103
104

Ayn Rand is banned from /r/philosophy (imgur.com)

Jamesshrugged が 投稿

全 172 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト (提案されたアイデア)
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Jamesshrugged[S] [スコア非表示]  (104子コメント)

http://imgur.com/a/OU4Zz

I posted the Playboy Interview with Ayn Rand over at /r/philosophy and was soon notified that it had been removed for violating rule 2: philosophical topics only.

I asked for clarification and I was told that Ayn Rand was an author, not a philosopher. I also asked if Ayn Rand posts were not allowed despite her lengthy article describing her as such in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and mod /u/ReallyNicole replied

Did I studder?

Edit: Another moderator has also replied, again arguing for banning Ayn Rand from /r/philosophy http://imgur.com/hxWt7aO

[–]brokedown [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

Studder?

Is that like a cow with a lisp?

[–]ADefiniteDescription [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

To be clear, /u/Jamesshrugged misquoted Nicole - she didn't misspell the word, he did.

[–]brokedown [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

That's ok, whoever spelled it that way is who I am teasing.

[–]Nickdangerthirdi [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

But she did say "Ayn Rand was a best selling author, not a philosophers." Can't we burn her anyway?

[–]MaunaLoona [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Udderly unbelievable.

[–]lmaonade80 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You earned that upvote.

[–]PluviusReddit [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

mod /u/Really Nicole replied Did I studder?

What a coward.

[–]03fusc8 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It's stutter.

[–]GeneralLimited [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

What an Elsworth Toohey

FTFY. Let's face it, the mods of /r/"philosophy" are frightened of real freedom; they cling on their Marxism and their Stalinism and thus stifle any attempt at discussion of a genuinely original thinker like Ayn Rand because she advocated for liberty.

I have to admit I've been pretty triggered by this. It's reminded me of the persecution I face as a Christian in America, and how my expression is routinely curbed (to the extent that saying "Merry Christmas!" is considered a hate crime).

[–]dfscha1402 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Epic troll man. I award it 5/5 meme points.

[–]Moronoo [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Poe's Law is real

[–]Quaternions_FTW [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

saying "Merry Christmas!" is considered a hate crime

No it's not. Epic exaggeration LOL

[–]McFluffTheCrimeCat [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

the persecution I face as a Christian in America

Lol. Are you delusional?

[–]JollyO [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

So then, is Sartre also an Author and not a philosopher? Or Camus?

[–]CapitalismIsGood [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

how intellectually weak and coward-like of the moderators of /r/philosopher

[–]whaturpriceforflight [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Am I the only one who sees the immense irony in a philosophy forum limiting discourse to views which it only advocates?

[–]Western_World [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Typical of /r/philosophy. I made similar experiences there. It's full of people who are opposed to Rand in a very irrational way.

[–]Daskice [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

You say irrational; I say perfectly logical. What exactly determines who is and isn't a philosopher? The fact that she wrote some books?

[–]Nick_Gatsby [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I mean being listed in Stanford's Encyclopedia of philosophers and also having an entire philosophical thought (objectivism) having been coined by her makes Rand a philosopher in her own right. Even ignoring that, it's clear to see that her writings continue to inspire and sway people's views today. Certainly more of a philosopher than any simple author.

[–]TotesMessenger [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

[–]darthhayek [スコア非表示]  (77子コメント)

I bet that guy's not really a professor.

[–]MountainScorpion [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Wow, that's total bullshit.

I'm gonna post some John Frederick Lange, we'll see what they do with that...

[–]iflyboats [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

For the most part, reddit is one of the most pathetic places on the internet. Pay no attention to the type of people who inhabit r/philosohpy; your energy is completely wasted there. Focus your advocacy on people who are worth conversing with.

[–]max225 [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

Next they'll be banning Nietzche because his work is too "artistic".

[–]bjt23 [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

That's what I was thinking, I don't think objectivism is a correct philosophy any more than I think nihilism is, but that doesn't magically make them not philosophies. Also I really hope drunkentune isn't actually a philosophy professor because that's kind of horrible if they are.

[–]iflyboats [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

They aren't intimidated by Nietzche.

[–]brandon_rockwell [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

This page is awesome. I thought I was the only one who was stupefied by the irrational slant towards Ayn Rand. I like to find intellectual pearls in systems of philosophy that I can use to make my life more brilliant, and she is, for me, the most intellectually enlightening philosopher I have read. I find no ill will, only more life, in her words.

[–]Anarcho_Capitalist [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Its good to ban things we disagree with. Banning is a key component to advanced philosophical thought.

