Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Justin Fisher's avatar

    To be worth using, a detector needs not only (A) not get very many false positives, but also (B) get…

  2. Mark's avatar

    Everything you say is true, but what is the alternative? I don’t think people are advocating a return to in-class…

  3. Deirdre Anne's avatar
  4. Keith Douglas's avatar

    Cyber security professional here -reliably determining when a computational artifact (file, etc.) was created is *hard*. This is sorta why…

  5. sahpa's avatar

    Agreed with the other commentator. It is extremely unlikely that Pangram’s success is due to its cheating by reading metadata.

  6. Deirdre Anne's avatar
  7. Mark's avatar

Thoughts on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy–“a disciplinary treasure”

Brian Leiter

A senior philosopher writes:

Have you thought about commenting, or inviting discussion, of the entries in SEP?  I’m a big fan of the project, and contributed several pieces, but my RSS feed of recent entries has raised my brows in several cases.  The most egregious was the entry on Ayn Rand, but the entries I’ve seen of late don’t seem to be justified by any reasonable standard of topics or people most deserving of entries.  I was once an area editor, but had to quit, and faced a number of “volunteer” projects that were sent to me from the central players in the project, many of which I didn’t think should be pursued.  They ended up appearing in SEP, and I fear the motivation may be more than a matter of which entries are most deserving of inclusion. 

 

There is no question that SEP is fantastic, but if the recent entries I’ve noted are the new standard, there is an emphasis on something other than the importance of the possible entry that made SEP fantastic in the first place.  The entry that set me off was the Ayn Rand one—the bibliography alone is one of the most embarrassing I’ve ever seen:  outlets of questionable merit at best, etc. 

 

So I’m venting…  And wondering what you might think about this.  In my view, SEP is a disciplinary treasure, but the last year of entries have raised too many questions in my mind about what is happening with the project…

You can view a chronological list of recent SEP entries here.  My own, tentative view is that it is probably in the institutional interest of the SEP project to cast its net widely in terms of topics, even if some of them are of relatively narrow appeal to professional philosopher or of doubtful philosophical merit.  But looking over the list of recent entries, I am less sure than my correpondent that the balance has tipped too much in one direction.

 

Signed comments will be strongly preferred, but all submissions must have a valid e-mail address (which will not appear).  Submit your comment only once, it may take awhile to appear.

Leave a Reply to Doug Portmore Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

49 responses to “Thoughts on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy–“a disciplinary treasure””

  1. Paul Schofield

    I haven't read the Ayn Rand entry, but I don't mind that it exists. A lot of students will come into moral and political philosophy classes thinking Rand has said everything that needs to be said on the topic. So it would be good for teachers to at least know something about her (other than the obvious). If the entry is a good one, it will give me an intelligent overview without my having to read Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and her countless essays that amount to little more that simplistic misunderstandings of Aristotle, Kant, and Hume. (I have looked at a couple of essays like this, and it is what convinced me not to bother continuing.) So, I will probably read the entry at some point, and I hope to find it useful.

    As to the general question, I think all the recent topics are fine. I would prefer that SEP cast a wide net. The wide net is part of what makes it so wonderful, I think.

    Reply
  2. Peter Momtchiloff

    The topics added this year all seem to me worth covering in a comprehensive encyclopedia of philosophy. Perhaps your correspondent was more worried about the quality issue, that may be what you prefer to discuss.

    Reply
  3. Doug Portmore

    I don't see why SEP should not cast its net as widely as possible. I certainly don't object to SEP's including an entry on Ayn Rand. I would object to it only if it doesn't meet certain quality standards (and I haven't read it; so I don't know whether it does). In any case, the objection from Brian Leiter's correspondent seems to be that it shouldn't have been included, not that it's of poor quality. Why not include it, though? With SEP, it's not as if having an entry on Ayn Rand means less space for some more important topic as is the case with a print encyclopedias. So I don't see any reason to exclude it. And I do see some reason to include it. Rand has influenced the philosophical thinking of a number of people (e.g., Tara Smith and quite a few undergraduate and graduate philosophy students that I've had over the years). And Rand is not infrequently anthologized in introduction to philosophy texts. Thus, it seems like a good idea to have an entry on Rand so that people who haven't read anything by her except for what's sometimes anthologized in intro to philosophy books (people like myself) have a place to look for a brief overview if they want one.

    Reply
  4. Roger Albin

    I'm a non-philosopher who likes to dip into the philosophy literature. I find the SEP to be an excellent resource. A broad array of topics is an asset to a project like the SEP.

    Reply
  5. John Gray

    I initially thought there should be a section on why most of us cringe when we here the name Ayn Rand, but then realized that there isn't much interesting philosophically to say about the claim that Rand's novels are historically, emotionally, and psychologically dishonest and that her philosophy is a form of degraded, marketplace Nietzsche. So I think the authors did as good a job as they can.

    And most importantly, the fact is that there are first-rate philosophers such as Eric Mack and Roderick Long (one of the co-writers of the piece; I've never read Badhwar's work, I don't mean this as a slight not to include him) who take Rand seriously. I think that this is plenty of reason to include the article in the Stanford Encyclopedia.

