No great mystery here. In academic philosophy, what matters are the strength of your arguments. It's not plausible that people don't receive Rand well purely because of the conclusions she argues for. Peter Singer is the biggest name in the world on practical ethics, and I (and many others) think that his views on the disabled are pretty monstrous. But nobody would deny he is a serious contributor to the contemporary philosophical debate. Why? Because he gives pretty rigorous arguments.
Or another example. Robert Nozick’s political conclusions are pretty similar to Rand’s (though on the philosophical basis, he agrees with the mainstream view that Rand isn't very good, and has argued as much in print). Yet he is not ostracized as Rand is. He is easily in the top 5 most important political philosophers of the last century. Plausibly top 3. Why? Because he gives rigorous arguments.
On the other hand, Rand’s arguments are generally thought to not be very good or rigorous.
(I personally am not well read on Rand. I've only read Atlas Shrugged, and I hated it. I'm just describing the general perception. Is this general perception fair? As I say, I'm not qualified to answer)
Read other answers by Peter Hawkins on Quora:
- Should we continue to teach the work of sexual harassers?
- Do professional philosophers and amateur philosophers tend to have different philosophical interests?
- Does Oxford or Cambridge have a Valedictorian?
from Quora http://ift.tt/2iBC5IA
No comments:
Post a Comment