observations by Voegelin on the roles of religion, politics, and science and the role of what he called "gnosticism" as as an explanatory framework.for a traditionalist conservative world. They were fond of emblazoning their t-shirts and publications with the slogan, "Don't let THEM immanentize the eschaton!" Meaning, in essence, Don't let the scientists and other representatives of secularism try to create a heaven on earth. A claim that all versions of secularism were trying to creat their own utopia while ignoring the Original Sinful nature of Man. Whether that is a fair representation of his viewpoint is questionable.

For a very laudatory and appreciative survey of Eric Voegein's career, see this article from The American Conservative magazine (a publication founded by, and reflective of, Patrick Buchanan): http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/know-your-gnostics/

At any rate, his (Voegelin's) rather caustic dismissal of Popper and his The Open Society and Its Enemies is perhaps reflecting some bitterness on the acceptance and fame that Popper received, while his own works received decidely less acclaim (with the exception of his unwanted guru status with traditionalist, and highly religious, conservatives).. I do not know if Eric Voegelin ever read or discussed Ayn Rand and Objectivism, but I think it safe to say that her work was representative of most everything that he opposed in secular thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, I am curious regarding the course you are taking.. What other books (besides Hegel and Marx) and/or articles are being assigned? If your instructor is basing his course on "how to study history properly" on Hegel and Marx as his guides of choice (or their modern followers) then his intent ideologically, seems clear. If he is a Marxist (not unusual in academic history departments!), then he would not take kindly to mention of Rand. If he bristles at Popper, then I would be concerned.

Nevertheleess, many professors grade without regard to their students' ideological orientation. What he or she is up to will likely be clear early in the course.

We are reading several books pertaining to the partisan of India and we are going to use how Marx and Hegel study history and apply it to the partisan. I listed the books we are reading along with Hegel and Marx below,

Bose, Sugata and Ayesha Jalal, Modern South Asia: History, Culture, and Political Economy. 3rd
ed. New York: Routledge, 2011.
Butalia, Urvashi. The Other Side of Silence: Voices from the Partition of India. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press, 2000.
Carr, E.H. What is History? New York: Vintage, 1961.
Pandey, Gyanendra. Remembering Partition: Violence, Nationalism, and History in India. New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Ghosh, Amitav. The Shadow Lines. Kolkata: Ravi Dayal, 1988.
Talbot, Ian and Gurharpal Singh, The Partition of India. New York: Cambridge University Press,

2009.

E. H. Carr "What is History?" Carr was an extremely prolific author wno, on the whole (see the extrensive ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._H._Carr )Wikipedia article on his life and works, for example) was considered by many historians and diplomats, to be an apologist and defender of the Soviet Union and its role in instituting and spreading communism around the world, and received a significant amount of criticism for his Soviet sympathies from other historians. Judging from the account in the Wikipedia articles, he was unapologetic and even flaunted.his communist sympathies until the very end..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, I am curious regarding the course you are taking.. What other books (besides Hegel and Marx) and/or articles are being assigned? If your instructor is basing his course on "how to study history properly" on Hegel and Marx as his guides of choice (or their modern followers) then his intent ideologically, seems clear. If he is a Marxist (not unusual in academic history departments!), then he would not take kindly to mention of Rand. If he bristles at Popper, then I would be concerned.

Nevertheleess, many professors grade without regard to their students' ideological orientation. What he or she is up to will likely be clear early in the course.

We are reading several books pertaining to the partisan of India and we are going to use how Marx and Hegel study history and apply it to the partisan. I listed the books we are reading along with Hegel and Marx below,

Bose, Sugata and Ayesha Jalal, Modern South Asia: History, Culture, and Political Economy. 3rd
ed. New York: Routledge, 2011.
Butalia, Urvashi. The Other Side of Silence: Voices from the Partition of India. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press, 2000.
Carr, E.H. What is History? New York: Vintage, 1961.
Pandey, Gyanendra. Remembering Partition: Violence, Nationalism, and History in India. New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Ghosh, Amitav. The Shadow Lines. Kolkata: Ravi Dayal, 1988.
Talbot, Ian and Gurharpal Singh, The Partition of India. New York: Cambridge University Press,

2009.

