Have you read and studied philosophy in the past and still not learned much of how it applies to life or for that matter, remember much of anything related to philosophy save for some worn out names? This is the book on philosophy that reviews what it is and why we need it in every aspect of our lives.

elibrary

In "Philosophy: Who Needs It," Ayn Rand, through a collection of some of her lectures and essays which were compiled posthumously, revisits a lot of her objectivist philosophy that is more eloquently outlined in her book The Virtue of Selfishness. Nevertheless, this compilation was quite a delight to read, as there were little gems scattered throughout the book, that made the collection well worth the 200+ pages. Notwithstanding Rand's seething loath for Kantian epistemology and metaphysics - which she makes abundantly clear throughout the first twelve or thirteen essays - Rand has a affable quality in her writing, despite her coarse prose, which often comes off as arrogance.

Even still, the books treatment of reason, as the foundation for metaphysics is made clear the first ten essays, but she takes the last four or five essays dealing with political-theory, and discussed subjects from economics and moral cause vs. duty of an individual citizen. Since a lot of this book is just re-hashed objectivism, if one has already read her other works which make her philosophy very clear such as The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, this book would still be worth the purchase for the last essay alone, entitled "Don't Let It Go." A clarion call to Americans, who value individualism, reason, and integrity, to be the change, lest our ominous future of chaos and tyranny befall us before it's too late.

-Brent McCulley (10/4/13)

I rate it only two stars because it was just more of the same sort of thing to be found in her other books; it's not a necessary addition to her works.

Filosofia - kuka tarvitsee sitä? Siihen kysymykseen tämä kirja antaa selkeän vastauksen: jokainen ihminen.

Filosofia on tieteenala, jonka tehtävänä on tutkia elämän perimmäisiä kysymyksiä: ihmisen suhdetta olemassaoloon, tietoon, itseensä, muihin ihmisiin ja taiteeseen. Monet ideologiat ja uskonnot pyrkivät antamaan näihin omanlaisensa vastauksen. Ideoilla on seurauksia. Ovatko ne hyviä vai huonoja, riippuu siitä, minkä filosofian suuntauksen ihminen valitsee ohjenuorakseen. Tämä kirja eroaa muista ideologioista siinä, että tässä Ayn Rand pyrkii osoittamaan, kuinka totuudet voidaan löytää puhtaasti rationaalisella (sekulaarilla) päättelyllä.

Vaikka teos on vain noin 300-sivuinen, se on tietomäärältään äärimmäisen monipuolinen. Tämä kirja vastaa filosofian peruskurssia, mutta menee myös mukavasti syvätasolle. Keskeiset filosofian konseptit esitetään hyvin selkeällä kielellä: olemassaolo, tieto, etiikka ja niin edelleen. Kirja antaa eväitä siihen, kuinka arkipäivän tilanteissa voi toimia mahdollisimman rationaalisesti. Randin kirjoitustavalle on tyypillistä, että hän esittää vaihtoehtoisia ajattelutapoja tilanteeseen X ja mitä seurauksia niillä on. Tällä tavalla hän eliminoi heikkoja vasta-argumentteja, joihin kilpailevat ideologiat pohjautuvat. Tällaista tekstiä on ilo lukea, koska se osoittaa, että kirjoittaja on selvästi miettinyt päättelyketjun loppuun asti.

Objektivismin (eli Randin edustaman filosofian) mukaan tosiasiat eivät perustu mielipiteisiin tai äänestystuloksiin, vaan tosiasiat ovat olemassa ihmisistä riippumatta. Tosiasiat eivät välitä ihmisen mielipiteistä tai mielipahasta. Jos esimerkiksi komeetta iskeytyisi maapalloon, tämä tosiasia ei muuttuisi miksikään, vaikka sata miljoonaa ihmistä äänestäisi vaaleissa, että komeetta ei saa iskeytyä maahan. Hyvää ei voi myöskään muuttaa pahaksi äänestämällä. Varkaus ei muutu moraaliseksi, vaikka parlamentti äänestäisi varkauden hyväksyttäväksi, koska de facto joku ihminen köyhtyy. Vauraus ei synny äänestämällä. Jos näin olisi, autiolla saarella pärjäisi tekemättä yhtään mitään; riittää, että istuu rannalle ja äänestää itselleen ilmaista ruokaa. Todellisuus on kuitenkin objektiivinen tuomari, koska varsin nopeasti selviää, syntyykö hyvinvointi toivomisella tai ihmisjoukon huutoäänestyksellä.