    However, I do agree with the worry about citations. Leonard Peikoff is a venal hack who runs a cult dedicated to bilking rich folks of money by telling them how great they are. But this being said, he is part of the Randian history and so his works and views should probably be included.

    And it is also worth noting that Peikoff has tried to excommunicate real philosophers like David Kelly and Roderick Long who have the temerity to suggest that Rand might be mistaken about some things. So, given this history of bizarre censorship among Rand's followers, Long and Badwhar including ignorant gurus like Peikoff in the citations was certainly erring on the right side. Even if they themselves were censored, they weren't going to go in for the same thing.

    But still. . . Here's just one example of what a morally despicable moron Peikoff is. He actually formally informed all the Randroids that ideas such as libertarianism and non-Aristotelian logic (!!!) are "inherantly dishonest" such that anyone who believes in them must be shunned because it is not possible to be a good person and believe in such ideas. Here's a representative quote from the directive with a link.

    I don't see what is so objectionable about the Ayn Rand entry. The entry is written by an accomplished and respected philosopher, it accurately states and explains Rand's views, and the bibliography is pretty standard. Maybe there are some "outlets of questionable merit" in the bib., but hey – those outlets are where some of the relevant Rand material has been published. (It is probably also worth noting that in that bibliography there are far more outlets of genuine merit.) So what is the big deal? Just because Ayn Rand and her views are objectionable does not mean that a dispassionate and accurate entry about her is objectionable.

    Reply
  6. Grad student

    I think the entries on niche subjects can actually be the most useful, especially those on minor philosophers from olden times. If you want to acquaint yourself with some major debate in contemporary philosophy, there are lots of places you can go, like all the _Companions_, _Handbooks_, and _Guides_. But it can be harder to track down well-organized, trustworthy synopses (in English) on some turn of the century neo-Kantian or the person who prefigured Maimonides on such and such subject. In these cases the articles in the SEP can be a god-send.

    Reply
  7. Ben Caplan

    Whether or not the _SEP_ has been adding questionable entries of late (and I'm not saying that is has), it has also been adding non-questionable entries. Since January 2010, the _SEP_ has added (or updated? — I haven't checked) entries on Neurath, Ross, Boole, Quine, and Kant; on Lewis's metaphysics; and on causal theories of mental content, sentence connectives in formal logic, truth values, and free logic. That doesn't sound like jumping the shark to me. (Full disclosure: I'm a subject editor for the _SEP_, but I had nothing to do with any of those entries.)

    Reply
  8. Matt Lister

    My assumption is that "minor" entries in the SEP have no risk of crowding out more important ones in the way that they might in a physical print volume. If that's so, then I see no problem at all in including entries on figures or positions that are in some ways marginal, assuming that competent people can be found to write on them. I usually, at most, skim the entries on minor medieval or Islamic philosophy figures, and am not competent to judge the historical scholarship on these figures, but when I do look at them I usually find them interesting, and am glad that the information is there if I want it. If including these entries meant that more central figures or problems could not be included or given enough room this might be a significant argument against including them, but as I assume that's not the case, I see no good reason at all for not including these entries.

    Reply
  9. John Thompson

    I'm a lawyer pursuing a series of challenging cases that implicate the common-law doctrine of unconscionability. The SEP entry on Paternalism has been very helpful in clarifying my views on the institutional authority of courts to intercede and disrupt bargains struck by private parties of disparate bargaining power. Trial courts often balk when called upon to apply the unconscionability doctrine because it requires them to make strictly normative judgments about what the law does and does not permit human beings to do to one another in contract. The philosophical justifications for paternalism outlined (however briefly) in the SEP have helped shape and sharpen my arguments to judges who might otherwise be reluctant to get involved in this sort of decisionmaking.

    Reply
  10. Dana Howard

    I find the "Feminism" section of the Ayn Rand entry to be incredibly offensive and not worthy of being part of the SEP. The way the "rape" scene from _The Fountainhead_ is defended in this section is quite appalling:

    "At least as offensive to many are the violent sex scenes in her novels, especially the infamous “rape” scene in The Fountainhead, where Howard Roark “takes” Dominique in spite of her resistance.Those who reject the charge of rape, however, argue that in the 1940s and 50s, when Rand wrote her novels, it was widely believed that the mere fact that a woman puts up a fight doesn't necessarily mean that she is withholding consent. More importantly, the reader is given to understand that the hero understands that the heroine has given her consent, and she understands that he understands, even if they have exchanged no words: violent sex must be distinguished from non-consensual sex (McElroy 1999; Sheaffer 1999)."

    The inappropriateness of this section speaks for itself.

    I am not against having an Ayn Rand entry in the SEP. I feel like it has the potential to be a useful resource that presents as well as critiques the work of Ayn Rand, especially for younger students who are interested in objectivism and derivatively might be interested in philosophy. But as this section evinces, I don't think that the current entry is providing such a service.

    Reply
  11. Mark van Roojen

    The list of most recent submissions looked pretty good to me. It isn't a surprise that later in the project entries of less general interest would be somewhat more numerous than at earlier times. But precisely because many of us know little about those topics, the entries can be quite useful when we find ourselves needing a place to start. There seems to me to be nothing to worry about here.