Kids, philosophy is not about learning, growing, communicating, or thinking. Philosophy is simply a vehicle to advance, and confirm ones bias. We use philosophy as a way to browbeat others into submission. Once they are fearful of dissent the next step is to slowly purge those with the most independent thought and cut off the rest of the group from their dissent. Third we poison the well. It is best our group only hear about those who disagree and their ideas from us. This way we can shape their ideas in ways that are easily destroyed. I believe this is called stawmaning. Now that we have a group with information only coming from withing we create group think. The individuals in the group will soon learn to parrot our talking points and agenda. They will bristle at new ideas, and defend our opinion violently but without cause as any dissent is now an attack on their ego.

Now you know.

[–]Ihatecheese86 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Just to tag along, the Federalist Papers are also not considered political philosophy and will be removed, Alan Bloom is pretty iffy, and if you link to http://www.firstthings.com/ expect a fight. Also, about half mods are just assholes about everything.

If it makes anyone feel better, these people are bitter fucks for a reason.

[–]bb010g [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Could you elaborate on the Federalist Papers ban?

[–]Mello-Fello [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

This is the equivalent of book-burning the the Internet age. Pathetic.

[–]camerontbelt [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I don't know when this idiotic and frankly, childish, refusal to call ayn Rand a philosopher will ever die. Someone should ask them what their definition of philopsher is, according to dictionary.com "philosopher1 —noun

a person who offers views or theories on profound questions in ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields." By the definition of the word she is indeed a philopsher. Anyone who talks or writes about any of these subjects professionally can call themselves a philospher.

[–]DopeAnon [スコア非表示]  (9子コメント)

Is there a specific reason Rynd isn't considered a philosopher? I'm pretty ignorant, but I would think we are all philosophers, and somedo it as a profession, calling, or way of life. It seems very close-minded to strip her of that title, based on being an author, when everything I found on a Google search says otherwise. Sounds like there's an agenda.

[–]phuckHipsters [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Sounds like there's an agenda

There is very much an agenda. It's why I quit my philosophy program 3/4's of the way through and switched to a STEM degree.

Among philosophers in academia, she is not only not considered a philosopher, she is vilified. Admitting that you are an Objectivist is akin to admitting that you are in the Klan as far as most modern academics are concerned.

I was once told that my infatuation with her would fade as I grew up.

That infatuation has not faded as I've since gone to work in the real world and I am not an academic in some philosophy department somewhere.

[–]DrMichaelHardy [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

The following professors of philosophy will tell you that Ayn Rand was an important philosopher: Lisa Dolling (head of the honors program in theology at St. John's University in New York) Tibor Machan, (Stanford University. See his home page at [2].) Douglas Den Uyl (Bellarmine University, Louisville, Kentucky) Douglas Rasmussen (St. John's University, New York) Eric Mack (Tulane University) Aeon Skoble (Bridgewater State College, Massachusetts) Tara Smith (University of Texas at Austin) Lester Hunt (University of Wisconsin, Madison) Randall Dipert (C.S. Peirce Professor of American Philosophy, SUNY Buffalo) Roderick Long (Auburn University) Slavoj Zizek (The European Graduate School) Michael Huemer (University of Colorado, Boulder) Jonathan Jacobs (University of Pennsylvania) Wayne Davis (Chair of the Philosophy Department, Georgetown University) Stephen Parrish (Concordia University, Ann Arbor, Michigan) Stephen R. C. Hicks (Rockford College, Illinois) Fred Seddon (University of Pittsburgh? (I'm not sure of this affiliation -- more later)) Allan Gotthelf, (University of Pittsburgh), (who is also Secretary of the Ayn Rand Society, an official 'group' of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association). Andrew Bernstein, (Duke University (I'm not sure this one is up to date)) Gary Hull, (Duke University). Carrie-Ann Biondi, (Marymount Manhattan College).

[–]UnlikelySuccessor [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Um, Zizek would definitely not tell you that

[–]ViktorV [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Going through economics, this was the same.

Except in econ (at least those following the chicago school of economics), she is honored.

Though everyone else uses the term objectivist as a pejorative. I consider it a commendation if someone uses it on me.

[–]Jamesshrugged[S] [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

That's what I thought when I gave them the link to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the mod said "did I studder?"

[–]Roosty [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

So Stanford obviously doesn't know how to qualify a philosopher either. :D

Ayn Rand

[–]RobinReborn [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I think some of it has to do with sexism and anti-semitism.

Also Academia is where most modern philosophers are employed and she was pretty harsh on academia. Also most modern philosophers either oppose or are ambivalent towards capitalism, here's an article explaining why.

http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/why-do-intellectuals-oppose-capitalism

Lastly most philosophers aren't appreciated until after they die, sometimes not until hundreds of years after they die.