Monet maailman filosofioista herättävät enemmän kysymyksiä kuin vastauksia ja ovat siten epäkäytännöllisiä ihmisen arkeen, ja tähän tarpeeseen tämä kirja todellakin vastaa. Epäkoherentteja ideologioita on mahdoton noudattaa arjessa, minkä vuoksi ne herättävät ihmisissä syyllisyyttä ja heikkouden tunnetta. Ihmisen pitäisi pysähtyä miettimään, onko oma toiminta rationaalista vai perustuuko se omien arvojen uhraamisen toisten hyväksi. Esimerkiksi altruismi (oman arvon uhraaminen toisen arvon vuoksi) ei kerro lainkaan, kenen vuoksi arvot tulisi uhrata ja kuka päättää edunsaajasta. Utilitarismi (isoin hyöty isoimmalle joukolle) törmää samoihin kysymyksiin. Näille epäitsekkyyttä ihannoiville ideologioille yhteistä on se, että niissä kiistetään yksilön oikeus oman työnsä tuloksiin eli ne ovat pohjimmiltaan kollektivistisia. Hyötyjen jakautumisesta päättää yleensä poliitikko, uskonnollinen johtaja, neuvosto tai joku muu "paremmin tietävä". Altruistin kanssa ei voi käydä kilpajuoksua, koska riippumatta siitä, kuinka paljon yksilö luopuu omista arvoistaan, altruisti voi aina vaatia uhraamaan lisää vedoten "yleiseen hyvään" tai "maan etuun". Tämä on individualismin vastakohta ja ristiriidassa yksilönvapauksien kanssa, ja siksi kapitalismi ja altruismi ovat yhteensopimattomia.

Todelliset poliittiset jakolinjat eivät liiku oikeisto-vasemmisto -akselilla, kuten ei myöskään konservatiivi-liberaali -akselilla. Ayn Rand pyrkii osoittamaan kirjassa, että oikea jakolinja on rationaalisuus-epärationaalisuus. Ensimmäisestä seuraa objektiivisten tosiasioiden hyväksyminen, yksilönvapaudet ja kapitalismi. Jälkimmäisestä seuraa valikoiva tosiasioiden hyväksyntä, mielipiteiden välinen huutoäänestys ja yksilönvapauksien rajoittaminen.

Eräs kirjan opetuksista on se, että filosofointia ei voi eikä pidä aloittaa "puolivälistä", koska se on epärationaalista. Kuinka voidaan keskustella hyvästä lainsäädännöstä tai ihmisoikeuksista, jos ei ensin määritellä päättelymme mitta-asteikkoa ja aloituspistettä? Jos tulemme politiikkaan ilman muuta filosofian tuntemusta, se on kuin hyppäisi pituushyppyä ilman mittanauhaa ja vakioitua hyppylaudan paikkaa. Jos jokainen urheilija hyppää milloin mistäkin kohdasta eikä heidän suorituksiaan voida verrata yhteismitallisesti, mitä järkeä kilpailussa olisi? Tai kuinka arvioida yksittäistä urheilusuoritusta, jos ei ensin määritellä urheilulajia ja sen sääntöjä?

Jos arvostaa tyynen rauhallista rationaalista ajattelua, tämä kirja on erittäin miellyttävä lukukokemus. Teksti on suoraa eikä se välttele tarttumasta nykypäivän arkoihin kysymyksiin.

Arvosana: 5/5

Easily the worst book I have read thus far by Rand. I grew respect for Rand after reading "The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution." I found the "The New Left" to be enlightening as to why modern academia is an irrational and corrosive bad joke. Sadly, "The New Left" is the only book I can recommend by Rand that I completely agree with. Rand seemed to have a pathological hatred of Emmanuel Kant that gets old quite quick. I was also annoyed to see Rand besmirches her former influence Friedrich Nietzsche in "The Virtue of Selfishness." Come on Ayn, did you really think you could compare with a philosopher such as Nietzsche?!?

"Philosophy: Who Needs It" claims to be a book that is used to help people find what philosophy they should follow. I found the book to be Ayn Rand's infamous preaching on overload. Of course, Rand spends a good part of the book criticizing Kant among other thing. I just couldn't handle all the ranting in this one and had to put the book down after only making it 3/4 through. Maybe I should read more of Rand's novels?

I find Anton LaVey's selfish Church of Satan philosophies (which were inspired by Rand) to be much more interesting than Ayn Rand's sterile musings. Plus LaVey had a better eye for aesthetics than Rand. One also can't help but forget that LaVey had a grand sense of humor which Rand was sorely lacking.