    Reply
  12. Chris Brooke

    It's a common feature with large reference projects that, as they continue, the subjects of their entries become more obscure or marginal, and it's sounding as if the Stanford Encyclopedia is no exception.

    Two other examples that I use from time to time, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and the Dictionary of Labour Biography, are cases in point: the early editions / volumes contained a much more conservative / mainstream selection of entries, and people are now being included who'd never have been considered by earlier editors.

    And, in general, I'd have thought this is a good thing. (It certainly is in these cases of the ODNB and DLB.) The key point, as others have already said on this thread, is that high editorial standards get maintained.

    Reply
  13. Nathan Westbrook

    Given Rand's popularity among my students and among non-philosophers generally, I would find it very useful to have a top-quality critical assessment of her life, work, thought. SEP seems to me like just the place to find such an article. The SEP articles I've read in my own areas are so good, I'd hope and expect that all the articles in the SEP could serve as go-to references. I'm sure that as the SEP project gets bigger, quality control gets to be more work. Still, expansion shouldn't come at the expense of quality. In the particular case of the Rand article that triggered this discussion, is a revision in order? If so, what's the best mechanism for we SEP users to plump for it?

    Reply
  14. Tibor R. Machan

    I have been impressed and influenced by Rand and have done reasonably well in the discipline and find the effort to purge her disgusting–how many thinkers I might purge if I just went by me gut reactions, like that commentator appears to have done! (Habermas, Derrida, Lyotard (?), Parfit, and a whole bunch of funsterists/sophists posing as serious philosophers. Give me a break. Let a million flowers bloom and ignore the snooty bunch!

    Reply
  15. Chike

    I found this complaint surprising, as I had never stopped to consider that some might find the incredible range of topics the SEP manages to cover a cause for concern rather than celebration. A number of replies have pointed out why it would not make sense to exclude Rand (and I say that even as I remember the bad taste in my mouth from the one and only time I ever sat down to try reading her). I wonder what else the person might be referring to?

    Reply
  16. Jon Mishaan

    Following Dana, what struck me about the entry is that there is no space for criticisms. While most entries on philosophers don't have criticisms either, I think with someone as marginalized by the broader philosophical community as Rand, one would expect to at least see a section devoted to her critics.

    Reply
  17. Manyul Im

    I'm not a Rand scholar and I don't find her views very appealing on first read — and those are the only reads I've given them. A piece in the SEP might be helpful to me, say, if a student is interested in writing about Rand — it may turn out that the student's topic is relevant or irrelevant to the course I'm teaching but I wouldn't really know unless something like the SEP piece were available. I feel the same way about most of the SEP pieces I've consulted. I put MUCH more trust in SEP's editors than, as a random example, the Wikipedia process. So, I disagree with the senior philosopher about the utility, in principle, of SEP's being less inclusive, topic-wise.

    Reply
  18. Uri Nodelman and Ed Zalta

    We see the SEP as an attempt to organize scholars in philosophy and closely related fields to create and maintain an online reference for themselves, for students, and for the general public. As such, we do try to cast a wide net with our entries (as several of the comments have noted).

    But we always put quality above quantity. Most of our entries go through several drafts and we don't publish any entry until it has passed the referee process. Once an entry is published, SEP readers form another important resource in maintaining and improving quality. Our guidelines require that our authors "revise their entries in a timely way in light of any valid criticism they receive, whether it comes from the subject editors on our Editorial Board, other members of the profession, or interested readers".

    So we welcome those who have specific issues with an entry, or even with the entry selection process, to write to us (editors@plato.stanford.edu) with the criticism. But we like to see specific, constructive criticisms that can be evaluated on the merits and, when appropriate, passed along to authors (with a request to engage) or the subject editors.

    Reply
  19. anon

    Judging by his comment above, Tibor Machan appears to think that Ayn Rand is vastly superior to a number of other philosophers, including – of all people – Derek Parfit. At the very least, he suggests that the case for excluding Rand from the SEP is *on par* with the case for excluding the work of Parfit (!).

    This is not the place to discuss the merits of Professor Parfit's writings. I will simply note that Machan's assessment of the relative merits of Parfit's work and Ayn Rand's work is surely the the most bizarre and preposterous claim that has ever been made on this blog.

    Reply
  20. Tibor R. Machan

    So I read that "Machan's assessment of the relative merits of Parfit's work and Ayn Rand's work is surely the the most bizarre and preposterous claim that has ever been made on this blog." We are to take this on faith, I assume. Well, I have studied Parfit's work–Reasons and Persons, in particular–and it is pure funsterism, sophistry: Because something is logically not inconceivable (that, say, we are all nations or teams, not individuals), it becomes a serious philosophical thesis. Give me a break. Just because someone is clever it doesn't make him or her philosophically astute! (At least is looks match his style!)

