 |
Business | Industries | Finance | Tax |
| Index: > A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
|
|||||
| First Prev [ 1 2 3 ] Next Last |
In 1985, Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand's designated legal and “intellectual” heir, established the Ayn Rand Institute, the Center for the Advancement of Objectivism. The Institute has since registered the name Ayn Rand as a trademark, despite Ayn Rand's desire that her name never be used to promote the philosophy she developed. During her life Ayn Rand expressed her wishes to keep her name and the philosophy of Objectivism separate. It is understood that this was in order to assure the continued survival of the philosophy she developed once her own life was over.
In 1989, yet another schism in the movement occurred. Objectivist David Kelley wrote an article called "A Question of Sanction," [6] in which he defended his choice to speak to non-Objectivist libertarian groups. Kelley said that Objectivism was not a "closed system" and condoned tolerance of and intellectual debate with other philosophies. Peikoff, in an article for The Intellectual Activist called "Fact and Value" [7], said that Objectivism is, in fact, closed and that factual truth and moral goodness are intrinsically related. Peikoff "expelled" Kelley from his Objectivist movement. Undaunted by this dogmatic and priestly behavior, Kelley in turn founded The Institute for Objectivist Studies (now known as The Objectivist Center [8]) in Poughkeepsie, New York.
Rand's fiction and philosophy of Objectivism have been the subject of a great deal of criticism.
Academic philosophers have been generally hostile to Rand - at least to the extent that they have paid any attention to her. Some criticize her for her sweeping denouncements of historical philosophers, and even her (alleged) ignorance about the actual views of some of these philosophers. Many simply believe that her two most well-known positions - egoism in behavioral ethics and rights-based, libertarian capitalism in politics - are false. Others disapprove of her practice of explicating her philosophy in popular fiction and essays, rather than publishing in scholarly journals. In addition, technical objections have been raised by some academics and independent scholars to Rand's positions on classic philosophical problems, e.g., her attempted solution to the problem of universals, her rejection of the analytic/synthetic distinction, her treatment of modality, and her rejection of a priori knowledge.
Many theists object both to Rand's characterization of religion as a form of irrationality (she claimed that the concept of God as an omnipotent, all-knowing, all good being was incoherent) and to Rand's ethical theory, in which selfishness is the basic virtue and altruism is evil (it should be noted that Rand's definitions for the words "selfishness" and "altruism" were somewhat different than the definitions used by most people. See Rational Selfishness).
Rand's portrayal of women in several books has also been a source of contention. Some feel that the women are portrayed as secondary or adjunct to the heroic men of the stories. Others believe that certain scenes involve false and harmful views about human sexuality (e.g., the so-called "rape scene" involving Dominique Francon and Howard Roark in The Fountainhead). Others counter that Rand's heroines exemplify many positive characteristics, including independence, intelligence, and strength.
Rand's novels have also been attacked on literary grounds (though there has been very little discussion of her novels among academics in English and related fields). Some fault her novels for clunky writing and repetitious use of vocabulary (e.g., "angular," "granite," "chiseled", "effortless," "purposeful," "purposive", etc.). Some believe that Rand's heroes are unrealistic, inhuman, and two-dimensional ( John Galt, in particular, is often cited). It has been alleged that Rand's portrayal of her antagonists is even worse (they are predictably weak, pathetic, full of uncertainty, and lacking in imagination and talent). In addition, the novels are alleged to contain errors or omissions in terms of the reality of social interactions, economics, technology, and history. Rand replied to some such criticism (and in advance of much of it) in her essay "The Goal of My Writing" (1963) [collected in her book The Romantic Manifesto: A Philosophy of Literature (2nd rev. ed. 1975)]. There, Rand makes it clear that her goal is to project her vision of an ideal man, that is, not necessarily man as he is, but man as he might be and ought to be.
Michael Shermer has claimed that Objectivism resembles a cult [9], although many Objectivists deny this.| Politics | Business | Finance |
 |
 |
 |
|