|
I'm not sure anyone ever said much about ignoring her. Maybe they did... that certainly wasn't my point. (Though I think both Sartre and Arendt deserve time more, and have never seen but passing references to either in my academic career (and most of those I made!))
But studying an author also often means coming to terms with their ideas. And often that means understanding where the author is deficient. Sometimes there is still a lot to be gained either by a shift in the way we think about things (Freud, for instance) or, in Rand's case, by understanding the influence. That doesn't at all mean that their ideas are good, have moral or logical merit, or anything else. Popular sure as hell doesn't mean good.
That being said... there is also a limit to time and attention and some people deserve more time than others. I'm not going to waste my time reading Glenn Beck's new book, for instance, because there is nothing likely to be in the text worth my attention as he has made his career being a professional idiot. Likewise, I'd not read something by Olbermann because while I agree with many of his positions, I don't agree with that kind of punditry or ideological bias (and sometimes he's an idiot, too..)
Rand has to be dealt with like Freud (and often is in Academia). She's one of those "we should probably give this person a bit of time... not because her ideas are that good, but because they have had an effect and we should see those ideas, understand that effect, figure out what is wrong with them, and move on." We actually covered her in my department's capstone course this year. My professor in that class was actually a specialist in Nietzsche and Kierkegaard... I don't think many strong connections can be made from Nietzsche to Rand... but that's quite a bit more complicated than I care to get into here. They were working on different projects, really. I don't agree with Nietzsche on sooooo many things, but I do love his work.
Freud, of course, had a lot more to offer the world and still has more to offer the world than Rand.. but you have to parse through an awful lot of crazy to get there.
As to the "rational choice" part of the equation... yes, if that was actually involved it would be fine. The problem with Rand's philosophy is it is essentially not rational and mostly neither are her adherents all the while claiming they are. A is A and all that only works if you have a firm grasp of the situation, I've never been convinced that they do. The attitudes we see in her texts certainly do not demonstrate "reality" to me. They are as absurdly idealistic as any extreme position's writings generally are (i.e. communist texts, etc).
I think Emerson really nails the attitude we should have regarding such ideas: "nothing is good for the bee that is bad for the hive." But, also that just because something is good for the hive does not mean it is good for the individual. A healthy society has to live in tension between the world views of group vs. individual. Both have to be respected as much as possible, realizing that neither is anything without the other.
I'm a religious person so I'm okay with arguments that are not necessarily 'logical'(but that's an entirely different discussion, and not one I'll have here). But if you're going to scream 'logic' and 'reason' than you damn well better be that way or you're just another hypocrite.
|