Philosophy: Who Needs It

Rating:
Summary: "A Fairy Tale"
Review: Once upon a time, not so long ago, there was a village, and in that village there were many young children. And like all children they loved stories. So one day, when there a appeared in the village a story-teller who offered to enchant the children with wonderful stories, all the children cried "Yes! Yes! Tell us some stories." So the story-teller (who had the beautiful name of Alyssa) began to enchant the children with her stories. But some of the wiser children did not like the stories. They looked again at the story-teller and realized she was an evil witch, who was telling stories that only appeared to be about good. In reality they were full of lies and distortions, misrepresentations and misstatements. The wiser children realized the evil witch only wanted to place the children under a spell, so they would worship and serve the witch. But some of the not-so-wise children fell under the witch's spell, and so could not tell truth from lies, good from evil. Some of the ensorcelled children were lucky enough to break their spell. But others were not so lucky. They lived unto the end of their days, still unable to tell truth from lies, and good from evil.

Rating:
Summary: Not for mental pygmies
Review: Second-handers, looters and parasites will NEVER understand Ayn Rand as long as they insist on interpreting her in terms of their outworn academic categories. Objectivism (THE ONLY FULLY RATIONAL PHILOSOPHY IN ALL OF HISTORY!) is a PRACTICAL philosophy for LIVING ON THIS EARTH - and anyone who does not practice it has chosen the premises of DEATH. Philosophers have been fighting the MEN OF THE MIND for 2500 years - until Ayn Rand finally showed us the way to TAKE BACK this earth from the Witch Doctors who want to enslave us! OF COURSE she disagreed with "traditional philosophy" - it is anti-reason, anti-life, anti-man and anti-mind. And so are the mental pygmies who defend it. These Rand-haters have chosen the premise of death too - and as Rand said, "nature will take its course." In the name of the best within us!

Rating:
Summary: Hardly a practical philosophy for living on earth
Review: The first essay, the title essay, is perhaps as good an introduction to Rand's philosophy as anything she wrote, for it introduces to the reader the two most important, yet least appreciated, aspects of the Objectivist creed: namely, Rand's theory of human nature and her philosophy of history. Her theory of human nature states that men are the product of whatever philosophical convictions they happen to "program" into their minds. Her theory of history states that these philosophical convictions that people end up programming into their minds ultimately come from some philosopher. Not surprisingly, she offers not a single shred of scientifically validated evidence in support of these extremely controversial views. We are suppose to believe her on her say-so alone! Is this what is meant by "reason"--to accept whatever Rand says, no matter how greatly it may contradict the findings of scientists and scholars?

I am enormously amused by the reviewer who declares that anyone who does not accept Rand's unsubstantiated dogmas and live by them is guilty of accepting the premises of death. But, begging the reviewer's pardon, I fail to see how trying to follow principles founded on philosophical speculation and wishful thinking can in any ways be regarded as either practical or pro-life. Let us not forget that one of the most important aspects of life is relating to other people. But if you have little, if any, understanding of what human beings really are like, you're probably going to have trouble relating to them. This is proved by the example of Rand's own life. Nearly all of her original disciples, all of whom accepted her principles and regarded her as the greatest mind on earth, ended up breaking with her sooner or later. In other words, she couldn't even get along with her own disciples. What does this say about the practical value of her Objectivist philosophy? The practical value, at least in terms of understanding human beings, is close to zero.

Rating:
Summary: Nicely argued case for freedom and capitalism
Review: The guru of indivdualism, Ayn Rand, has assembled a fine collection of essays for those unfamiliar with her thinking. The goddess of Atheism knows how to make an argument. Enjoy

Rating:
Summary: My judgement
Review: The main problem with many of Ayn Rand's opponents is that they do not (a) Analyze statements to their root (b) Exercise intolerance of contradictions and (c) Seek exact meaning in all situations. These virtues correspond to the titles (and themes) of the three parts of "Atlas Shrugged". To understand and appreciate "Philosophy: Who Needs It", you have to do all these relentlessly. If you attempt them for many other philosophical works, you will encounter either frustration, disgust or insanity.