    Reply
  21. Mark Silcox

    I've read Reasons and Persons quite carefully too, and the thesis that Machan seems to be attributing to Parfit (viz. that if x is not a logically inconceivable claim, then x is a serious philosophical thesis) is certainly never endorsed there, either explicitly or implicitly. Then of course, there's the incoherent grammar, the ad hominems, and the infantile personal abuse. All in one short paragraph!

    The moral of the story seems to be as follows: by all means, include Rand in a reference work if you think you must, but for God's sake try to avoid introducing her name into an otherwise serious discussion anywhere on the internet, or this sort of drivel will start to surface like globs of oil on a Louisiana beach, and end up polluting everything.

    For further confirmation of the foregoing hypothesis, look here:
    http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html

    Reply
  22. Leiter's Correspondent

    I appreciate all of these thoughts on SEP in response to my concerns. I especially appreciate the thoughtful reply from Ed and Uri. Two quick replies are worth making, I think.

    First, it is true that the Rand entry was the triggering cause of my complaint, especially the notable absence of any secondary literature from top journals. Not a surprise, of course, but part of the story of the collective opinion of the profession about Rand's status. Moreover, there is no mention in the entry of why this might be so–the general collective disdain of objectivist philosophy is ignored entirely. I would think that a disinterested treatment of Rand's philosophy would address the matter in some way, and the paucity of serious work on her ideas in quality outlets. Whatever one thinks of the work of, say, Parfit or Habermas, there is no such collective disdain to address. (Note for example the way in which entries on obscure figures in the history of philosophy acknowledge the obscurity, sometimes arguing that the philosopher is under-appreciated and sometimes simply acknowledging such standing.) The worry here is one about false credibility because of the status of SEP. Just as many philosophers, including me, cringe at news of quality publications including work on creation science, I cringe when SEP does something similar.

    Many respondents have pointed out the value of SEP casting a wide net. I agree on that point, and also acknowledge that my initial note had strong hints of wanting fewer entries. The issue here isn't one of inclusiveness, however, but one of balance. Most reference sources have a way of indicating relative importance by restricting length of an entry, but electronic resources don't incur additional costs based on length, so there is no reason for such restrictions in the case of SEP. So how else can SEP indicate relative merit while still being inclusive? One way is to insist that the authors of entries take responsibility for that issue, so that in the case of relatively insignificant philosophers, no false impression of credibility is generated by mere inclusion of a lengthy piece in SEP.

    Perhaps there are other ways to guard against such false impressions and still be inclusive, but I haven't been able to come up with ideas beyond the above. In any case, thanks to Brian for pursuing this issue and to all the comments above.

    Reply
  23. anon

    I have no problem with the SEP publishing a detailed article on Rand. My concern is that the article gives an academic gloss to her work which simply isn't justified by the quality of her actual writing. Reading the SEP article, one gets the impression that Rand produced a sophisticated neo-Aristotelian philosophy. This is a stark contrast with what she actually put down in print. Many of Rand's actual writings are crude, scattershot, lacking in rigor, and convey serious misunderstandings of both Aristotle and other historical figures like Kant. From that article, however, one could easily get the impression that Rand had a fully developed and well articulated philosophy. Indeed, much of the article reads as if certain technically refined, Rand-inspired positions have been projected back onto her corpus by the authors. This, rather than the decision to include her in the SEP, seems to be the real issue. Maybe an SEP entry on L. Ron Hubbard ought to exist. If that same entry leaves the impression that his philosophy is similar to and of the same philosophical caliber as Arthur Schopenhauer's, then this is a major problem.

    Reply
  24. Tibor R. Machan

    Parfit is a token of a very popular type of contemporary but narrowly focused philosopher, one who is mostly concerned with what is imaginable, conceivable, or not logically impossible (going back to Hume with all this). It is fun to do this–has spawned an industry of doctoral dissertations and zillions of journal papers and even some "scientific" speculations (e.g., string theory and multiple/parallel universes). Rand was more grounded–and directly didactic, even polemical at times–and concerned with how philosophical understanding may enhance human life here in this actual (as distinct from logically possible, whatever that is supposed to be) world. Sure, she wasn't an Oxbridge sort of virtuoso–less like Ayer, more like Marx or Spencer–but quite easily included among the vast array of different sort of philosophers a comprehensive encyclopedia must cover. (The complaint that in a short comment like this, one isn't producing detailed, refined philosophy just shows how out of context some folks choose to get when they wish to score points and demean their adversaries instead of to make useful observations.) Finding Rand in an encyclopedia is no more out of touch than finding Sidney Hook or C. I. Lewis in one. No one needs to approve of her ideas only realize that they are philosophically pregnant enough.

    Reply
  25. Paul Schofield

    I'm not sure that I see the complaint anymore. This began with what seemed like a general complaint about the direction of the SEP (a complaint I disagree with). But now it seems like the main complaint is that the SEP entry on Rand doesn't make her look like enough of a hack. I wouldn't object to including a "criticisms" section, or including some discussion about how she isn't well received in philosophical circles. But, honestly, I would prefer that entries err on the side of trying to make some sense of an author. Worst case scenario: some undergrad reads the entry and comes away thinking that a positive reconstruction of Rand's work represents the letter of the text in "Atlas Shrugged." Or the undergrad gets a copy of "The Virtue of Selfishness" and begins reading and thinks: "Hey. This is nonsense and a waste of my time! That SEP entry was too charitable!" Or maybe, as in the case of "Tibor R. Machan"– maybe they will see something in the essays that we all think isn't there. None of this sounds too terrible to me. And all of it sounds like an improvement over what you get when you google "Ayn Rand" and begin reading whatever pops up.

