Philosophy: Who Needs It

Posted by jchristyatty 10 years, 7 months ago to Philosophy
148 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Ayn Rand's address To The Graduating Class of The United States Military Academy at West Point New York — March 6, 1974
fare.tunes.org/liberty/library/pwni.html
"In the titular essay, “Philosophy: Who Needs It,” Rand shows why, in order to deal with concrete, real-life problems, an individual needs some implicit or explicit view of the world, of man’s place in it, and of what goals and values he ought to pursue. The abstract premises an individual holds may be true and consistent, reached by conscientious thought—and the purpose of the science of philosophy is to teach one how to achieve this—or his premises may be a heap of clashing ideas unwittingly absorbed from the culture around him. But either way, she argues, the power of philosophy is inescapable. It is something everyone should be concerned with."



All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 6.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You really should do some basic research before putting your ignorance on display so publicly.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by gafisher 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Probably not *as* an atheist; Rand was invited *as* a philosopher to speak on philosophy.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    AYN RAND WAS NOT ANTI GUN quit saying that. it is wrong and you keep posting it. even though you know it to be incorrect. did you watch the movie. "You didn't make a decision."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Perhaps you really do focus on race. Perhaps you really think that mothers roll over on their babies."
    what is the point here? nothing follows.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    we know some professors at the Academy who appreciate Rand's works. I don't know about the powers that be..I am confident that many cadets saw the movie...heard from friends. they're in uniform at the theater, which is coincidentally across the "street" ;)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thanks for the perspectives, Jan! Allow me to suggest that empiricism is only half of the coin. The other side is rationalism. Your "iterative research" may be philosophically inconsistent. Have you read David Harriman's _Logical Leap_? It has some flaws, but is indeed a presentation of the philosophy of science from an Objectivist perspective. With lower-case letters, objectivism is rational-empiricism, what we call "the scientific method." But you need both halves: you must explain facts with theories; and you must prove your theories with facts.

    An anomaly is a fact that cannot be explained by science, i.e., an empirical observation for which no theoretical explanation exists. Pure empiricism - and I know that you did not intend that - leads to a bewildering array of anomalies: the sun rises, but no one knows why; heck, it might not rise again...

    Thanks also for recommending Susan Langer. I just requested her book from the UT Library. In fact, early editions are stored at the Rare Books Archive, but two can be had from the Architecture Library. I got a later, third, edition from A&S.

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Robbie, you have posted more salient observations than that. Perhaps you really do focus on race. Perhaps you really think that mothers roll over on their babies. Maybe you have not thought through the premises and conclusions of violence against children. In that short paragraph, I see three strikes: you're out. Minus 1.

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree 100% but it is political conservatives who bring their foregone conclusions to the works of Ayn Rand and fish about like Biblical scholars for the passages that prove what they already believe.

    Ayn Rand was pro-union and anti-gun.

    She was not supportive of the US entry into World War Two.

    She did say that the USA had the moral right to launch a first strike agains the USSR; but she also said that the USSR was wholly impotent to be a threat to the USA because communism is so hopelessly inefficient.

    On the matter at hand, Rand was pro-abortion, of course; and she also was not sanguine about capital punishment, begging to let the issue be settled by a future generation of jurisprudence scholars.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I am an Objectivist. I am pro-abortion and anti-death penalty. We can debate them in a different discussion. I first read Anthem in 1966. I took the Basic Principles class the following year. I have been with these issues and problems for a lifetime. They require a lot of thought. What you cannot do is lump people together by their advocacies of specific and consequential policies. Rand Paul has allied with Cory Booker (D-NJ) to propose specific reforms in criminal justice and incarceration. You can begin with the conclusions, but you must of necessity trace back to different fundamentals. So, too, here. As an Objectivist of lifelong endeavor, I believe that the mother (and only the mother) has the power to know when to end a pregnancy. I also believe - as Ayn Rand suggested - that capital punishment is too final a penalty. Too many innocent people have been executed as it has been, and you have no way to prevent that. "Mount a proper defense?" I challenge you to learn about WHAT JENNIFER SAW about the Innocence Project here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Correct. It's not the philosophy that changes it's the inconsistency of the philosophy.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 10 years, 7 months ago
    The problem, as I see it with many who are into philosophy yet get it wrong is that they hold incorrect premises. The incorrect premises often comes from a lack of clear definitions. Before you can build a personal philosophy, it is necessary to discover truths. Definition of truth: that which corresponds to reality. Armed with that, is when the adventure begins. Define man, define freedom, etc. Then, from that create premises. Over and over, teachers of Objectivism in the past would say, "Check your premises." The thing that causes the most questioning by those who explore Rand's philosophy is that they never are clear on their premises. If you start in the middle or near the top it's like looking at a close-up of the side of a pyramid. All you see is a stone wall.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by gafisher 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Agreed! There are very few who hold truly reasoned and fully consistent philosophies, one reason it's so important to study the discipline.

