Philosophy: Who Needs It [Taschenbuch]

"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.

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.

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.