|
In defense of Ayn Rand, her ideas are not taken seriously in academic circles because:
1. They were presented *outside* the traditional academic establishment.
2. Her answers are relatively simple. Philosophy, Metaphysics, Sociology, etc. are all built upon complex multileveled arguments and problems; simple answers are always looked upon as deficient, no matter how effective they may be in analyzing a problem.
It also cannot be overlooked that Atlas Shrugged is a widely read and popular "mass" philosophy, much in the same way as Chritianity is. The faults with Christian philsophy are numerous, and yet many times more academic study has been made of it than of Ayn Rand's own work. I don't think there was even one Philosophy class at Purdue that talked about Objectivism, which seems somehow disproportionate.
That being said, Atlas Shrugged certainly has its faults. Nearly everyone was white collar, or if they had a blue collar job, they were always of management level. Who is going to do the *farming* in Galt's Gulch? Who is going to mine the rock, sew the cloth, sweep the streets, dig the sewers, and so on?
Even if you reject Randian Objectivism as ultimately faulty, her underlying argument in Atlas Shrugged -- that the contributions of the successful are nevertheless *undervalued* in society -- is rather provocative. She correctly identified the problem of "The Marching Morons" and came up with a solution. Note too how her solution is not all that different from Heinlein's Future History. The truly talented people don't just create their own community; they LEAVE THE PLANET ENTIRELY to create their own pioneer communities elsewhere. The only difference is that Heinlein sees this process as endlessly repeating; each society ultimately stagnates once government becomes too large and burdensome and life becomes too easy and no longer challenging. The cream has its own cream that rises to the top, and the cycle continues.
|