[–]Jamesshrugged[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I really have no idea... especially given the degree to which her ideas are taught in colleges.

[–]TotesMessenger [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

[–]Ghostjoke [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Wow...

[–]iamLuciferama [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I think the obvious thing to do is ask a very honest question in /r/askphilosophy

"what divides an author who talks about life from a philosopher"

Because I think its rather obvious that there is no reasonable definition of "matter of philosophy" that makes Rand not count but let's them count half the people they do allow discussion of.

Slow reasonable action such as asking for legitimate clarification of what counts as 'more then an author' will show whether this ban on discussion has any merit or whether it is intended to silence certain ideas.

[–]minamisan [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Denying Objectivism status as a 'philosophy' means its opponents can dismiss it outright without taking the effort to form any coherent arguments against it.

The mod's use of the words 'idiot' and 'stupid' in their explanation is quite revealing of their emotional, not rational, rejection.

[–]DrMichaelHardy [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

The following professors of philosophy will tell you that Ayn Rand was an important philosopher : Lisa Dolling (head of the honors program in theology at St. John's University in New York)

Tibor Machan, (Stanford University. See his home page at [2].)

Douglas Den Uyl (Bellarmine University, Louisville, Kentucky)

Douglas Rasmussen (St. John's University, New York)

Eric Mack (Tulane University)

Aeon Skoble (Bridgewater State College, Massachusetts)

Tara Smith (University of Texas at Austin)

Lester Hunt (University of Wisconsin, Madison)

Randall Dipert (C.S. Peirce Professor of American Philosophy, SUNY Buffalo)

Roderick Long (Auburn University)

Slavoj Zizek (The European Graduate School)

Michael Huemer (University of Colorado, Boulder)

Jonathan Jacobs (University of Pennsylvania)

Wayne Davis (Chair of the Philosophy Department, Georgetown University)

Stephen Parrish (Concordia University, Ann Arbor, Michigan)

Stephen R. C. Hicks (Rockford College, Illinois)

Fred Seddon (University of Pittsburgh? (I'm not sure of this affiliation -- more later))

Allan Gotthelf, (University of Pittsburgh), (who is also Secretary of the Ayn Rand Society, an official 'group' of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association).

Andrew Bernstein, (Duke University (I'm not sure this one is up to date))

Gary Hull, (Duke University)

Carrie-Ann Biondi, (Marymount Manhattan College)

Chris Sciabarra, a scholar at New York University, has told me that Ayn Rand has been discussed in the following scholarly sources:

Philosophical Books

Review of Metaphysics

The Monist

The Personalist

Social Philosophy and Policy

Catholic World

American Journal of Economics and Sociology

Germano-Salavica: Canadian Journal of Germanic and Slavic Comparative and Interdisciplinary Studies

College English

University of Windsor Review

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, Impact of Science on Society

Journal of Popular Culture

Cycnos

Aristos

Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy

The Occasional Review

Reason Papers

Critical Review

Journal of Libertarian Studies

The Humanist

Commentary

Nomos

English Journal

Journal of Thought

Journal of Philosophical Research

New University Thought

Journal of Business Ethics

Library Journal

Choice

Journal of Canadian Studies

Social Justice Review

Teaching Philosophy

Resources for American Literary Study

Policy Review

Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Encyclopedia of Ethics

Encyclopedia of Libertarianism

Encyclopedia of New York State

American Authors and Books

American Novelists of Today

Encyclopedia of World Literature

Contemporary Authors

Contemporary Literary Criticism

Contemporary Novelists

A Handbook of American Literature

Contemporary Women Philosophers

Oxford Companion to American Literature

Reader's Encyclopedia of American Literature

Twentieth Century Authors

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[–]ADefiniteDescription [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Just because I found it curious that you'd list all of those, the only philosophy resources you listed that anyone actually cares about are the following (and even these aren't particularly well-regarded):

Philosophical Books

Review of Metaphysics

The Monist

Journal of Business Ethics

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

EDIT: I should be clear - the SEP is very well regarded, but isn't a venue for original research. The Monist is semi-well regarded (ranked 18th best general journal in a 2012 poll), and the others many folks will have heard of, but never read anything from.

[–]RobinReborn [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

What do you mean 'anyone actually cares about'?

Objectivism is an individualist philosophy, it's useful to know how popular things are amongst others, but it shouldn't be the sole basis for making decisions.

[–]Prometheus720 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Fucking ivory tower. Only the most vapid and uninteresting people feel the need to constantly stroke their ego by flaunting their height in the tower. It's a sign of someone who wasted their life ensnared in philosophy and academia rather than actually living.