    Of course, there are limits. If the entry truly bears no relationship to anything Rand says (something that I am not qualified to judge), then the editors of SEP seem quite open to specific criticism. But absent that, I don't see much problem with the SEP in general or the Rand entry in particular. (And, as I think I said in my initial comment, I am no fan of Rand's– so that is not my motivation here).

    Reply
  26. Emily

    I want only to reiterate what seems to me a very, very important point made by Dana Howard. The sentences about rape are offensive. Shockingly offensive. "Rape" and "takes" are in scare quotes, for God's sake! If there is a way to file a formal complaint, I would be happy to file it.

    Reply
  27. Eric

    I have no problem with an entry on Ayn Rand, even though I think her position is far less philosophically pregnant than Professor Machan claims it to be. I agree with the idea of 'letting a thousand flowers bloom' but the SEP should still be held to a standard of consistency. The Rand entry, though, seems to gloss over (or completely leave out) any substantive criticisms of her views. In the passages noted about the rape scene, the authors mention don't offer any citations to critics of her treatment of sex (although one citation, Brownmiller, is offered as evidence of anti-feminism) while at least six are offered in support of the Rand-as-feminist thesis. This seems rather lopsided to me. The rest of the topics in the entry seems to be about the same.

    Most of the entries in the SEP offer a fairly clear and balanced presentation of the topic or thinker, and offer a nice selection of popular critical views. I would think the authors of the Rand piece could have found some place to interject, say, some criticism of Rand's view of altruism or at least offer some citations to point readers to its existence.

    Reply
  28. Eric Brown

    D. Howard and Emily make a very good point. The present version of the Rand entry, on a very natural reading, defends Rand's endorsement of rape. I hope that this is not what the authors intend, and that Ed and Uri will ask them to rework the discussion to head off the ugly implicature. Here is a proposed revision that blocks the implicature:

    "At least as offensive to many are the violent sex scenes in her novels, especially the infamous scene in _The Fountainhead_ in which Howard Roark has sex with Dominique in spite of her resistance. With this scene, critics note, Rand appears to be endorsing rape. Some try to defend Rand, however. They argue that violent sex is not rape if it is consensual, and they try to show that Dominique has consented to the sex (McElroy 1999; Sheaffer 1999)."

    (I do not know whether McElroy 1999 and Sheaffer 1999 actually try to show that Dominique has consented to the sex, but for the life of me, I cannot imagine how else they maintain that "the reader is given to understand that the hero understands that the heroine has given her consent, and she understands that he understands." If they don't actually try to show that Dominique has consented to the sex, then that sentence needs to be reworked, obviously, and the authors of the entry should say plainly that McElroy and Sheaffer are apologists for rape.)

    Reply
  29. Emily

    Thanks to Eric B. and Eric. I think they are both right that cleaning up the language and adding citations of those who claim the scene is a "rape" (scare quotes the author's) will allay my concerns. I might also suggest making use of a distinction between explicit and tacit consent. Opponents of the feminist interpretation are trying to show that active resistance can count, and in this instance does count, as tacit consent. The feminists can claim a) that there was neither explicit nor tacit consent, or b) that a man's assumption of tacit consent in the light of active resistance makes him a morally troubling character, even if you enjoy characters who think they deserve to have sex with women who resist their advances. I should probably have said a bit more about my concerns earlier, but I had to run off to an adviser's training session where I learned that my students can get get course credit for RAD. Another win for social change.

    Reply
  30. Leiter's Correspondent

    In line with Eric B.'s remark, the passage in question is deeply problematic. Equally relevant, however, is that if Machan's defense is all that can be offered, that's enough for my point. Any philosopher should be able to distinguish between opinions one agrees with and whether the arguments and defenses of that position are philosophical howlers. Rand's are typically the latter, and that's enough to raise the problem I've remarked on: attempts at inclusiveness need to demonstrate some editorial supervision to ensure that entries don't contribute to a false sense of significance simply because of inclusion in SEP.

    Reply
  31. Christopher Morris

    I'm not sure why the discussion has focused on Rand. One of the other recent entries is about the legal-political thinker Carl Schmitt, a Nazi whose works have been quite influential on the Continent in recent decades. I'd have thought that his presence would horrify some.

    The initial note from Leiter's Correspondent did single out the piece on Rand by saying that "The most egregious was the entry on Ayn Rand, but the entries I’ve seen of late don’t seem to be justified by any reasonable standard of topics or people most deserving of entries." One of the important questions raised by this person is whether thinkers and topics of lesser merit should be included in the SEP. I think they should.