E. H. Carr "What is History?" Carr was an extremely prolific author wno, on the whole (see the extrensive ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._H._Carr )Wikipedia article on his life and works, for example) was considered by many historians and diplomats, to be an apologist and defender of the Soviet Union and its role in instituting and spreading communism around the world..

The article says he was "an opponent of empiricism within historiography". What does that mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, Your professor's choice of books - and authors - for his course is about as subtle, ideologically speaking, as a sledge hammer. Unless his intent is to demonstrate how wrong Hegel, Marx, and Carr were about practically everything, but that would be a strange way to go about it. Much more likely, these are his boys

Of the three, in my view, Carr is the most reprehensible. Hegel saw the Prussian state, and liked it. Marx did not have the advantage of seeing what his followers would wrought. Carr, on the other hand, spent most of his academic career defending the policies of the Soviet Union. He dismissed as insignificant, or outright denied, the atrocities of the Stalinist state, including their record of murdering possibly over 100 million people (see The Black Book on Communism)..

Nevertheless, (sigh) your instructor may allow opposing views from his students, but it is unlikey that anything you could say would change his ideological viewpoint and goal. His goal, of course is to persuade you and the other students of the correctness of a Marxist view of history. His method of teaching may give you a prime seat in viewing the Marxist mind in action. If you outright oppose his views in the class or in any paper assigned, he may reflect his displesure with your "false consciousness" by giving you a low grade.

An alternative way to handle a professor who holds opposing views is to follow the example of Leonard Peikoff, who had as his teacher, and dissertation advisor, one of the most promininent socialist intellectuals in 20th century America, Sidney Hook. Peikoff managed to ingratiate himself with Hook, even though Hook was a vociferous critic of Rand, by temporarily taking-on the view of whatever philosopher he happened to be studying at the time. To "get into his mind," so to speak..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article says he was "an opponent of empiricism within historiography". What does that mean?

Historiography refers to the methodology of historians, development of history as a discipline, and also to a body of historical work

-- i.e., Carr was opposed to preponderance of factual evidence

Ah, that makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...temporarily taking-on the view of [Hegel]

-- or permanently, like Sciabarra.

Sciabarra argues at some length that the term, dialectic, has been used in the history of philosophy in many different senses, and that the Hegelian and Marxist versions are quite different from the dialectic of Aristtotle and Rand.. He makes a good case that they in fact bear no similarity to Hegelian and Marxist dialectics .After he somewhat laboriously (to me) establishes that they are quite different, my thought was "then why use that term at all?" But that's just me.

Outside of that issue, the rest of his book is quite good, and in scholarship, puts Peikoff's OPAR to shame -.particularly in his extensive and detailed annotation and bibliography. If Peikoff had followed that model, rather than his flippant reference in his Foreward to OPAR that suggests that some academics do not qualify as humans. This was a totally unnecessary and gratuitous slap at the very audience that Rand most wanted to influence and take her philosophy seriously..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sciabarra argues at some length that the term, dialectic, has been used in the history of philosophy in many different senses, and that the Hegelian and Marxist versions are quite different from the dialectic of Aristtotle and Rand.. He makes a good case that they in fact bear no similarity to Hegelian and Marxist dialectics .After he somewhat laboriously (to me) establishes that they are quite different, my thought was "then why use that term at all?" But that's just me.

Jerry,

Back when I started discussing Objectivism online (late 2004), I had not read much philosophy other than Rand. And in 2005, I tried to digest Chris's book on Rand. The particular discussion you mention made me give up the effort until later, but basically I felt the same as you. Why use the term at all?

That kind of nuance and the inflated vocabulary were over my head.

Since then I have been doing a lot of study on fiction writing, including stuff from ancient times. Now I'm pretty sure I can give that book a go again with success (and I just might in the near future).