1. Ayn Rand is often accused of giving "wrong definitions". A definiton of selfishness as "excessive concern with self" violates (c), until such time as "excessive" is given an exact meaning. Such a definition is a tool for people who wish to deceive others into a wrong course of action by small degrees, cashing in on the victims' fear of "excessiveness", instead of (as any good person would) appealing to their desire to avoid evil and do good. Hence Rand substitutes the definition that corresponds to the actual significance of the word in reality - concern with one's own desires.

2. Rand is also accused of misrepresenting other philosophers. You may notice that in all these attacks, no actual detailed representation of the philosophers she is supposedly misrepresenting is given. I claim that if anybody obeys (a), (b), and (c) with regard to these philosophers, the result would be too nonsensical for respectable publication.

3. Many do not like the tone of Rand's writing: they describe it as "shrill". But such an analysis is clearly a violation of (a). Rand makes ethical judgements, so she uses words with moral connotations("victim", "looter", "cannibal"), instead of the amoral language preferred by her non-extremist, non-excessive, non-selfish, non-profit, non-judgemental, non-life, non-absolute opponents.

"Philosphy: Who Needs it" is the work of an integrated mind, one that applies its theoretical judgement to the fullest extent in every practical detail of grammar and diction. It is to me astonishing that a system of philosophy could be devised that would make this possible.

Rating:
Summary: excellent, inspiring essays
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Answers, real answers
Review: This book was an absolute eye-opener for me. I had never before understood the importance of philosophy (any philosophy!) in one's life. I too kind of went into a coma when I heard 'if a tree fell in the woods and no one was there to hear it fall, did it still make a sound' or whatever that line is.

Now, I can confidently answer that question and many more. I had no clue of the importance of metaphysics and epistemology in my life. I never even heard of those words in a rational way before. Rand in several paragraphs (of the first chapter especially) laid out all the key elements of philsophy and why a human living on this earth needs them. She also demonstrated how to ask the critical questions we should all ask of ourselves. Even if you choose not to adopt an Objectivist philosphy, she provides the most valuable questions that one really should ask of everything and everyone.

It sounds totally trite to say something like 'this book changed my life' but it is true. She explained so much -- not so much in 'believe this' but more of 'think about this'. That is an amazing difference.

I for one hate to be told what to do and how to do it. All I ever wanted was the tools to make that determination for myself. In this book, Rand provides those tools. But of course, one must use their own tool -- their mind to make such a determination.

Rating:
Summary: Ayn Rand: Who Needs Her?
Review: This is a good collection of Ayn Rand's writings. As Rand's "intellectual heir" Leonard Peikoff tells us, the pieces, with one exception, were published from 1970-75.

That one exception is "Faith and Force," a speech she gave at Yale in 1960. Peikoff rightly points out that this is an excellent introduction to her work. It is Rand at her angry, apocalyptic, and ill-informed best. In a few short pages, you get a Randian anti-history lesson on the Renaissance and Kant, bizarre definitions of "mysticism" and "altruism," and sweeping generalizations on a dozen other subjects. At the end of this sermon she quotes from her Bible, Atlas Shrugged, and tells the listeners that they must "make [their] choice," between "Objectivism and Communism." It's the Objectivist version of a revivalist's alter call.

