Philosophy: Who Needs It

Rating:
Summary: Pay no attention to the little woman behind the iron curtain
Review: "To set philosophy against reason," writes Ayn Rand in this volume, "is such a crime against humanity that no modern atrocities can equal it: it is the cause of modern atrocities." ["From the Horse's Mouth," p. 82.] So let's see how well Rand holds up when evaluated by her own standard.

By "reason" I mean, centrally and primarily, the faculty by which we grasp relations of necessity. Rand, in contrast, means the faculty that sorts the material provided by the senses into mental file-folders. (And she doesn't distinguish clearly or consistently between "the senses" and "sensory perception.")

She claims both that the evidence of the senses is "self-evident" (the senses being "axiomatically valid") and that the senses are our _only_ source of knowledge. Being a pretty sloppy philosopher, she doesn't bother to distinguish these two claims even though they are clearly different: even if the senses were 100% valid 100% of the time, they might still not be our sole source of knowledge. But it doesn't matter, since both claims are false anyway.

The "senses" answer to the same standard as all of our other cognitive processes: reason. At a minimum, that means consistency. And yet Rand never quite gets around to telling us by which of our "senses" we recognize contradictions _as_ contradictions, or recognize that contradictions can't be true. Hmm; something seems to be missing from Objectivism here.

But Rand covers her tracks by tagging rational insight as "mysticism" and collapsing necessity into identity. As a result, her epistemology (really her ontology; she only _thinks_ she's doing epistemology) leaves no room for explanation at all. In Randworld, once you know _that_ something is and _what_ it is, it's not even possible to ask _why_ it is; there is simply nothing else to know.

I can back up this claim -- and elsewhere have backed it up; write me for details -- with a close reading of several of Rand's works together with Leonard Peikoff's _Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand_ (which, by the way, may be _the_ single most valuable resource for critics of Objectivism). The point here is that, in the final analysis, Rand "defends" reason by arguing that it doesn't exist. We just don't notice because she kept using the _word_ after she'd defined away the _reality_.

That, by her own standards, is "such a crime against humanity that no modern atrocities can equal it." But don't hold your breath waiting for her defenders to acknowledge it.

Philosophy: who needs it? Rand did, and Objectivists do.

Rating:
Summary:

A great introduction to Ayn Rand's nonfiction.
Review:

Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism is implicit in her novels, but she held that the plot of a story was never to be subordinated to didactic philosophical purposes. Thus, even in *Atlas Shrugged*, the novel in which her philosophy is most explicit, many details are left out. After *Atlas* was published, Ayn Rand spent much of the remainder of her life writing essays that elaborate upon her philosophy and apply it to current events. *Philosophy: Who Needs It* may be the best collection of these essays for a curious reader to start with.

The answer to the question implicit in the title is that *everyone* needs philosophy, that philosophy is an inescapable part of your life. The real questions are: Is your philosophy an integrated system that you consciously accept? Or is it a random assortment of rules of thumb, trite slogans, and things you learned in church, none of which you ever think to question? In the title essay, Ayn Rand does not try to sell you on her particular philosophy, but on the importance of philosophy as such. I recommend this book to anyone who thinks philosophy is merely of "academic" interest.

Rating:
Summary:

A great introduction to Ayn Rand's nonfiction.
Review:

Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism is implicit in her novels, butshe held that the plot of a story was never to be subordinated to didactic philosophical purposes. Thus, even in *Atlas Shrugged*, the novel in which her philosophy is most explicit, many details are left out. After *Atlas* was published, Ayn Rand spent much of the remainder of her life writing essays that elaborate upon her philosophy and apply it to current events. *Philosophy: Who Needs It* may be the best collection of these essays for a curious reader to start with.

The answer to the question implicit in the title is that *everyone* needs philosophy, that philosophy is an inescapable part of your life. The real questions are: Is your philosophy an integrated system that you consciously accept? Or is it a random assortment of rules of thumb, trite slogans, and things you learned in church, none of which you ever think to question? In the title essay, Ayn Rand does not try to sell you on her particular philosophy, but on the importance of philosophy as such. I recommend this book to anyone who thinks philosophy is merely of "academic" interest.