As I understand the term dialectic as used back in ancient times, it basically means learning by discussing and figuring out stuff, generally between an older person and a student, although it is not limited to that.

Kind of like what we do here on OL, except back then it was verbal.

So OL is a site devoted to dialectical inquiry.

That has an interesting ring to it, don't you think?

:smile:

(I can't resist. To use the modern meaning, instead of Dialectical Materialism, sometimes I see Dialectical Bullshitism. :smile: )

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sciabarra argues at some length that the term, dialectic, has been used in the history of philosophy in many different senses

He had to. His masters thesis was directed by Bertell Ollman, who teaches dialectical methodology and socialist theory (also the creator of Class Struggle, a board game based on Marxism) and by Israel Kirzner, a non-mathematical (i.e., dialectical) economist famous for trashing Schumpeter. Mr. Sciabarra's doctoral dissertion was directed by (big suprise!) Ollman and subtitled Dialectics and Dualism in the works of Hayek, Rothbard, and Marx. The only satisfactory apology I've heard for Mr. Sciabarra's subsequent work was severe health problems.

I have an unforgiving nature. I felt the same way about Merrill seeing Talmudic symbolism in Atlas Shrugged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I share your dislike of various and implausible attempts to sell Rand as what she patently is not. Perhaps the weirdest to date is the Hindu Rand who came up recently here on OL (http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14604&page=1entry216245 - #6ff).

Somebody once told me that Objectivism and Tao, in their respective hearts of hearts, really come down to the same. She didn't go into detail, but I'm confident that if she had it would have sounded a lot like Johnson's talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An alternative way to handle a professor who holds opposing views is to follow the example of Leonard Peikoff, who had as his teacher, and dissertation advisor, one of the most promininent socialist intellectuals in 20th century America, Sidney Hook. Peikoff managed to ingratiate himself with Hook, even though Hook was a vociferous critic of Rand, by temporarily taking-on the view of whatever philosopher he happened to be studying at the time. To "get into his mind," so to speak..

One general way of dealing with professors and writers with whom you disagree is to always discuss their views in the third person, e.g., "Marx believed X," or "Hegel's statements support conclusion Y."

Never give your own opinion. That way, you'll never feel guilty about the things you're writing. After all, what you're saying is true.

It's a style that my kids have had to learn to survive in the modern educational system.

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. I was unaware of Sciabarra's academic advisors, but other than sharing an interest in the dialectic (whatever that may mean), I do not regard Sciabarra's Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical as an attempt to recast her as sympathetic to any aspect of Hegel or Marx. Quite the contrary. If you have found otherwise, I would like to see the evidence.

In my view, that book is the best (indeed, the only) serious academic-level attempt to discuss Rand's philosophy and its place among intellectual history (or the history of ideas). If you are aware of other published work that has accomplished this in a more scholarly and objective (non-partisan) manner, please let me know.

Generally, I do not place much significance in the "blurbs" that publishers tack onto the backs of their books. However, in this case, the comments are from reviews, or as responses to reviews, They are particularly noteworthy due to their of experience with Objectivism as a philosophy and as a movement.:

"Several books have been written about Rand, but none with the philosophical depth and scope of Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical." - Tibor Machan,;

This is the most thorough and scholarly work ever done on Ayn Rand. It is also engagingly written and commands attention throughout." - John Hospers

"Sciabarra's book takes a brilliant, intellectually daring, and completely firsthand approach to the philosophy of Ayn Rand. It is impressively researched and written with elegant simplicity and clarity. This book will be read and argued about for many years, but it will be read by anyone interested in Ayn Rand and/or the history of philosophy." - Barbara Branden

"I think this is the most important book ever written about Ayn Rand's work." - Nathaniel Branden

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like being disarmed, but you've done it by quoting BB and NB, who are untouchable by the rules of engagement here.

Hospers and Machan are damn fools -- and I say that from personal interaction with both.

John Ridpath, Ph.D., did not share their enthusiasm for The Russian Radical.

Let's put it another way. What exactly did Sciabarra achieve, other than gibberish about "transcendence of opposites"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a person claiming to be "disarmed," you appear to have a lot of arrows in your quiver!