    I'm not convinced, by the way, that philosophies often turn on a dime. Those who seem to condone an action in one setting and condemn it in another have simply started from a premise which permits that. The example in your first sentence, for example, rests on the premise that one is a person and the other is not. The reverse - anti abortion, pro death penalty - assumes both are persons but one is innocent and helpless while the other is guilty and was able to mount a proper defense. The difference is in the premises.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well, at least through the mid 80's, WP brought in philosophy leaders to expose the corps to such thoughts. The army learned some very hard lessons from the Viet Nam era on where leadership without firm philosophy/morality leads. My concern today is that many of the current senior military leaders with certain philosophical/political leanings have been culled from the ranks leaving only one viewpoint. And not one that values freedom and self-reliance.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Perhaps, but many people have inconsistent philosophy/morality. Pro abortion, anti death penalty, for example.

    There are also those whose philosophy/morality seemingly changes on a whim. Blacks are killing one another in record numbers in the large cities, but let one white cop shoot a black guy (and seemingly with justification after being beaten himself) and people start raising holy hell. Or let a football player discipline his son (we can argue the merits of such a different time) and one would think that the kid had been strung up and beaten half to death, but in Milwaukee mothers are sleeping with their babies in their beds and rolling over on top of them and killing them (truly - look it up, something like 30 of them this year alone) and nobody says a peep.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by sydney 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Of course. I have all her works and have studied and read them many many times over the years. My comments regarding her speech here? As usual, fantastically brilliant!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by gafisher 10 years, 7 months ago
    One fascinating point about this speech is that Ayn Rand was invited to present it, and at West Point. Our society has continued down the dark road she warned us of, to the extent that it is extremely unlikely she'd be *permitted* today to speak to a High School Commencement, much less at a Military Academy Graduation.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by gafisher 10 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Precisely so! A philosophy is much like a language in that we develop ours by nature, and then, if we choose, can refine it, learn to better understand it, or choose another; but in no case do we simply not have one.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 7 months ago
    I have Rand's pamphlet by this name, easily accessible. (OK. It is in the bathroom - but that is a good place to read, eh?) It did make a difference to me to read it, as I had always considered any philosophy except 'natural philosophy' (ie science) to be just vague artsy hand waving. Now I think that having a fabric background (philosophy) to your approach to the bright but yet patchy embroidery of reality (the sciences) is important. It is my _philosophy_ that says that empiricism and iterative research are meaningful approaches to reality. It is _science_ that gives specific content to that statement.

    I would like to put a word in for the philosopher Susanne Langer (Philosophy in a New Key) who wrote in the 1st half of the 20th c. and did a good job of integrating art and science (using the sonata format).

    Jan (Good morning!)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DaveM49 10 years, 7 months ago
    If I recall correctly, Rand's answer to her own question as; "YOU DO!" I entirely agree. Why do you think what you think? Why do you do what you do? If we fail to ask ourselves those questions....who is in charge of our minds?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 10 years, 7 months ago
    Thanks, counselor! It is a subtle point. Philosophy is inescapable. Similarly, we commonly speak of "choosing morality" but morality _is_ choice. We all have philosophies; and we all have moralities. The question is really: "What is yours?"
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo