Rating: 
Summary: Some Good, Some Bad!
Review: I guess in this book you can see both the good qualities of Ayn Rand as well as some of her non-desirable traits. Good gateway book before tackling on the big and long Atlas Shrugged.
Rating: 
Summary: An Outstanding Book
Review: I read this book back in 1990. It was the first book by Rand I ever read, and I only wish that I had read some of her earlier writings twenty-five years before. That way I could have acquired the necessary intellectual ammunition to reject the collectivist garbage of the 1960's "Peace Movement," as well as the bankrupt "conservatism" of the Religious Right.I don't agree with everything Rand says, nor do I have an uncritical view of the Objectivist writers who do little more than try to sound as much like Ayn Rand as possible; but I cannot imagine a thinking person who would not find these essays both interesting and thought provoking. If you are among those haters of capitalism and America who believe they have the right to tell the owner of a private business that he and his customers don't have the right to smoke, you will definitely hate this book. Or, whatever's left of your intellect might just get the kick start it needs.
Rating: 
Summary: Philosophy my foot.
Review: If Ayn Rand was a 'philosopher', I'm the king of Siam. She couldn't 'philosophise' her way out of a wet paper bag, even if Aristotle had gotten a hole started. She was a straightforward demagogue, cut from the same cloth as L. Ron Hubbard and Baghwan Shree Rajneesh. As for the content of this volume, her articles on Immanuel Kant are ludicrous. She knew *nothing* about Kant - never tried to read him, learned everything she thought she knew about him from secondary sources (like Nietzsche), and never bothered to make up her deficiencies. (If you read AYN RAND'S MARGINALIA, you'll see why. She was a *terrible* reader.) Her attack on B.F. Skinner ('The Stimulus And The Response') is pretty good. But it doesn't take a 'philosopher' to see through behaviourism, and Rand didn't have anything much to replace it with. (Rather like her leftist counterpart Noam Chomsky.) Rand intended 'Philosophy: Who Needs It' to be a statement, not a question. That is, she's not *asking* who needs philosophy; she's *telling* us who needs it. She's right about that. Too bad so many of her readers settle for 'Objectivism' instead.
Rating:
Summary: No philosopher at all
Review: If Rand was out to 'subvert traditional philosophy' (as I agree that she was) and she got everything wrong in the process (as I agree that she did), why award her the title of 'philosopher' at all? She wasn't *primarily* a propagandist - that's *all* she was. This book belongs in the wastebasket along with all her others.
Rating:
Summary: Philosophy's place in Man's Life Clearly Defined
Review: If you think philosophy is only for the intellectuals and has no bearing on your life, then I strongly you read Ayn Rand's Philosophy Who Needs It. Also I suggest reading the following if you disagree with her idea's because if we continue on the course we are on this is where we are headed. (1984 George Orwell) (We the Living Ayn Rand) (Anthem Ayn Rand) (Animal Farm George Orwell) If you find that her philosopy makes sense to you read all of her other works. Last thing man can only survive through reason.
Rating:
Summary: The role of philosopher as participant-observer
Review: In the works of Rand, a predominant concept is the distinction between figure and ground. This _tendenz_ is well illustrated by the essays assembled in _Philosophy: Who Needs It_. The primary theme of Rand's several essays on subcultural discourse is the role of the philosopher as participant-observer. In a sense, the failure, and some would say the collapse, of semioticist nihilism depicted in Rand's _We The Living_ emerges again in _The Fountainhead_, although in a more self-supporting sense. In a related sense, Rand suggests the use of cultural theory to attack and modify philosophy. Thus, a number of desublimations concerning subcultural discourse may be found. "The irrational society is unattainable," says Rand. The characteristic motif of her works is in this regard a textual paradox. The main theme of Rand's critique of historical philosophy is not construction per se, but neoconstruction. It could therefore be said that Rand states that we have to choose between subcultural discourse and structuralist precapitalist theory. Torres and Kamhi, properly understood, in effect suggest something like this. The within/without distinction prevalent in Rand's _ATLAS SHRUGGED_ is also evident in _Philosophy: Who Needs It_. Thus, Rand uses the term 'irreducible primary' to denote the dialectic, and thus the genre, of deconstructivist culture. But this is probably inadvertent on her part. The premise of the neopatriarchial paradigm of reality implies that truth is capable of significance. It could be added to what has already been said, then, that the characteristic theme of the works of Rand on the subject of "duty" is not discourse, but subdiscourse. The main theme of Rand's analysis of cultural theory is a self-sufficient reality. If precultural feminism holds, we have to choose between cultural theory and capitalist rationalism. Thus, the characteristic element of Rand's philosophy is the difference between society and philosophy. Rand in effect suggests that we have to choose between precultural feminism and the capitalist paradigm of context. In this sense and in others, the primary theme of Rand's essays on the neodialectic appropriation of B.F. Skinner and John Rawls are not narrative, but postnarrative. In the final analysis, what Rand is suggesting is the use of subcultural discourse to read society. But the main theme of her works is the role of the artist as philosopher, not as poet. Several discourses concerning a mythopoetical whole exist. Therefore, Rand uses the term 'rationalism' to denote not, in fact, Objectivism, but neo-Objectivism.
