Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonist
LOL. Arguing against Marx used to get you into a "re-education" camp, while railing against Rand got you tenure at a third-rate university.
But what do you mean, by insisting, that Rand is "irrelevant" outside of the US? It's like insisting that because Locke was "irrelevant" in Siberia, we can safely ignore his work.
Many intelligent, educated people outside of the US and the UK, have at least some idea of Rand (even if based on a bad French translation.  Regardless of where one is on the political spectrum, dismissing her work as "irrelevant" is just silly.
As silly, as approaching her ideas with the preconceived notion to "figure out what is wrong with them, and move on."
But, what if, some young, open, inquisitive mind in the classroom, finds some appeal in these "atheist capitalism" ideas...?! Oh the horror..., the horror of it! |
I don't think anybody has actually said she 'shouldn't' be studied, or would stop anybody from doing so, but I do think a vast majority of us are arguing that her work has little weight to it, or interest beyond a specific clustering. The consensus on Rand seems to lean towards her being a low-rent philosopher with a rabid, if small and geographically consistent following. In most of Europe, and I would guess the East Coast of the US also, definitely in Canada, Ayn Rand and her works are deemed unimportant and irrelevant. She's not considered worthwhile in literature or philosophical circles. Her theories are weak sauce to most academics and her fiction is too dull for the vast majority of casual readers.