[–]whaturpriceforflight [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Can any philosophy geeks enlighten me as to why the objectivist 'philosophy' is inconsistent and thus not a 'true philiosophy'? Because that would be the only logically correct way to evaluate the philosophy sub mods' actions.

[–]ReasonReader [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Sorry, did anyone expect r/philopsophy to be any less of a left-wing echo chamber than r/politics or r/worldnews?

This is reddit.

[–]RobinReborn [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Maybe now we can send our spammers and trolls to /r/philosophy

[–]heatdeath [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Ayn Rand is a philosopher according to Wikipedia, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

[–]chbrules [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Seriously? What makes a "philosopher?" I guess the anti-capitalist douche mods at /r/philosophy

[–]Problem_GASH [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Good to know I should unsub from there.

[–]jaspeed76 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

A quick Wiki search reveals that...

Ayn Rand (/ˈaɪn ˈrænd/;[1] born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum, Russian: Али́са Зиновьевна Розенбаум; February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982) was a Russian-born American novelist, philosopher,[2] playwright, and screenwriter. She is known for her two best-selling novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and for developing a philosophical system she called Objectivism.

[–]jaspeed76 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I repeat.... "developing a philosophical system called Objectivism." . Can you develop a philosophical system if you aren't a philosopher?

[–]TheOnlyKarsh [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I think you miss the point of r/philosophy. They are not interested in the free discussion of philosophy but the free discussion of the correct philosophy.

Silly individual for thinking for yourself. This is best left to those that know better how it's done.

Karsh

[–]RobinReborn [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Looks like there's current a link to Rand's talk at West Point ( http://fare.tunes.org/liberty/library/pwni.html ) so the mods are inconsistent or that will also be deleted shortly.

[–]luaudesign [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Misologists.

[–]the_grandmysteri [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I thought /r/philosophy was about philosophical discussion, thought and questions. Full stop. Apparently I'm wrong.

I get that Ayn Rand isn't exactly very 'philosophical' but more of an author - as it is her profession, but still - No individual person should be considered 'banned' or out of the discussion of philosophical argument should be banned from /r/philosophy/ and not be considered simply because she or he is not a philosopher by trade.

[–]amarigatachi [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Are they fucking serious?! Tell me you're just trolling us...

[–]blackmagicmouse [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

If you want to have an uncensored and unbiased conversation; Reddit is not the place to do so and never has been.

The voting system encourages that only popular opinions are seen and addressed, and that unpopular ones are not posted for fear of backlash.

The moderation system also allows for censorship both public and in secret.

If you are using Reddit as anything more than a funnel for trending internet links on various subjects then you are quite frankly using it wrong.

[–]wytewydow [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

L. Ron Hubbard was just an author, and his philosophy became a religion..

[–]freedomfreighter [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

/r/philosophy is the /r/politics of philosophy. It's just a circle jerk for egotistical feel-gooders who have perverted the term "philosophy" to mean self-sacrifice and big words.

[–]PM_ME_DOTFILES [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

As a critic of Objectivism I concur with the view of the moderators that Ayn Rand is not an academically acceptable philosopher. However, I think the mods were immature in their responses. Ayn Rand and Objectivism should be discussed in that subreddit so that it can be criticized as a philosophy.

For those who contend that Ayn Rand was a philosopher, I do agree that by some intuition she was. But one cannot say that her philosophy of Objectivism has had any effect on the development of contemporary philosophical thought.

Here: https://tommorris.org/posts/3082

[–]EreTheWorldCrumbles [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

But one cannot say that her philosophy of Objectivism has had any effect on the development of contemporary philosophical thought.

That's only true if you disregard any philosophical thought that has to do with her philosophy.
Nonetheless, considering she is directly critical of the contemporary establishment of philosophical thought, it is no surprise that she had no hand in its development.
She would be glad of that fact.

But to imply that her philosophy not being widely taught in classrooms makes it not worth discussing seriously, is a blatant appeal to authority.

r/philosophy--and the act of philosophizing--are not subordinate to academia or to established dogma.

If a large facet of people take a perspective seriously, as they do objectivism, the onus is on the establishment to engage, and attempt to dispute these ideas, not to sweep them under the rug.

[–]RobinReborn [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Interesting analysis.

Of course, it's possible Rand will be influential among contemporary philosophers in the future.

She's clearly influential among many people, aside from her impressive book sales several politicans have cited her as an inspiration.

[–]hotoatmeal [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

But one cannot say that her philosophy of Objectivism has had any effect on the development of contemporary philosophical thought.

So being a philosopher is a popularity contest, and only those who agree with the collective hivemind are considered philosophers?