Ayn Rand vs. Academic Philosophy

I have had multiple encounters with the academic philosopher persona and they are never short of condescending tones and remarks towards Ayn Rand (keep in mind I know that this stereotype can’t be universally applied, but I will use it as if it is for the sake of simplicity). Once again, I encountered this typical passive aggressive attitude from, you guess it, my philosophy professor.

For a final project we are supposed to do a logical examination of a work by a philosopher, I asked (during class) if Ayn Rand would be acceptable, he said that some of her work would be fine for the assignment but then found it necessary to say “Just a word about Ayn Rand, she is great for getting 13 year old boys to think about things they haven’t thought about before, but she never would have made it in academic philosophy”. This remark got a few chuckles and it appears the joke was on me.

Lets put aside for a moment that not a single argument was made, and this is a pure ‘argument’ from authority. Lets simply examine the implications of this statement, and the common rejection of Miss Rand in academics in general.

These sort of statements always have the assumed argument that there is some sort of standard in academic philosophy and that Rand just doesn’t meet up to. I think that’s very interesting. Plato believed in a perfect world of forms that we all lived in before we existed and we recognize a tree because we remember the perfect tree from our pre-existence. Karl Marx believed that after the rise of socialism and complete redistribution of wealth that the state would suddenly disappear and people would live in a state of blissful communist anarchy. Nietzsche never made arguments but simply said statements, and couldn’t put a syllogism together if his life depended on it. Descartes wasn’t sure that material reality existed, but was entirely certain of gods existence, and then decided that because he is certain of gods existence only then could he be certain of reality’s existence.

There is not one single agreement that can be applied consistently of all the philosophers welcome in academic philosophy, but Rand just doesn’t meet the cut? What possible standard is there to ground this dismissal?  From a group that has no consistent definition on what truth is, or on whether material reality even exists, they are completely certain of Ayn Rand’s Impotence (even if they aren’t sure she exists).

What is it that academic philosophy has achieved that warrants we all beg for their approval? Have they brought world peace? Have they fed all the poor? Do they have endless merits that I am unaware of?

No, these intellectuals who claimed so proudly to be the speakers of wisdom, how to live properly, and who told us that they know the difference between right and wrong. They have done nothing but endlessly justify state power and violence, and they have achieved nothing but poverty, war, and oppression, and now we are supposed to ask for their approval that has no consistent foundation or criteria in the first place?

All that they have to offer is an argument from their authority, and that is exactly what Rand put to question.

Any that try to make sense of the world are a direct threat the authority of the academic philosopher. Because those who have nothing to offer are always threatened by competence. These academics don’t provide value for a living, they live off taxes and blood money, and justify authority, while under the protection of tenure. The only “value” that they offer is due to the fact that we are asking for their arbitrary approval.

Just when some one says “don’t be selfish” they mean “don’t do what you want to do, do what I want you to do”, when you professor tells you to “think critically” he/she means “don't trust your own judgment, trust mine.”

In Summery

1. Academic philosophy lacks any kind of consistent standard or view of the world, so their rejection of Rand is entirely arbitrary and nothing to be taken seriously.
2. Academic philosophy’s merits are few if not non-existent, which brings the question, why should we ask for their approval at all?
3. The only argument that they have if from their own authority, that is not based on a any standard or merit, but simply the fact that we keep asking for their approval.

Conclusion

Be responsible and honest in you search for the truth, and trust your own judgment.