Philosophy, Who Needs It / Ayn Rand: In

ISBN: 0672527251
ISBN 13: 9780672527258
By: Ayn Rand

Check Price Now

Genres

Ayn Rand Currently Reading Favorites Non Fiction Nonfiction Objectivism Philosophy Politics Rand To Read

Reader's Thoughts

Христо Блажев

Айн Ранд създава интелектуално бойно поле във “Философията: кому е нужна”http://www.knigolandia.info/2011/02/b...Айн Ранд не може да не бъде полемична, не може да не бъде противоречива, не може да не бъде провокативна. Но във “Философията: кому е нужна” тя е нещо повече – тя е агресивна, настъпателна и гръмогласна. Убедена в собствената си философия, сигурна в моралното превъзходство на идеите си, опряна удобно на величествените романи “Изворът” и “Атлас изправи рамене”… И от този пиадестал тя сипе огън и жупел връз всеки, който според нея застава на пътя на капитализма и цивилизацията, едно тъждество и тържество на разума над духа.

Taylor

I love the severity of her novels and can almost hear her reading the dialogue to me with a great intensity. But to have to deal with that narrative intensity outside of fictional characters and to imagine this rigid capitalist immigrant sitting next to me prattling about the evils of babying your brother.. well I just find it easier to absorb through the analogy of her fictions.

Kelly Murray

The bottom line is, we all live by a philosophy- whether or not we're aware of it. This book shows you why it's so important to know what kind of philosophy you're living and making choices by, and makes one aware of how their pattern of coming to conclusions affects everything about their being. A must read for anyone interested in understanding their inner workings better.

Connie

Life changing.Ayn Rand... anyone who calls her a Communist just proves they have absolutely NO idea what she's about since she's actually the complete opposite.Again, life changing. Changes perspective on life. Makes you think outside the box we've been taught, no, forced to think inside of.The first couple of pages are enough to make your head expand. Amazing woman.

Tim Weakley

For me not as enjoyable as The Virtue of Selfishness. For some reason the ideas tended to sail off into left field in this one. I don't know if that has anything to do with when they were written. While clearly written this one just didn't get my attention.

