The rationale for the session: Two giants of twentieth-century thought — but few comparative studies have been done. The following panelists will discuss how Friedrich Hayek’s account of reason compares to Ayn Rand’s.
Reason in Hayek and Rand Chair: Stephen Hicks, Rockford College
Jennifer Baker, College of Charleston Title: “Buying and Value” Abstract: F. A. Hayek and Ayn Rand have very distinct descriptions of consumer behavior. Rand describes consumers purchasing what they do as an acknowledgement of the value of the product. Hayek reprimands economists who make a similar description, as it is a clear “mistake.” What causes one account to differ from another on this matter? What is at stake when it comes to the rationality ascribed to consumer choice? In this paper I lay out the Randian and Hayekian alternatives and assess them against each other.
David Kelley, Atlas Society Title: “Rand vs. Hayek on Abstraction” Abstract: Both Ayn Rand and Friedrich Hayek understood that the political institutions of freedom rest on cultural foundations. Both thinkers held that individuals are influenced by the beliefs, values, and practice of their culture. Both believed that civilization has progressed from the tribalism of primitive societies toward the greater individualism of modern liberal society. At a deeper level, however, Rand and Hayek differ profoundly about the nature of culture and cultural change. Rand holds that cultural practices rest on ideas that are the product of reason and open to rational assessment. Hayek offers an evolutionary account in which ideas as well as practices are acquired by imitation and spread by a kind of natural selection.
This difference is in large part the result of more fundamental differences in their respective epistemological views. In this paper, I will discuss one central issue that I believe underlies many of the others. That issue concerns the nature of abstractions—our concepts for general kinds of their and their common attributes, and the abstract principles and rules that we form with our concepts. Rand held that we form abstractions from the observation of particular, concrete things. Hayek held the opposite view that abstractions are primary; some are innate, some acquired from our cultural environment, but neither can be independently supported by observation of concretes. Though Hayek’s view is in some ways more in tune with current theories of cognition, I will argue that it is both false and inconsistent with a fully individualist moral and political theory.
Tibor Machan, Chapman University Title: “Hayek and Rand on Constructive Rationalism” Abstract: F. A. Hayek was suspicious of constructive rationalism and this has sometimes been taken to amount to a diminution of human reason in Hayek’s eyes. Ayn Rand, in contrast, has embraced human reason as the primary means for people to grasp reality and to guide themselves as they conduct their lives.
Do Hayek and Rand disagree? Yes, Ayn Rand has been very harshly critical of Hayek, judging by her marginalia of The Road to Serfdom (see Robert Mayhew, ed., Ayn Rand’s Marginalia). But her focus in these comments was Hayek’s allegedly infelicitous writing and thus sloppy thinking, not so much his positions on various issues and even less his ideas concerning human reason. In other contexts Rand has been identified as a critic of rationalism, which could be taken as paralleling Hayek’s objection to constructive rationalism. I plan to explore these matters.
Alexei Marcoux, Loyola University Chicago Title: “Hayek’s Epistemic Case for Entrepreneurial Capitalism” Abstract: One case for entrepreneurial capitalism is straightforwardly philosophical. A handful of fundamental principles are announced and argued for. Then it is shown that an entrepreneurial capitalist social order follows from the principles announced and defended. Roughly, this is the approach of libertarian defenders of the market like Murray Rothbard, Robert Nozick, and Ayn Rand. Another case for entrepreneurial capitalism proceeds differently. It is based on an account of the epistemic limitations of human beings and what works to their advantage given those limitations. This is the approach of F. A. Hayek. In a long and prolific career that saw him make significant contributions to economics, psychology, and social and political philosophy, the common thread in Hayek’s thought is the limits of human cognition. Those limits undermine the prospects of socialist calculation and of the technocratic, managerial capitalism taught in university-based business schools and championed by thinkers like Alfred Chandler and J. K. Galbraith. The case based on epistemic limitations is contingent rather than necessary. For that reason (among others), it draws fire from other defenders of entrepreneurial capitalism for being insufficiently definite. Parallels in the thought of Michael Oakeshott will also be discussed.
3/31Being a Brief Guide to Religious Denominations in America:
A Baptist is a man who got saved.
A Methodist is a Baptist who got shoes.
A Congregationalist is a Methodist who moved to town.
A Presbyterian is a Congregationalist who got rich.
An Episcopalian is a Presbyterian who ran for public office.
(Author unknown.)
3/30 In the Chronicle, Diane Ravitch has a short history of the College Boards and SAT—and a suggestion that we revive the College Boards.
3/29 An extended interview with Chinese democracy activist Wei Jingsheng, who was imprisoned by the communist Chinese for twenty years. And here’s an interesting, briefer interview with Shelby Steele, author of the new classic The Content of Our Character.
3/27 Do you recall the (now-debunked) claim that 500 scientists had signed a letter opposing evolution and supporting “Intelligent Design”? Here’s a snappy comeback: the Alliance for Science has published a letter with the signatures of 10,000 members of the clergy who support evolution. And here is a troubling item: some public school districts in Arkansas prohibit teachers from mentioning evolution.
3/21 Fascinating: a study released in 2005 by Shanghai Jiao Tong University: The Top 100 Universities in the World. The global-distribution patterns are striking: Of the top 10 in the world—8 are in North America, and 2 are in Europe. Of the top 30 universities—23 are in North America, 5 are in Europe, and 2 are in Asia. Of the top 50 universities—39 are in North America, 9 are in Europe, and 2 are in Asia.
3/20Fortune magazine has a list of 10 cool colleges for entrepreneurs. I especially like the University of Rochester’s idea of integrating entrepreneurship across the curriculum rather than having it located only in the business department. And Forbes has a great list: The Twenty Most Important Tools Ever. (Thanks to Roger for the link.)
3/3 For researchers and admirers of the Enlightenment: Electronic Enlightenment, a developing site with texts and correspondence of over 3,800 eighteenth-century figures. Check out also the Voltaire Foundation, the force behind Electronic Enlightenment.
11/10 Fascinating: Brain scientist Norman M. Weinberger summarizes what we know about how music affects and alters the brain. (Via Arts & Letters Daily.)
11/9 Columnist Virginia Postrel reports on pharmaceutical companies’ outsourcing drug testing to India. This will (a) lower the price of drugs and (b) get them to market sooner. But somehow I suspect that the Usual Wise Commentators will denounce pharmaceutical corporations for it. And while we’re on the subject of health – let’s take on the Nanny Statists: Radley Balko takes conservative David Frum to task for proposing a fat tax. But what about those evil McCorporations that manipulate us into eating fatty foods? (Thanks to Anja for the link.)
The rationale for the session: Two giants of twentieth-century thought — but few comparative studies have been done. The following panelists will discuss how Friedrich Hayek’s account of reason compares to Ayn Rand’s. 
Nietzsche and the Nazis, A Personal View by Stephen Hicks, Ph.D.