Rating:
Summary: Sir, can you spare a dime?
Review: It would be a bit silly to run on about this book, since all territory seems to have been covered exhaustively. 5 stars if you like her, one star if you hate her. All I would say is that this is an excellent book of essays which, even if you don't take all of it as the gospel, articulate some incredible points that certain political quarters would like to see disappear. Say what you will, she was an extraordinary intellectual force (which is obviously why she elicits such strong reactions) and her ideas aren't going away. I can't wait to read more of her work.
Rating:
Summary: Sir, can you spare a dime?
Review: It would be a bit silly to run on about this book, since all territory seems to have been covered exhaustively. 5 stars if you like her, one star if you hate her. All I would say is that this is an excellent book of essays which, even if you don't take all of it as the gospel, articulate some incredible points that certain political quarters would like to see disappear. Say what you will, she was an extraordinary intellectual force (which is obviously why she elicits such strong reactions) and her ideas aren't going away. I can't wait to read more of her work.
Rating:
Summary: One of the best apologies for philosophy in the literature
Review: Many years ago, a colleage of mine observed me reading this book and remarked: "Yeah, I agree, we don't need it!". Clearly he was not aware of the content of the book, and his reaction could be viewed as expressing a typical attitude about philosophy. Philosophy is to a large extent viewed as somewhat inapplicable to the ordinary affairs of life, and it's proper place is in the university, to be done alone from the proverbial armchair. The author of this book argues that this is not the case, that philosophy is essential in all phases of human experience, and that its exclusion will result in grave difficulties. Apologies for philosophy are rare in the philosophical literature, but this author gives a good one, done however, totally in the context of philosophy itself. The author stops at giving the practice of philosophy justification from any other fields of endeavor, such as science. The author though could have given an even better case for doing philosophy if she would have taken a scientific viewpoint, and gathered scientific evidence on just what constitutes true human needs. The title of the book is based on an address that the author gave to the graduating class of Westpoint in March 1974. The rest of the book is a collection of articles by the author that were included by the executors of her estate after her death in 1982. There are many interesting discussions in these articles, as there are places where the author goes astray and engages in dialog that is too vituperative to be characterized as rational argument. Her vicious attacks on the philosopher Immanuel Kant, in particular, are very disconcerting, even to those who might disagree with his ideas. Philosophy as a profession still exists of course, but its content is changing rapidly, and it continues to be viewed by some as primarily an academic activity. But due to the tremendous explosion of science and technology, professional philosophers have moved away from purely academic positions and have applied their high intelligence and unique abilities to matters of a more scientific nature. Industry in particular welcomes their participation, particularly in the areas of biology and medicine, due to the ethical dilemnas that are confronted daily in these professions. In addition, philosophers have decided to contribute their talents to assist in the building of intelligent machines, and have given much insight on just how this is to be done. Clearly both philosophy and these professions need each other.
Rating:
Summary: One of the best apologies for philosophy in the literature
Review: Many years ago, a colleage of mine observed me reading this book and remarked: "Yeah, I agree, we don't need it!". Clearly he was not aware of the content of the book, and his reaction could be viewed as expressing a typical attitude about philosophy. Philosophy is to a large extent viewed as somewhat inapplicable to the ordinary affairs of life, and it's proper place is in the university, to be done alone from the proverbial armchair. The author of this book argues that this is not the case, that philosophy is essential in all phases of human experience, and that its exclusion will result in grave difficulties. Apologies for philosophy are rare in the philosophical literature, but this author gives a good one, done however, totally in the context of philosophy itself. The author stops at giving the practice of philosophy justification from any other fields of endeavor, such as science. The author though could have given an even better case for doing philosophy if she would have taken a scientific viewpoint, and gathered scientific evidence on just what constitutes true human needs. The title of the book is based on an address that the author gave to the graduating class of Westpoint in March 1974. The rest of the book is a collection of articles by the author that were included by the executors of her estate after her death in 1982. There are many interesting discussions in these articles, as there are places where the author goes astray and engages in dialog that is too vituperative to be characterized as rational argument. Her vicious attacks on the philosopher Immanuel Kant, in particular, are very disconcerting, even to those who might disagree with his ideas. Philosophy as a profession still exists of course, but its content is changing rapidly, and it continues to be viewed by some as primarily an academic activity. But due to the tremendous explosion of science and technology, professional philosophers have moved away from purely academic positions and have applied their high intelligence and unique abilities to matters of a more scientific nature. Industry in particular welcomes their participation, particularly in the areas of biology and medicine, due to the ethical dilemnas that are confronted daily in these professions. In addition, philosophers have decided to contribute their talents to assist in the building of intelligent machines, and have given much insight on just how this is to be done. Clearly both philosophy and these professions need each other.
| 