sologdin

Part VI of a multi-part review series.Rand’s last work, but it’s just more of the same. Peikoff’s introduction indicates that Rand showed, in Atlas Shrugged, that bad epistemology leads to “train wrecks, furnace breakouts, and sexual impotence” (vii). Good to know! Same introduction dismisses non-randian philosophy as “a senseless parade of abstractions to fill out the ritual at cocktail parties” and “a ponderous Continental wail of futility resonating with Oriental overtones” (viii).Philosophy is broken down in the first chapter into five sub-areas: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics (3-4). Logic as a sub-area is conspicuously absent, which is of course completely indicative of the whole. There follows a schematic parade of horrible, wherein we are treated to the normal intentional straw person accounts of prior writers: Hume is boiled down as “nobody can be certain of anything”; Plato is “This may be good in theory, but it doesn’t work in practice”; St. Augustine is “nobody is perfect in this world”; “nobody can help anything he does” is Hegel; and so on (4). This method is entirely consistent with her other writings: dishonest presentations of other thinkers without citation to any particular text and without quotation and rigorous analysis of anything actually written.Other defects appear quickly: “your subconscious is like a computer […] and its main function is the integration of ideas. Who programs it? Your conscious mind” (5-6). None of that makes any internal sense, when compared to her writings otherwise about the integration of perceptions to form concepts, nor does it make any sense regarding her bizarre theory of volition. It’s all vague and unfalsifiable and illogical. Why, after all, would the conscious mind be the programmer of the unconscious mind, rather than vice versa? Who intentionally, consciously decides I decide to repress these unapproved sexual desires?Kant is the great enemy of the collection, as he began the “dominant trend of philosophy” for two centuries: “directed to a single goal: the destruction of man’s mind” (6-7) (NB: the oddball “collectivist” singular mind in the formulation). Overall, there’s plenty of misguided broadsides against Kant in this volume, though she has venom for most other writers: Russell, Skinner (for an entire chapter!), Marx of course--but none of it is rigorous or thorough. Rawls is “obscenely evil” (33)--moral and aesthetic condemnation, two for price of one! Though she has an entire chapter on Rawls’ Theory of Justice (102-19), “I have not read and do not intend to read that book” (109). So, there it is.All of this upsidedown & backward should-be-satire-but-sadly-it’s-not is mixed in with the irritating jingoism of a recent convert: “you are accused of being a tool of imperialism--and ‘imperialism’ is the name given to the foreign policy of this country, which has never engaged in military conquest and has never profited from the two world wars, which she did not initiate, but entered and won” (8-9). (We are given a by-the-bye regarding “the military-industrial complex--which is a myth” (9).) Startling, of course, that the US did not benefit from the world wars, but we’re definitely in an alternate reality with the objection that the US never engaged in military conquest.We are told that “America is the living refutation of a Kantian universe” (9), which is why people hate it (as opposed to “love for communism.”) Cute, no? I wish the world were that cool: Let’s burn a US flag for the sake of Kant!It’s not obvious that Kant has been read or understood. For instance, she summarizes that Kant is “a systematic rationalization of every major philosophical vice” (a surreal phrasing, making philosophy itself a matter of moral vice): “the metaphysical inferiority of this world (as a ‘phenomenal’ world of mere ‘appearances’), is a rationalization for the hatred of reality” (19). Huh? That’s not what the noumenal/phenomenal distinction does, at all. She continues: “the notion that reason is unable to perceive reality and deals only with ‘appearances’ is a rationalization for the hatred of reason” (id.). Of course, one reading of Kant’s position was that noumenal reality is not knowable by the senses (that’s phenomenal reality)--but can be apprehended indirectly by reason. I don’t think that Rand’s summary of Kant’s position bears even featherweight scrutiny. Reason, after all, is not said to “perceive” anything--the senses perceive.Kant is ultimately dismissed as “the moral imperative of the duty to sacrifice oneself to duty [huh?], a sacrifice without beneficiaries [huh?], is a gross rationalization for the image (and soul [huh?]) of an austere, ascetic monk who winks at you with an obscenely sadistic pleasure [WTF?]” (19). Otherwise, “the ultimate monument to Kant and the whole altruist morality is Soviet Russia” (65).She intones, regarding “altruism” (yes, still on about this): “when a theory achieves nothing but the opposite of its alleged goals, yet it advocates remain undeterred, you may be certain that it is not a conviction, or an ‘ideal,’ but a rationalization” (20). Invisible hand, anyone? Same Dunning-Kruger effect as in other volumes: “stagnant barbarism” in reference to the humanities in general (26).She has a serious problem in setting up straw-persons to knock down, as when she discusses a hypothetical professor who insists on the insufficiency of proving “that something is” but rather “one must also prove that it had to be--and since nothing had to be, nothing is certain and anything goes” (28). Who said that? Oh, no one actually said that? Well, why then are we arguing against a position no one ever held? That’s Rand in a nutshell.Some bad conceptualization (no surprise!) in an untheorized distinction between “metaphysically given facts” and “man-made facts” (31): “a skyscraper is a man-made fact, a mountain is a metaphysically given fact.” Alrighty then!Defective self-awareness: “The anti-conceptual mentality takes most things as irreducible primaries and regards them as ‘self-evident’” (38). Kinda like objectivism, no? This text is really a string of dogmatic pronouncements and non-sequiturs built on same--typical of the other writings. Instead of rigor, we get citations to Atlas Shrugged.Similarly, we see a repeated default in her selective historicism: “Never mind the low wages and the harsh living conditions of the early years of capitalism. They were all that the national economies of the time could afford. Capitalism did not create poverty--it inherited it” (66). This is not an objection that she would allow regarding economic systems that she does not like. Can it seriously be contended that she would allow the objection that the Soviet Union was dicked up in its initial years because the Leninists inherited a raw deal from tsarism, or that the Maoists inherited a bad situation in post-WW2 China?Neo-spenglerian pronouncements: “Staleness is the dominant characteristic of today’s culture” (162), an essay written in 1972, the year of The Godfather, Deliverance, Pink Flamingos, and Deep Throat, as well as books of 1972, and whatever music and art and whatnot. It really is ludicrous.But: “the symptoms of today’s cultural disease are: conformity […], timidity […], and a pall of fear” (162). “Psychologically, this is the cultural atmosphere of a society living under censorship. But there is not censorship in the United States” (id.). She is of course complaining about market censorship, but she wouldn’t refer to it that way. It is all rather a symptom of altruist-collectivist-mystical conspiracy. And how does the conspiracy function? “As a mixed economy, we are chained by an enormous tangle of governmental controls” (163). Okay! And who is at the head of the conspiracy of non-censorship that nonetheless through market mechanisms causes conformism? University researchers, of course, who are enemies of the system, but take public funds. Private funding is fine, of course, as a foolish venturer allegedly “harms no one but himself” and “the money he spends is his own” (168-69). We will just brush under the rug the fact that the money that is “his own” may not have the most clear title or may have been derived from sweatshoppe labor or whatever; and we will just ignore the anti-democratic nature of private charity--significant decisions will be made by the property owner without any democratic decision-making. When that venture fails, it is likely to harm more than the capitalist. But Rand doesn’t care to think through anything--it’s all heroic individualism, &c.Lengthy chapter on Supreme Court rulings on obscenity is comical: “what is called ‘hard-core’ pornography” she regards as “unspeakably disgusting”--even though “I have not read any of the books or seen any of the current movies belonging to that category” (173). This is the constant refrain: I do not have any experience with X, but I know that I hate X. It’s childish beyond measure. I don’t want to eat broccoli! I don’t like it even though I haven’t tried it! Like any four-year-old, before she’s permitted to be heard, Rand should be made to sit at the dinner table until she finishes her hard-core pornography (or broccoli).Her readings of the obscenity cases are surprisingly not horrible (for a non-attorney). She attempts to raise questions that she apparently regards as dispositive: “The intellectual standard which is here set up to rule an individual’s mind […] is the judgment of an average person applying community standards” (174), which is language of First Amendment case law for obscenity--except it is specifically not to rule the mind, but to rule publication. She picks at “community standards” as undefined, and at “community” as unidentified. This is the problem with non-attorneys (not to be a dick or anything): that’s all a cipher for the jury drawn from the jurisdiction in which the dispute will have arisen. Same with average person, reasonableness, prurience, seriousness, and so on. She wants some a priori definition to all this, and I don’t necessarily disagree with her--but the objections she raises are worked out by the jury system. Then she twists any good points she has about obscenity law into a rant about “the living hell of antitrust” (184). It’s a joke--and it only gets worse because “the clause giving Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce is one of the major errors in the Constitution” (id.). By contrast, NB she never raises criticism of the US constitution for its approval of chattel slavery.Recommended only for bloody socialists, those who want to enter the Augean Stables, and readers with so profound a hatred of mankind.

Nerine Dorman

While I’m a big fan of Ayn Rand’s works I am, by equal measure, aware of the fact that she can and does froth a little when she hits particular topics. While my own knowledge of philosophy is still very sketchy at best, I did find this slim volume to be a somewhat useful supplement to her other titles that I’ve read, though don’t feel as if this collection of essays covered any fresh ground.She examines why we need philosophy (of course we do) and the realisation that this is an integral part of our existence if we are to live rational, moral lives. Most importantly she stands for taking pride in one’s own labours and not settling for anything less than the best. She makes a big deal about freedom, and personal freedom to think and trade as one wishes without feeling ashamed of one’s strengths. Also, that one should deal with truths and that which is, instead of that which one imagines something *should* be.Mostly, Rand encourages people to think for themselves without blindly following conventions, and to encourage the development and application to reason. She advocates intellectual honesty – in admitting what one knows and what one does not know, then working from there. She advocates sticking to one’s convictions and looking at living a life that has integrity on a basic level. And not, thankfully, to proselytise. She is harshly critical of some of the philosophic and political efforts of her day, and it’s somewhat frightening to see how some of her observations are very much apt for this day and age.

Haider Al-Mosawi

While this book is a great reference to understanding Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, its true value is in explaining what philosophy is and why it's important. An extremely important lesson in today's world, especially when so many discussions are fruitless exchanges of opinion, without knowing - let alone questioning - basic philosophical assumptions.

Mat Anderson

I prefer Rand's fiction as a vessel for communicating her ideals.

Matt Faus

The first few chapters of this book are incredible. They do an outstanding job of describing the obligation of every person to analyze their personal philosophy to become the person they want to be.The "Egalitarianism and Inflation" chapter had the best description of inflation due to government I've ever read.The rest of the book is very zealous prose of Rand bashing other thinkers or ways of life.

Noel

Readers who have read Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand will naturally find the gist of most of her essays here familiar, for they precede and obviously inform Peikoff's distillation. This collection of Rand's essays present her characteristic precision in zeroing in for epistemological defeat the fundamental essence of the anti-life "morality" in play in the field. It also finally addresses a pet peeve of mine -- the marginalization of philosophy as a "handmaiden" of religion.If there's one downside to this work, it's that, 40 years later, its critique of the state of rationality in human society, the continued primacy of altruism and its derivations, is not any less relevant, but rather alarmingly more. Anyone poisoned or about to be willingfully poisoned by a dive to ideological daydreams such as "utopian" socialism might do their minds (and finite lives) much good by waking up, reading Rand, and breathing the real.

Antonio Lopez

It was interesting to see how current still are Rand's concerns. The book also opened the door of other authors who she critique. Important to understand the roots of the opposite views.Since the book is a collection of essays it is easy to read and reflect one at a time.In the end the battle for freedom is an intellectual battle. Lots has been said about other sciences yet the enemies of freedom get stronger under the shade of indifference and ignorance. "Philosophy Who needs it" is an invitation to be active learner and defender of freedom.

Andrej Drapal

It is simply amazig how Ayn uses her rather narrow vcabulary of concepts to explain thought and lifestyle situations with chrystal precision. This is not any kind of comprehensive philosophy, but stll far the best positioning of a man vesrus a collective. There are few chapters that are outdated, but overall you can simply derive values valid for any situation.

Nathan Titus

The philosophy of Ayn Rand changed my entire mindset when I first read Atlas Shrugged. For that reason, I enjoy all her non-fiction writing: it shows how it works in the real world. It also shows the power that philosophy of any kind has over every aspect of existence. As Rand says, we need it to deal with our daily lives. As she further explains, we can't help but have a philosophy, we can only choose to make it ourselves, or to let it self-assemble inside our subconscious. The later choice (or default) will inevitably result in contradictions and errors which will, in turn, follow us into our daily life.Philosophy has always been my favorite subject, but before Rand, I did not identify it as such. I called it "mind set," and the term was vague and full of contradictions. she helped me build a stable, consistent, PRACTICAL "mind set." In the process, she challenged almost every belief I ever had. I didn't just build a philosophy, I REBUILT one.This is the book I would most recommend to people who do not especially like Ayn Rand. At the very least, it will tell you that you need A philosophy, even if Objectivism isn't the one you choose. People, and hence the world, could benefit greatly from consistent thinking, and from knowing WHY they think certain things. Even if you don't agree with her, you can agree to that much.

Otto Lehto

No small contribution to philosophy; in fact, no contribution whatsoever.(It does get better by the end, though, and there are a couple of good essays between long, uninteresting diatribes against Kant, Hegel, American pragmatism and every other kind of philosophy not written by Ms. Rand herself.)PS. If you want to read Ayn Rand at her best, read Virtue of Selfishness instead: it's succinct and doesn't stray too far from Rand's strengths (Romantic hero worship of strong individuals, and proselytizing for capitalism). She was never a good philosopher, let's admit it; but she was, at times, a decent writer. After Virtue of Selfishness, you might as well do better by just reading Atlas Shrugged. All her other works are merely footnotes to her magnum opus (which I found unbearably tedious and overlong). This book, an amateur's scribbles on philosophy, is perhaps her weakest, because she doesn't understand any other philosopher except herself: she doesn't, for example, have a clue of Kant's philosophy, American pragmatism - or even of her only philosophical hero's, Aristotle's, philosophy, beyond a few stale slogans. She has the grasp of philosophy of a first-year undergraduate student. Psychologically, she fails even more miserably: she fails to understand the intellectual motivations of her enemies. She simply imagines motivations to people where they don't exist. She substitutes malevolent paranoia for a real attempt at understanding differences of opinion. She categorizes people as evil - i.e. everybody except herself and her disciples. That's as close to a totalitarian doctrine as any "liberal" ever came. She was truly unique: the only true totalitarian liberal in the history of the world. She was a powerful woman, worthy of admiration; but her philosophy doesn't deserve such a lengthy book of exposition, since it can be best expressed in a few powerful slogans - and one 1000-page book.I judge this book to be superfluous.

Share your thoughts

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