    The SEP is one of the wonders of the world, and we are all indebted to it and its enterprising editors. An encyclopedia like SEP can serve many purposes. Most of them are obvious — to provide an overview of a topic or the work of a philosopher, etc. If many of us, like me, like to read about a number of topics about which we are quite ignorant, that speaks to breadth and tolerance. Another, quite different purpose would be to establish a "canon" of worthwhile topics and author. The double quotation marks are added as the term has quite a life in the literary fields in American universities. The very last thing I should want the editors of SEP to do is to try to establish a canon of acceptable figure or topics. The thought is absurd to most of us. It is true that the editors must judge whether an author is a philosopher or, better, whether he or she raises interesting philosophical questions or puts forward philosophical answers. But given the variety of views about this in our profession or field or corner of the world, it'd be absurd for the editors to do anything but cast the net wide, as Brian suggests. Perhaps many are worried that the mere appearance of an entry on Rand in SEP will certify her to oi polloi (or undergraduates). I grant that knowing that smart philosophers such as the authors of the piece are interested in Rand's thought does suggest it can't be as hopeless as many think. But no one can seriously suggest that the editors instruct authors to state that their good opinion of an author is not shared by the professoriate.

    Reply
  32. Neil

    Christopher Morris thinks that it is absurd to suggest that the editors of the SEP instruct authors to state that their good opinion of an author is not shared by the professoriate. It does not strike me as in the least absurd. There are philosophers who are creationists. Some are competent philosophers. But were they to write an entry on evolution, they ought to be required to make clear that their views are minority positions, which are regarded as not merely mistaken but egregiously so. I don't see why this shouldn't apply to Rand.

    I share other commentator's mystification at the general tone of "Leiter's correspondent's" complaint, though. Beyond Schmitt and Rand – for both of whom there is a case for inclusion, though also a case against – I can't think of an entry in the SEP that strikes me as in the least inappropriate.

    Reply
  33. Grad_Student

    Re: Carl Schmitt

    Actually, I think Carl Schmitt's SEP entry (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schmitt/) — and there's absolutely no question he should be included, I think — makes for a very instructive contrast with that of Ayn Rand (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schmitt/).

    The author of the Schmitt entry begins and ends the article with a mention of Schmitt's Nazi involvement and the frequent apologetics Schmitt conducted on their behalf. This historical context is also frequently referred to in the body of the article. Compare this to the triumphalist start of the Rand article, which seems like it would be more appropriate either on IMDB.com or on the back of a profile-in-courage from Regnery Publishing.

    In addition, in the Schmitt article the author constantly pushes back on Schmitt's claims, draws attention to the weaknesses of his arguments, points out the political context and ramifications of his thought, attributes opinions about the man to their actual holders ("Some say [citation]")without appearing to privilege any one perspective as absolute, and in general appears to accurately represent the spectrum of different scholarly receptions afforded to Schmitt's works while also putting those works under a dialectical magnifying-glass that never takes their correctness for granted.

    In the case of "controversial entries" (Schmitt, Heidegger, Rand, and so on), I think the SEP's article on Schmitt, which combines a sympathetic explication of his arguments with a tough-minded evaluation of their soundness, constant reminders of Schmitt's Nazi-complicity, and an accurate representation of the range of scholarship, provides a much better template than the Rand entry.

    Reply
  34. Tibor R. Machan

    It is fascinating to read many of these posts with their certainties and hubris on display with no hesitation, no admission that in this space all that can be offered is one's raw opinion, nothing well established, well grounded. The heavy reliance on being in the mainstream attests to this. But then why should a good many shoot-from-the-hip readers of the encyclopedia be any more responsible than are the commentators on Fox TV or MS NBC? For my money the more exposure and study Rand receives, the better. I have thought this since I fought off all my professors in undergraduate and graduate school and later in the thick of the profession. Being regarded as fringe–as if majority rule mattered for much in philosophy–is no liability as far as I can tell. (It was pretty much like that when I was a kid in school in Communist Hungary, facing down the powerful and state supported cheerleaders of Marx and Lenin.)

    Reply
  35. Duncan Bell

    I disagree with Christopher Morris about the inclusion of Schmitt. As long as there is a critical discussion of the (deeply) problematic aspects of his work, then there is no problem with his inclusion. He has been a very influential thinker in various prominent debates in legal and political theory. The issue with Rand is not whether she should be accorded space, but whether the entry on her is sufficiently critical. If SEP avoided all thinkers who held or advocated disturbing political positions, the list of entries would be a lot shorter than it currently is. Heidegger would have to go for a start. And John Stuart Mill, who was a strong supporter of British imperialism. But I doubt many would argue that they should be excluded.

    Reply
  36. John Gardner

    An interesting twist: Parfit took Rand seriously. I know this because I inherited (somehow) his closely annotated copy of 'The Virtue of Selfishness'. This book was surely his inspiration for S (the 'self-interest theory'), which he patiently showed to be directly self-defeating in part 1 of R&P. It is testament to Derek's extraordinary generosity that he elevated to the status of a 'theory' (in order to launch a thoughtful critique of) Rand's preposterous views and the execrable drivel that purports to be her defence of them.

    It just goes to show: If Ayn Rand hadn't existed, serious philosophers would have had to invent her! That alone surely entitles her to a place in the SEP. A shame the piece doesn't explain the embarrassing basis of her entitlement to be there.