Dealing with the easiest (for me) first. John Ridpath has long been affiliated with ARI. I have listened to his lectures from an OCON conference, on religion. Not bad, but he did not appear to be very enthusiastic about the subject. His brief discussion of Daoism was marred by his mis-pronounciation of it as "TAY-OH-ISM," when it should be "DOWism," (and has been even before the recent preferred Chinese translatiions, more correctly. as "Daoism."). Normally, I would regard that as a minor error, but I expected better from a Professor of History.

In terms of content, Ridpath's lecures were nothing like one would hear from lectures on the same subject from George H. Smith (Atheism: The Case Against God - still the best treatment on the subject, in my opinion); Nathaniel Branden's "The Concept of God," Lecture 4, from the recorded former NBI course the Basic Principles of Objectivism, included in the recent print version, "The Vision of Ayn Rand," In this case, the audio version is superior, due to Branden's oral delivery style, which cannot be conveyed on the printed page.

Back to Ridpath. Or, more correctly, ARI. It would have been very unusual if Ridpath or anyone else affiliated with the Ayn Rand Insititute, took a public position that differed greatly from the parameters that that institution allowed them to present; as to do so would likely result in the dis-continuation of their relationship with ARI, which strictly follows the party line set down by Leonard Peikoff. (As John McCaskey recently found out, after issuing a rather moderate criticism of John Harriman's The Logical Leap, which Peikoff regarded, apparently, as "sacred writ" [well, it was anyway, until Harriman defected to David Kelley's The Atlas Society. Harrimann is now persona non grata with ARI and reference to his works have disappeared from the "Ministry of Information," oops! I mean ARI website.]).

John Hospers: What's the problem, here (other than that he is deceased)?

Tibor Machan. Well, let's see. He has written about 30 (or is it 40?) books and a lot more articles, all of which advocated for some issue from a libertarian, or Objectivist perspective. (I don't know what a "neo" Objectivist is.. What percentage of Objectivist doctrine (dogma?) must one advocate to be considered 99 44/100ths per cent "pure?")..At this point, he probably holds the record for the most authored and published books advocating for libertarianism/Objectivism

Personally, I have had occasion to meet Hospers when he was running for President on the first Libertarian Party ticket, in 1980 (I guess that dates me!) and a few other times. He seemed well mannered, knowledgeable, and a definite improvement over the prospective candidates at the last televised Republican Presidential clown show/debate forum. Certainly, when he was alive, but even dead, he would be preferable to anyone on that stage.

Tibor Machan, I have met at various conferences since about 1970. His lectures at IOS/TOC/TAS conferences were superior, in my view, than the other lecturers at TAS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oops!, I forgot to respond to your comments about Sciabarra's Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical. Essentially, you did the work for me by your link to the review of that book in Reason Papers, by Roger Bissell. I would like to say that I could give a more eloquent presentation about that book than Roger did in his review. But I cannot. There are a few issues that I might elaborate on about the content and significance of Sciabarra's book, but I certainly agree with Roger's review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's perfectly reasonable for you to have a contrary view. The question is what did Sciabarra achieve?

From a historical perspective, dialectics grasps that any system emerges over time, that it has a past, a present, and a future. Frequently, the dialectical thinker examines the dynamic tensions within a system, the internal conflicts or “contradictions” which require resolution...
-- "Dialectics in Rand's Philosophy" in The Russian Radical

I’m taking what I want from Rand’s legacy, and paying for it—by assuming responsibility for my own interpretations and applications... I have never argued that my own innovations on subjects like dialectics or homosexuality are part of "Objectivism"
-- Free Radical, May 28, 2004

It's certainly "fair game" to examine the details of a historical figure's personal life in an effort to grapple with their legacy... Yes, there is always the risk that this technique can become a veiled ad hominem attack... This is a part of the process of "professionalization"... building a cottage intellectual industry around a thinker.
-- Rebirth of Reason, December 2, 2003

Sciabarra, Machan, Peikoff (the whole "cottage industry" crew) minus Rand = zero

I freely grant that my bad attitude is just jealous bile. If I wore one orange sock as proof of my individuality,

laughed at Rand at USC, or had a gay disposition -- why, by golly, I'd be one of the cottage industry elect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's perfectly reasonable for you to have a contrary view. The question is what did Sciabarra achieve?