Rating:
Summary: My judgement
Review: Actually, the main problem with most of Ayn Rand's attempts at _philosophy_ is that she does not (a) analyze statements to their root, (b) exercise intolerance of contradictions, and (c) seek exact meaning in all situations. She tries, of course, but as I've pointed out in numerous reviews apparently skipped by our friend below, she was not at all successful. She's also not entirely honest. Here's an example cited by our friend, in which we can see history being rewritten: "A definiton of selfishness as 'excessive concern with self' violates (c), until such time as 'excessive' is given an exact meaning. . . . Hence Rand substitutes the definition that corresponds to the actual significance of the word in reality - concern with one's own desires." That's not what Rand herself thought she was doing. In fact she writes (p. vii of _The Virtue of Selfishness_) that her definition of "selfishness" _is_ the "dictionary definition." Perhaps she was still using the dictionary that allegedly misled her into using the word "egotist" (rather than "egoist") throughout _The Fountainhead_ -- the one nobody's ever been able to find again. Maybe the dictionary was published by the same folks who published the collection of quotations from which she culled her famous misstatement of Ralph Waldo Emerson in the present volume: "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." In fact Emerson wrote, "A _foolish_ consistency" -- and, as a glance through the relevant passage of "Self-reliance" will show, his meaning was almost diametrically opposite to that which Rand attributed to him. (I have a short essay on this point that I'll gladly forward to anyone who asks.) Was Rand misled here too? Or did she just lie? In fact I've mentioned in at least two other reviews that an acquaintance of mine pointed out this misrepresentation before the relevant issue of the Ayn Rand Letter was published, and Rand refused to change it. (Maybe our critic didn't actually read all the other reviews before popping off about how nobody was giving examples of her misrepresentations of other thinkers. In any case, these review pages aren't designed for _detailed_ discussions; I'll be happy to discuss this stuff at length with anybody who writes to me.) And what New Testament do you suppose she was using when she misquoted, "Money is the root of all evil"? Even a non-Christian like me knows that 1 Timothy 6:10 refers to the _love_ of money and means something quite other than what Rand took it to mean. And by the way, our critic to the contrary notwithstanding, I have no objections to "words with moral connotations." _Whatever_ her contributions to philosophy may or may not have been, Rand herself was a looter, a moocher, a moral cannibal, an adulteress, a sexual predator, and a speed-addicted narcissist, and I haven't the slightest objections to saying so clearly and cheerfully. (In fact I'll go further: by the standards she tried to apply to Immanuel Kant, she was also a murderess. At least, by her _own_ standards, she should have held herself responsible for the suicides and suicide attempts of some of her followers. She was _not_ directly responsible for them, of course -- but I'll be glad to explain, to anyone who writes to me, why her principles lead to such behavior in practice.) These points are easily supported by simply reading either of the biographies that have been written by her former associates. Further and stronger support is available in Ellen Plasil's book _Therapist_, and there's (some) useful information in Jeff Walker's _The Ayn Rand Cult_ too. And since Rand held herself up as an exemplar of her philosophy, such information is entirely pertinent. Rand claimed, to the end of her life, to have done it all without help from anyone and to have never changed her mind about anything of fundamental importance. Both of these claims are barefaced falsehoods, but I have little doubt that she rationalized them as well as she rationalized her extramarital affair with Nathaniel Branden.

Rating:
Summary: Ayn Rand tells things as they are.
Review: After reading books on philosophy, I have to put this one among the best top five ever written. It takes courage to write like Rand does, because she doesnt mince words and tells it like it is. She writes why we need philosophy, how to detect philosophical con games and how to practice philosophy. Her other essays are criticisms of Kant and some other philosophers showing how their writings are con games. Then in the next to final chapter in the book she shows the reader what to do in order to spread truth and reason. Rands approach to philosophy is called the law of identity. This law states that A is A. That is things are what they are. This law applies to all reality no matter what it is. She call this law an irreducible primary. This means that it is a principle that cannot be contradicted without falling into absurdity. Truth is another of these irreducible primaries. Starting from Truth and the law of identity a philosopher can then find other primary laws such as the law of non contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, among others. Rands criticisms of other philosophers makes sense because they contradict the law of identity. I have read Kant and Hume for instance, and I can say that they dont make sense. Hume denies causality, yet he uses it in asserting his arguments. Kant claims we cant know things as they are, but if this were so we can deny his philosophy, since things are never what they are. She says these philosophers play con games. I dont think they do so on purpose. Whether they do or not its still a con game. Whats behind all this is a denial of reality and the placing of delusion in its place. We see this all around society. There is only one place to go when reality is denied and that is confusion, chaos and eventual destruction.