    Reply
  37. Lars Vinx

    As the writer of the entry on Carl Schmitt, I would like to point that I do not hold 'a good opinion' on Schmitt, in the sense of endorsing or sympathizing with Schmitt's political theory. It should be obvious that there's a difference between writing about someone's views and advocating those views. I hope that readers of the entry will find that it maintains a sufficient critical distance to Schmitt (and the current vogue for Schmitt in certain circles) and I'd be very happy to hear from readers who think that the entry is deficient in this (or any other) respect.

    Reply
  38. Christopher Morris

    It's obvious that Schmitt should be included in the SEP. I was merely puzzled why people were so upset about Rand but not Schmitt. I look forward to reading this entry too.

    Reply
  39. Steven Hales

    I have to disagree with Christopher Morris's remark that "no one can seriously suggest that the editors instruct authors to state that their good opinion of an author is not shared by the professoriate." An encyclopedia serves a different purpose and a different audience than a journal article. I have no problem with SEP including Rand or other fringe figures, but I do think there is a real danger of novices (or political operatives) inferring that their standing is equal to Hume or Quine. Compare: an encyclopedia of physics would be remiss without an entry on ether theory, but the entry should also indicate that it is now considered a fringe view by the vast majority of physicists. The same is true of encyclopedia of biology entries on Lamarckism or creationism. Other examples are easy to generate. A dictionary ought to include the word "nigger" but surely it should also indicate that the word is widely considered to be offensive, no matter what the lexicographer's personal views may be.

    Reply
  40. Tim O'Keefe

    A bit of a side note, but one I hope is worth making:

    People who think the SEP is "one of the wonders of the world" and "a disciplinary treasure" can help improve its visibility by linking to it on their personal and departmental webpages, where appropriate. This not only gives the link to the SEP, but also increases its PageRank on Google, so good SEP entries will appear closer to the top of searches. (Linking to the overall site also improves pageRank of individual entries.)

    I just typed "Epicurus" into Google, and while I'm glad to see the SEP entry in the first page of results, the following is a little disappointing:

    #1: Wikipedia Epicurus entry
    #4: Epicurus.com: Recipes, Dining, Beverages and More!
    #5: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy Epicurus entry
    #7: SEP Epicurus entry

    We probably won't be able to dethrone wikipedia for a lot of philosophy, but putting quality information among the top 2 or 3 hits would be nice.

    Reply
  41. Hume

    Caveat: I have not read the Ayn Rand entry.

    As a grad student, I find value in references like the SEP not for a general introduction to topics, but for a general introduction from the point of view of someone advocating the position. This is why I highly recommend, e.g., The Oxford Handbook in Jurisprudence and Legal Philosophy. Also, I do not find value in the knowledge that a certain theory is in or out of fashion. Such statements tend to manipulate my developing thoughts.

    Reply
  42. Tibor R. Machan

    Sorry but to compare Ayn Rand with Carl Schmitt as regards their political and related liabilities is way off the mark; for heaven's sake what has Rand done to earn this smear? She left the USSR in protest of its tyranny way before most American intellectuals figured out that the system was rotten to the core; she was an Aristotelian eudaimonist/ethical egoist, a non-believer, a supporter of libertarian capitalism (like Harvard star Nozick later became and like Quine was and Antony Flew and John Hospers and John O. Nelson and a host of other decent folk have been); she was a novelist who wrote best sellers that are still doing well, and a woman with much courage as well as with a few serious personal flaws. Schmitt, however, was a fierce Nazi, as was Heidegger for a good bit of his life, never quite giving it up to the end. (Read Mark Lilla's The Reckless Mind on this matter of intellectuals with horrid politics!) Rand was a vigorous opponent of racism, sexism, and any kind of group prejudice, although she had some ideas that could rub many the wrong way–but tell me who is both interesting and lacks these? No, let's face it, discrediting her is most likely motivated by the hatred many harbor for her unapologetic defense of free market capitalism. One way to try to refute a position is to besmirch its advocates yet this isn't all that easy with Rand.

    Reply
  43. P.S.

    "Sorry but to compare Ayn Rand with Carl Schmitt as regards their political and related liabilities is way off the mark; for heaven's sake what has Rand done to earn this smear?"

    As far as I can tell, you are engaged with an imaginary interlocutor. Unless I am missing something, no one smeared Rand in the way you suggest.

    Reply
  44. Hume

    Professor Machan,

    I was just wondering why there is a difference between the reaction to Rand vs. the reaction to Nozick, Quine, Flew, Hospers, and Nelson. If both sides are supporters of "libertarian capitalism," and if the reason for such vicious reaction to Rand is the "hatred many harbor for her unapologetic defense of free market capitalism," one would expect a similiar reaction to the other philosophers you mention.

    Reply
  45. Jon Cogburn

    Professor Machan,

    You kind of disprove yourself here. The very fact that people have a high opinion of Nozick shows that what is odious it is not that one defends free market capitalism, but rather the nature of the defense.