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.

I read this as a 15 year old and am revisiting it 9 years later. I would advise anyone with a cursory knowledge of/budding interest in Ayn Rand to read this collection, as she elucidates the philosophy of Objectivism that underpins her beloved novels and novellas. Some of the essays are especially timely in this century of baseless self-indulgence. "Selfishness Without a Self" unravels the logic behind common morality, which in Rand's assessment makes value judgments based on and individual's adherence or aversion to moral abstracts such as honesty, benevolence, or justice. The amoralist, she writes, is someone who, by lack of any moral fiber, seeks to be loved simply by "being himself." How utterly evocative of the ethos of the last 60 years.

When I was applying to universities, my college counselor told me that a few of my essays were "too Randian." Luckily, my dream school was a Randian haven (administration and old guard professor-wise, definitely not student-wise). Now, I think Rand misses the mark in her philosophy by a justificatory level or two, but that's simply a matter of jogging a few more miles. Though she may have stopped a few miles short of the finish line, she ran the race she did well.

Si bien el liberalismo no es una corriente a la que adhiera, considero que es una lectura obligada para cualquier persona que le interese la filosofía

This book…is by far with the most highlighted phrases that I’d ever done on a book. Many of the points are worth reflecting on and to be inculcated as one’s personal values, or better yet, one’s philosophy. I know I have. However, there are other points that I highlighted that got me thinking on the absurdity of her thoughts. Ok, I might have some sort of a love-hate relationship with this book. But mostly, it’s love. Hence, the 5 stars.

Since Kant’s philosophy mostly appeals to theists – which Ayn Rand isn’t, her radical criticism on Kant’s philosophy might be an insult to theists, or maybe just anyone who submits to ‘faith’ and ‘mysticism’. I believe these two words are the ones that she detests the most when it comes to dealing with philosophy. She doesn’t want anything to do with it. I understand why and I agree to some part of it. For the time being, this criticism of hers is somewhat of a revelation for me.

Before this, I read ‘The History of God’ and have concluded that philosophy is a tool to explain the rational of one’s faith but after reading this, her criticism doesn’t seem to allow ‘faith’ to be explained philosophically. Her brand of philosophy is purely based on ‘reason’. If I were to be as radical as Ayn Rand, my previous perception and conclusion regarding the relevance of philosophy on faith OR the relevance of faith on philosophy would have immediately been cancelled. But I would still want to believe that faith and philosophy could still be correlated with one another.

A personal value that I have inculcated within myself is with regards to the content in Chapter 10: Causality Versus Duty. I have concluded Ayn Rand’s understanding of ‘duty’ as a conviction without inclination, without further judgment and thought, and blind obedience. You don’t know how much this strikes as a realization for me. Most people would just do whatever it is commanded to them without thinking about the goal that stems from their actions. All personal desires are banished. I wouldn’t want that. However, with myself working with the government, the word ‘duty’ is ever so prevalent and if the work (read:duty) is not being done, my position of the job would be at stake. Ok, maybe I should look at the issue through something small. Let’s look at something simple. Just think about being ordered to water the plants. I don’t have a green thumb and I’m not into gardening. Why should I obey to such an order? When I think about this, I need to have a change of mindset whereby instead of doing it merely as a ‘duty’, I should have a goal for it. Doing something without a purpose and goal is…blind.

Much of what Rand had explained in this book appeal so much to my mind and personal conviction, although there are some that I have yet to grasp (or probably will never grasp), it’s a book that I urge anyone who is interested in it to think about it twice or thrice about whatever statements that come across.

I know I’m going to have a look at this book again in the future.

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.

Ayn Rand's "Philosophy:Who Needs It" is a collection of philosophical articles written from 1960-1974 before her death in 1984. She lecture how "us" as an individual being has a necessity to view the world around us of understanding what goals and values we seek to possess in life.

She reasoned that whether we like it or not philosophy is inevitable. That it is a man's fundamental attribute---his basic means of survival. Therefore, whatever "reason" requires in order to function/serve is a necessity/requirement fo a human life.


In her own words, she said that-----man needs metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, i.e., he needs philosophy. He needs it by essential nature and for practical purpose: in order to be able to think, to act, to live. ~~~Ayn Rand~~~

Metaphysics--is a branch of philosophy that studies nature of the universe as a whole.

Epistemology--is a branch that studies the nature and means of human knowledge.

Ethics-- is a branch that studies values to guide man’s choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code or what man ought to do.