Talk:Pop philosophy

Ayn Rand

Pro-Rand:

Ayn Rand was not a "pop" philosopher. Her work has been discussed by academic scholars, and although she was not well-received by professional philosophers, she is a philosopher in her own right.

Against Rand:

On the contrary, Ayn Rand is the foremost example of someone who has been accused of being a pop philosopher. The coverage over the question of Ayn Rand's status as a philosopher is admirably covered in the entry on her and in the entry on pseduo-philosophy. It is not that academic scholars did not receive her philosophy well, most professional philosophers dismissed her as a "pop philosopher." Personally, I was introduced to philosophy by the works of Ayn Rand. As many people are. She is a great gateway into serious philosophy. However, I also knew when to drop her. She did not live up to the standard of philosophy for the time in which she lived, and she is not given a place in contemporary philosophic discussion. When she is discussed, it normally doesn't happen without the those discussing her status as a "pop philosopher." -Atfyfe 06:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Rand:

But there are academics who seriously debate her work. If you're interested in a scholarly book on Objectivism published by professional philosophers, I would recommend The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand, edited by Douglas J. Uyl and Douglas B. Rasmussen. Some contributors include philosophers Erik Mack, Anthony Flew, Wallace Matson, J. Charles King, and Tibor Machan. In the introduction, the editors state the each of the contributors agrees that "Rand was a philosopher, not a mere popularizer." While some articles in it are somewhat favorable or completely neutral, a few are very critical. So the charge that academia has completely ignored Ayn Rand and dismissed Objectivism is not only POV, but also totally fallacious. Ayn Rand should not be included in this "article" on "pop philosophy." --24.220.246.20

Against Rand:

I still have to say that Rand is the key example of pseudo- or pop-philosophy that philosophers cite. Regardless if it is a correct description, it is widespread. That, at the very least, should be mentioned in this article. Secondly, I think it is a correct description. Rand may make an occasional showing in academic philosophy, but (1) they are rare, and (2) she is still thought of as an outsider. You forgot to mention Nozick, who is a major contemporary philosopher who thinks Rand deserves more credit than she is given. However, these rare pro-Rand philosophers are not just discussing her philosophy, but fighting for us to recognize Rand as a true philosopher (implying that people don't consider her one). Just because Rand is a pop-philosopher, doesn't mean she wouldn't have professional philosophers who think that is a mis-labeling of Rand. I did not say that Rand was completely ignored. So your straw-man accusation is "totally fallacious." As I said: "When she is discussed, it normally doesn't happen without the those discussing her status as a 'pop philosopher.'" That normally isn't done for Quine, or Kripke, or McDowell, etc. However, it is done for Voltaire, Emerson, etc. Which is the category in which I think Rand may belong.

To sum up my little rant here: it would be incorrect to leave out in an entry on "pop-philosophy" that Rand is a famous and common target of such a label. However, to remain NPOV the entry should not take sides on if Rand actually is one or not. -Atfyfe 02:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)