Rating:
Summary: Ayn Rand tells things as they are.
Review: After reading books on philosophy, I have to put this one among the best top five ever written. It takes courage to write like Rand does, because she doesnt mince words and tells it like it is. She writes why we need philosophy, how to detect philosophical con games and how to practice philosophy. Her other essays are criticisms of Kant and some other philosophers showing how their writings are con games. Then in the next to final chapter in the book she shows the reader what to do in order to spread truth and reason. Rands approach to philosophy is called the law of identity. This law states that A is A. That is things are what they are. This law applies to all reality no matter what it is. She call this law an irreducible primary. This means that it is a principle that cannot be contradicted without falling into absurdity. Truth is another of these irreducible primaries. Starting from Truth and the law of identity a philosopher can then find other primary laws such as the law of non contradiction and the law of the excluded middle, among others. Rands criticisms of other philosophers makes sense because they contradict the law of identity. I have read Kant and Hume for instance, and I can say that they dont make sense. Hume denies causality, yet he uses it in asserting his arguments. Kant claims we cant know things as they are, but if this were so we can deny his philosophy, since things are never what they are. She says these philosophers play con games. I dont think they do so on purpose. Whether they do or not its still a con game. Whats behind all this is a denial of reality and the placing of delusion in its place. We see this all around society. There is only one place to go when reality is denied and that is confusion, chaos and eventual destruction.

Rating:
Summary: Judge for yourself
Review: After reading some of the negative comments below by some reviewers, one must question whether they have even read the book.

Rand used the term altruism, in its original meaning (as used by philosopher August Comte who coined the term): self-sacrifice.

To Rand, to sacrifice a greater value (say your beloved child), for the sake of a lessor value (some strangers you did not know) was wrong. (I agree).

To save your beloved wife from drowning would be selfish--because you loved her; to let her die to save some other stranger--when you loved your wife--would be unselfish.

Selfish, as Rand uses the term, means to act in ones own LONG-TERM rational self-interest.

It does not mean that one cannot have friends--only that "friends" who stab you in the back are not really your friends.

In fact, if you think about it: love is selfish. To paraphrase Rand, before one can say 'I love you', one must first learn to say the word 'I'.

Of course, if one actually READ the book, one would know this. If one reads the book, and still holds these distorted views of Rand's work, then one is either stupid, or dishonest.

This does not mean one may still not disagree--there are some things I disagree with Rand on; but, one should not stoop to dishonest smears, name-calling, and outright lies about her work.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent introduction to the non-fiction work of Ayn Rand
Review: After writing my review for this book, I found that my opinion had already been expressed in a previous review from July, 1999:

"The title essay was originally a speech given at West Point, and one of Miss Rand's own favorite pieces. In it, she eloquently demonstrates the importance of philosophy in man's life... in EVERY man's life. "...the choice we make is not whether to have a philosophy, but which one to have: rational, conscious, and therefore practical; or contradictory, unidentified, and therefore lethal." This book is for those interested in philosophy, as well as for those who aren't.

"As Leonard Peikoff states in the Introduction, "Ayn Rand was not only a novelist and a philosopher; she was also a salesman of philosophy -- the greatest salesman philosophy has ever had." Philosophy's purpose is not to impress people at cocktail parties or to "trick" people in debates with ready-to-wear paradoxes. Philosophy is essential to life -- read this book to discover why. "

However, some assertions proposed in negative reviews should be addressed for prospective readers. The assertion that her "theory of human nature states that men are the product of whatever philosophical convictions they happen to "program" into their minds" is an absolutely inaccurate representation of Rand's theory and needs to be identified as such. Rand's theory, obvious for any reader with an honest desire to understand what she wrote, was that the state of a person's life, including his actions, productivity and overall happiness, result from the beliefs and values that a person holds. As was stated earlier, a person has no choice whether or not to hold a philosophy; the conceptual nature of consciousness allows one no option other than to have beliefs and values. The issue is whether to form your beliefs and values by the method of rational, conscious thought or simply to allow them to arise within your unconscious as the result of arbitrary life experience (meaning: by default). *This* is the reason that philosophy is a practical necessity for every human being and why the answer implicit within the question "who needs it?" is EVERYONE.

