SCOTT MILLER
News Assistant
As I sat in my lecture class in Elkins last week, my professor was explaining a biblical passage from the book of Luke; he was afraid that it would sound too much like social Darwinism, so he quickly explained that it was nothing of the sort, and that it wasn’t “Ayn Rand, or ‘Atlas Shrugged’ stuff” (“Atlas Shrugged” being a 1957 novel written by Rand, which was very political in nature, arguing against social welfare and for a very socially Darwinistic approach to government). As a reader, and moderate admirer of Rand, I couldn’t help but notice and mark the tone of contempt in my professor’s voice as he pronounced Rand’s name and magnum opus.
While I am not in any way a Rand-roid (the nickname for Rand’s radical followers), I still bristle every time I hear someone try to put Rand down. Especially since one should actually form his or her own opinions, not simply accept what a pontificating professor has to say on the subject. Also, most of the time, the insults are not even necessarily true. There is the common misconception that Rand is evil and heartless. But by reading the novels that she has penned, one can see that notion is false.
Rand argues for logic and pure reason. According to her, that is the way to lead a meaningful life. She goes on to apply that idea to nearly every facet of life, including work, love, family and politics. Rand’s views almost always conflict with indoctrinated social norms, something that causes her to be dismissed without a second thought; however, if one approaches the material with an open mind and reads the arguments, Rand makes some very poignant cases against such ideals as altruism and collectivism.
However, I need not get too deeply into Rand’s specific beliefs to make a good point; using the position of a professor and lecturer to baselessly pontificate against a legitimate and intelligent philosopher is wrong. It is especially wrong when professors do not even explain their position against said philosopher, but simply denounces him or her. It is this kind of “criticism” (if that term is even applicable in this instance) that breeds ignorant rejection of some of the greatest thinkers of history.
Like all philosophers, there are ideas with which one agrees and disagrees. When one disagrees with some of a philosopher’s arguments, one should not denounce everything they say. That kind of blanket response is indicative of ignorance. It is important to actually read different thinkers and absorb their arguments, rather than just mindlessly rejecting them. That idea is one that Rand would support vehemently.
While Rand may not be the most popular philosopher at Pepperdine, she undoubtedly has certain aspects that students should appreciate. Students can only learn about those ideas by reading the material for themselves. In that sense, students should read different thinkers, rather than listen to blanket statements made by professors, who provide no justification for the arbitrary assertions that they make.
02-22-2007