    I didn't want to go into this here because Roderick Long, Kelly Joley (another person in the article index), Tara Smith, Eric Mack and others really are fantastic philosophers (I don't think any fair minded person could read their work and disagree), and if they say there is something worth attending to in Rand I'm inclined to agree (though of course, having read Rand extensively as an adolescent, I can't help but wonder the extent to which this is of the nature of a Rorschach blot; by comparison consider what some people have been able to make of Wittgenstein and Heidegger's more cryptic notebooks), but:

    (A) Nozick did not habitually and confusingly elide psychological and moral egoism. (B) Nozick never went in for the truly odious uber/untermenschen theme (see both recent biographies that for example show Rand's marginal notes on Nietzsche where (1) she defends the right of ubermenschen murderers to murder, and (2) cribbed the first line of one of her novels ("Howard Roark laughed") from this same passage). (C) Nozick never used the idea that supermen have special rights as an apology for rape (consider Rand's constant refrain about the rape scenes in her novels, "that was rape with a gold plated invitation!" and also note how this was tied to her benzedrine soaked personal life; firing her employee Nathanial Brandom when he finally stood up to her about her demands that he have sex with her http://www.amazon.com/Passion-Ayn-Rand-Barbara-Branden/dp/038524388X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1282323765&sr=8-2 , and also see how she instructed all of the repulsive slugs like Leonard Peikoff and assorted psychologically damaged wannabe ubermenschen that Rand's writings attract to blackball Brandon to the point where he and his wife credibly feared for their life). (D) Nozick never made ridiculous unjustifiable inferences from tautologies like "A is A."

    One could continue well past zed in the alphabet, but there would be no point. I am reminded of a dialogue from A Fish Called Wanda.

    Wanda: Otto, you ape!
    Otto: Apes don't read Nietzsche.
    Wanda: No Otto, apes don't understand Nietzsche.

    I should however also add that Nozick's most notable students don't typically have wikipedia entrees that end in things like "He is also global warming skeptic" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibor_Machan). I guess it's a fee country dude, but unless that's a prank (as opposed to something you proudly added) don't expect the rest of us to think too highly of your ability to assess evidence. If it is a prank, you should probably contact the wikipedia administrators. However, from all I've read above, why would I not be surprised were I to find it legitimate?

    Reply
  46. Tibor R. Machan

    Having doubts about something, being skeptical of the ideas and theories involved, would seem to be intellectually permissible (but what do I know, right?). Rand has never ever advocated or even toyed with psychological egoism and in her publication The Objectivist Newsletter explicitly criticized the idea (as have I in numerous encyclopedias (e.g., “Egoism, Psychological Egoism and Ethical Egoism,” P. H. Werhane & R. F. Freedman, eds., The Encyclopedia of Business Ethics [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1996].) Rand was no academic philosopher but must everyone with worthy philosophical ideas be one? That's rank prejudice. (Judging by what Rand's foes say here, hardly any one of them has actually read her, certainly not her more philosophical works such as Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.)

    Reply
  47. Jon Cogburn

    Um. . . nobody here is objecting to Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Maimon, Sartre, etc. etc. etc. as philosophers, or excellent philosopher-writers like Mark Twain, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Dan Simmons etc. So your point about rank prejudice against people who are not academic philosophers makes even less sense than "global warming skepticism."

    Reply
  48. Eric

    I don't think Professor Morris (or any other commentator) was trying to equate Rand with Schmitt vis-a-vis 'political or related liabilities'. The initial question was whether Rand deserved an SEP entry, and think the majority of the comments here have indicated that, whether you like her intellectual and political positions or not, she deserves a clear and critical entry. But many (myself included) don't find her entry to be substantively critical. Glossing over the possibility that substantial criticisms can be levied makes for a weaker SEP entry, and generally a poorer intellectual inquiry.

    It seemed Professor Morris was bringing Schmitt into the picture only as an example of other SEP entries that carry with them the possibility of "does this belong in the SEP" criticism, and again it seems that commentators here have clearly shown that despite his despicable associations, Schmitt deserves an SEP for his intellectual contributions to philosophy. I don't think anyone (Professor Morris, particularly) was likening Rand to a Nazi, and it seems odd to make that claim.

    There also seems to be an assumption that most of the commentators here are opposed to Rand's entry because of her defense of free-market capitalism, but the bulk of the comments here haven't touched on those views at all. Several (myself included) have objected to her views on sex and the popular reading of the rape scene as consensual sex. Personally, I'm perfectly fine with free market capitalism-but I find most of Rand's views on human nature, power, and other things to be wildly off the mark. That doesn't mean I object to an SEP entry on Rand (there are plenty of other entries from thinkers whose views I find off-the-mark) but I just think the entry reads far less critically than a good SEP entry should.

    Reply
  49. Mohan Matthen

    Aside from the article on Ayn Rand, I can't find a single unanswered criticism of the Stanford Encyclopedia in the above. I think we should endorse the description "disciplinary treasure", and allow that at very very few recent entries should cause any elevation of eyebrows. Given the size of the project, this is an extraordinary testament to the superb job done by Zalta, Nodelman, and Allen. Thank you and congratulations.

    Reply

Designed with WordPress