Rating:
Summary: The alleged "voice of reason" at its least shrill
Review: This volume of essays may be the single best introduction to the thought of Ayn Rand, whose claims to represent "reason" and "rationality" were so often belied by her poor scholarship, personal paranoia, badgering tone, and just plain maliciousness. There is some of each in here -- including her trademark attacks on Immanuel Kant, whom she regarded (quite unjustly) as the most evil human being who had ever lived and even as ultimately responsible for the rise of Nazism. She continues these absurd attacks here in her essay "Kant vs. Sullivan," which, like all her other critiques of Kant, were based not on firsthand knowledge of anything Kant ever wrote but on other writers' books _about_ Kant. But there is also, in such somewhat uncharacteristic essays as "Causality vs. Duty," a hint of the underlying precision of thought that led Nathaniel Branden to describe her, after his first meeting with her, as "Mrs. Logic." And her introductory essay, for which the book is named, is one of the best and clearest arguments around for the importance of philosophy even (especially!) to those who think they _don't_ need it. There are also some other treats here. There is, for example "The Stimulus and the Response," her critique of B.F. Skinner's "behaviorism" and the favorable critical response it engendered from sources who ought to have known better. There are "What Can One Do?" and "Don't Let It Go," two fairly successful attempts to urge her readership to rely on the power of _ideas_ in protection of the American ideal of liberty. And there is "An Open Letter to Boris Spassky," an extended metaphor in which the clearly defined, rational universe of the chessboard is taken as a microcosm of the real world, in order to demonstrate vividly the rationality required in life generally (and politics specifically). These essays are not _quite_ enough to earn Rand the title of "The Voice of Reason" (another posthumously-published collection of essays that Rand did _not_ edit and to which the present collection is far superior). But Rand undoubtedly deserves to be credited among reason's "backing vocalists" even if her own shrill voice did not quite deserve the spotlight. To hear the genuine "voice of reason," one should turn to the writings of philosopher Brand Blanshard, whose prose style and character represented a seamless fusion of style and substance in the service of the "great grey virtue," reasonableness. But though Rand herself found it impossible to exemplify the "rational temper," still in at least some of the essays here collected, she comes as close to it as she ever did.

Rating:
Summary: Good intro to Rand, perhaps -- but not to philosophy
Review: This volume _is_ a good introduction to the thought of Ayn Rand. But I have to disagree with one of the other reviewers: reading Rand to learn about philosophy is like reading the New Testament to learn about Judaism. Rand redefined quite a few terms and never let on -- perhaps because she didn't know any better, and more likely because one of her major purposes was to subvert traditional philosophy altogether. The result is that she not only misrepresents the thought of everyone else, but also makes it almost impossible for her _readers_ to understand anyone else. Everybody knows the obvious examples: she left the words "exclusive or excessive" out of her definition of "selfishness," she redefined "sacrifice" as the giving up of a _greater_ value for a _lesser_ one, and what she meant by "altruism" has never been defended by anyone important at all. Less well known: she thought "a priori," "analytic," and "necessary" were synonyms, and likewise "a posteriori," "synthetic," and "contingent" (no two terms in either triplet are synonymous); in the very first line of her sole work on epistemology, she identified "universals" with both "concepts" and "abstractions" (again, no two of these terms are synonymous); and she understood both "subjective" and "relative" to mean "arbitrary" (which they don't, nor are they synonymous with each other), leading her both to misunderstand Ludwig von Mises completely and to coin the oxymoronic expression "contextually absolute." Even the central term "objective" suffers at her hands; what most people mean by "objective," she calls "intrinsic." No fields were immune from her anathematizing-by-misdefinition. She disposed neatly of all versions of Idealism by defining "the primacy of existence" in such a way as to preclude consciousness (and thereby left her philosophy, just like Marx's and Lenin's, with the problem of explaining how mind can be "produced" by unconscious matter). She handily got rid of religion by representing God as the negation of everything human -- blanking out on the fact that according to both Judaism and Christianity, human rationality is itself the very image of the divine and God is the _fulfillment_, not the negation, of human nature. Her misrepresentations of Kant and Marx obscured the fact that she held important doctrines in common with each. And in "Philosophical Detection," in this very volume, she incorrectly attributes the saying, "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," to "a very little mind, Emerson" -- knowing full well that the _correct_ version of the quote is, "A _foolish_ consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." (How do I know she knew better? I have an acquaintance who worked with Rand when the piece was originally published. The error was pointed out to her; she refused to correct it.) But I can't begin to detail all her oversights, inconsistencies, and misrepresentations in one short review. Suffice it to say that this book is a good introduction to her own thought, but not to anybody else's. As for "Philosophy," one person "Who Needs It" is Rand herself, and so will anybody who is foolish enough to read _only_ her works. Read her, by all means -- but never forget that she was _primarily_ a propagandist.