From a historical perspective, dialectics grasps that any system emerges over time, that it has a past, a present, and a future. Frequently, the dialectical thinker examines the dynamic tensions within a system, the internal conflicts or “contradictions” which require resolution...

-- "Dialectics in Rand's Philosophy" in The Russian Radical

I’m taking what I want from Rand’s legacy, and paying for it—by assuming responsibility for my own interpretations and applications... I have never argued that my own innovations on subjects like dialectics or homosexuality are part of "Objectivism"

-- Free Radical, May 28, 2004

It's certainly "fair game" to examine the details of a historical figure's personal life in an effort to grapple with their legacy... Yes, there is always the risk that this technique can become a veiled ad hominem attack... This is a part of the process of "professionalization"... building a cottage intellectual industry around a thinker.

-- Rebirth of Reason, December 2, 2003

Sciabarra, Machan, Peikoff (the whole "cottage industry" crew) minus Rand = zero

I freely grant that my bad attitude is just jealous bile. If I wore one orange sock as proof of my individuality,

laughed at Rand at USC, or had a gay disposition -- why, by golly, I'd be one of the cottage industry elect.

Post revised on 9/10.

What did Sciabarra achieve? Meaning, in what way is his book important? I thought I covered that. At any rate, you did (or rather Roger Bissell did) with the link to his review in Reason Papers. To my knowledge (and I would love to be proved wrong on this.), Ayn Rand's philosophy has not been discussed in any detail, if at all, by academicians, other than by Sciabarra, in a polite and at least minimally respectful manner.. In most cases that I have seen or witnessed, they tend to dismiss her, with a wave of their hand and some sarcastic remark attached to a complete misrepresentation of her views. In other words, they do not engage her philosophy at all.

Part of this is because they do not like outsiders coming in, trampling on their turf, and criticizing their work, and certainly not from a novelist! ("How dare she? She does not have a philosophy Ph.D.! She is not a member of any faculty! She is not one of us!") Secondly, Rand has held that intellectuals and businessmen, in collusion with government bureaucrats, are responsible for the growrh of statism and the general decline of our culture..All of that would give most academics (at least those of a leftward bent - which is most of them) a reason to oppose her. Then, Leonard Peikoff comes trotting in with OPAR, which is supposed ro be the fully developed philosophical treatise that Rand promised, but did not finish. In a move of monumental stupidity, Peikoff implies in his Foreward that academics may not qualify as human beings. I wonder how many copies of OPAR being examined by college professors, were slammed shut at that remark?

It certainly is true, as you allude, that the "post-Randians" have not even begun to approach Rand's popularity and readership, nor have they made much of an impression upon the liberals or conservatives who have been so critical of Rand and of Atlas Shrugged. Occasionally, their existence has been noted, but their intellectual output has largely been ignored by Rand's traditional enemies.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to Ridpath. Or, more correctly, ARI. It would have been very unusual if Ridpath or anyone else affiliated with the Ayn Rand Insititute, took a public position that differed greatly from the parameters that that institution allowed them to present; as to do so would likely result in the dis-continuation of their relationship with ARI, which strictly follows the party line set down by Leonard Peikoff. (As John McCaskey recently found out, after issuing a rather moderate criticism of John Harriman's The Logical Leap, which Peikoff regarded, apparently, as "sacred writ" [well, it was anyway, until Harriman defected to David Kelley's The Atlas Society. Harrimann is now persona non grata with ARI and reference to his works have disappeared from the "Ministry of Information," oops! I mean ARI website.]).

The ARI site has had some changes made since last I looked. David Harriman's book on physics and a number of his audio lectures are available still:

https://estore.aynrand.org/search?q=harriman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now