An important aspect of life is "relating to other people", but this is in no way fundamental. Social relations fall within the context of politics, the branch of philosophy dealing with interactions between people. Politics is derivative of ethics which is derivative of the fundamental branches of philosophy: epistemology and metaphysics. Underlying fulfilling and happy life of satisfying relationships is the ability to use one's mind properly. All actions an individual takes result from his beliefs and values just as in logic, conclusions follow from premises. Dismissing these fundamental facts as impractical philosophical speculation is both myopic and concrete-bound. An understanding of these issues is the beauty of this book and the rest of Rand's work. Take heed, however. If you have already made up your mind to reject a derivative part of her philosophy, such as laissez faire capitalism or the ethics of one's own life as the standard of value, and are unwilling to question your pre-established beliefs, then you will derive no benefit from this reading.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent introduction to the non-fiction work of Ayn Rand
Review: After writing my review for this book, I found that my opinion had already been expressed in a previous review from July, 1999:

"The title essay was originally a speech given at West Point, and one of Miss Rand's own favorite pieces. In it, she eloquently demonstrates the importance of philosophy in man's life... in EVERY man's life. "...the choice we make is not whether to have a philosophy, but which one to have: rational, conscious, and therefore practical; or contradictory, unidentified, and therefore lethal." This book is for those interested in philosophy, as well as for those who aren't.

"As Leonard Peikoff states in the Introduction, "Ayn Rand was not only a novelist and a philosopher; she was also a salesman of philosophy -- the greatest salesman philosophy has ever had." Philosophy's purpose is not to impress people at cocktail parties or to "trick" people in debates with ready-to-wear paradoxes. Philosophy is essential to life -- read this book to discover why. "

However, some assertions proposed in negative reviews should be addressed for prospective readers. The assertion that her "theory of human nature states that men are the product of whatever philosophical convictions they happen to "program" into their minds" is an absolutely inaccurate representation of Rand's theory and needs to be identified as such. Rand's theory, obvious for any reader with an honest desire to understand what she wrote, was that the state of a person's life, including his actions, productivity and overall happiness, result from the beliefs and values that a person holds. As was stated earlier, a person has no choice whether or not to hold a philosophy; the conceptual nature of consciousness allows one no option other than to have beliefs and values. The issue is whether to form your beliefs and values by the method of rational, conscious thought or simply to allow them to arise within your unconscious as the result of arbitrary life experience (meaning: by default). *This* is the reason that philosophy is a practical necessity for every human being and why the answer implicit within the question "who needs it?" is EVERYONE.

An important aspect of life is "relating to other people", but this is in no way fundamental. Social relations fall within the context of politics, the branch of philosophy dealing with interactions between people. Politics is derivative of ethics which is derivative of the fundamental branches of philosophy: epistemology and metaphysics. Underlying fulfilling and happy life of satisfying relationships is the ability to use one's mind properly. All actions an individual takes result from his beliefs and values just as in logic, conclusions follow from premises. Dismissing these fundamental facts as impractical philosophical speculation is both myopic and concrete-bound. An understanding of these issues is the beauty of this book and the rest of Rand's work. Take heed, however. If you have already made up your mind to reject a derivative part of her philosophy, such as laissez faire capitalism or the ethics of one's own life as the standard of value, and are unwilling to question your pre-established beliefs, then you will derive no benefit from this reading.

Rating:
Summary: Yes, the title piece is pretty good
Review: And so is 'Philosophical Detection'. Unfortunately, demonstrating that everyone relies upon 'philosophy' is not the same as demonstrating that everyone *should* rely upon 'Objectivism'.

By the standards of 'Philosophical Detection' itself, 'Objectivism' is an abysmal failure as a 'philosophy'. Rand deserves credit for inspiring a few people to read philosophy other than her own - and frankly not for much else. Even her few legitimate points are presented in such a plonkingly self-aggrandizing fashion as to dissuade the reader from looking into *any* philosopher other than Rand. And that is a shame, as there are so many genuinely high-caliber thinkers who simply cannot be read if one insists on using words with Rand's own twisted meanings or interpreting other thinkers according to Rand's ill-conceived readings of them.