Philosophy Who Needs It

The Ayn Rand Library #1

by Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff (Introduction)

Who Needs It?'' by Ayn Rand. Introduction by Leonard Peikoff. 1982. First edition, first printing.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Politics, Classics, History, Economics, Essays

276 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1982

About the author

Polemical novels, such as The Fountainhead (1943), of primarily known Russian-American writer Ayn Rand, originally Alisa Rosenbaum, espouse the doctrines of objectivism and political libertarianism.

Fiction of this better author and philosopher developed a system that she named. Educated, she moved to the United States in 1926. After two early initially duds and two Broadway plays, Rand achieved fame. In 1957, she published Atlas Shrugged , her best-selling work.

Rand advocated reason and rejected faith and religion. She supported rational and ethical egoism as opposed to altruism. She condemned the immoral initiation of force and supported laissez-faire capitalism, which she defined as the system, based on recognizing individual rights, including private property. Often associated with the modern movement in the United States, Rand opposed and viewed anarchism. In art, she promoted romantic realism. She sharply criticized most philosophers and their traditions with few exceptions.

Books of Rand sold more than 37 million copies. From literary critics, her fiction received mixed reviews with more negative reviews for her later work. Afterward, she turned to nonfiction to promote her philosophy, published her own periodicals, and released several collections of essays until her death in 1982.

After her death, her ideas interested academics, but philosophers generally ignored or rejected her and argued that her approach and work lack methodological rigor. She influenced some right conservatives. The movement circulates her ideas to the public and in academic settings.

Reviews

[Kevin]

Ayn Rand is completely misunderstood in the popular culture- she was not a heartless selfish individualist without a care for her fellow man. Ayn Rand was a principled philosopher in the tradition of Aristotle- who realized that human beings are ends in themselves and can only flourish by being free to act according to the dictates of reason and conscience. Ayn Rand isn't opposed to love, to friendship, to organized groups of people with a common purpose. She was opposed to coercion in all forms, and as such Ayn Rand was an optimist and a champion of human dignity. Unlike most modern intellectuals, Ayn Rand realized that pure capitalism is good and natural and right. We are men, not ants- and free market capitalism, not socialism or communism, is part of our nature. Let human reason flourish, let markets flourish, and humanity will flourish. I'm not saying I agree with everything she said- I'm just saying that her world is not some kind of dark, dog-eat-dog, man-against-man hell. In fact, her world is one of human flourishing and human dignity where men are free to participate in their own creation- to become persons of character, worthy of love, confident in their own human goodness.

[Петър Стойков · Rating 4 out of 5]

Пренебрежението на много хора към философията като дисциплина и към философските размишления като цяло е очевидно и съвсем не без основание – за стотици години десетки хиляди философи са написали десетки хиляди книги, в които преливат от пусто в празно, упражняват се във витиевато говорене и псевдо-аргументи, за да стигнат до абсурдни за всеки здравомислещ човек изводи. Философията съвсем неслучайно е станала символ на нищоговорене и нищоправене…

Въпреки всичката тая перверзия с търсенето на познание, която е доволно демонстрирана от повечето философи, философията си остава основата на науката и човешкото познание, дава начина по който разсъждаваме и по който стигаме до познанието и вземаме решения. Всеки спор относно каквито и да е идеи неизменно води до базисен философски спор – както съм установил от стотиците спорове, които съм водил в блога и в живота си.

За съжаление обаче, съвременната философия е превзета от течения, които нямат нищо общо с реалния свят или с човешкия разум – нещо повече, те активно ги отричат. Екзистенциализъм, релативизъм, постмодернизъм и други производни на Кант и Хегел твърдят, че или материалния свят всъщност не съществува, защото го възприемаме само чрез сетивата си, а те са субективни, или че човешкият разум не съществува, защото е изцяло продукт на средата и условията – следователно от нас нищо не заивиси.

Именно поради тази причина, много мислещи, практични хора са отблъснати от философията – защото в това, което виждат от нея, няма нищо от тяхната философия. На мен лично ми бе изключително трудно – докато оформях начина си на мислене, трябваше практически сам да измислям базисната постановка на идеите, в които вярвам, тъй като не я откривах в нито една философска книга, в нито една лекция по философия, в които се разискват категоричния императив и производните му налудничави идеи за нищожността на индивида, за ноумена.

Рационалния собствен интерес, отхвърляне на понятието „дълг“, свободата на личността като висша ценност – тези неща са анатема за мейнстрийм философията днес и ги открих единствено при Аристотел, а преди няколко години буквално зинах от изумление, четейки някакви откъси от Айн Ранд, защото тя буквално повтаряше моите мисли и описваше моите морални търсения, изхождайки от него.

Именно за това търсене на философията на свободата е книгата „Философията – кому е нужна“ – сборник с есета на Айн Ранд. Първата половина от книгата е брилянтна и задълбочена, втората – малко разхвърляна и не съвсем релевантна на темата, но аз прощавам на сътрудника й, събрал нейните есета след смъртта й в тази книга.

[for-much-deliberation ... · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ayn Rand presents her philosophical views via this collection of essays, including letters and lectures / presentations, in an exploration of varying topics...

These statements in chapter 17 were of particular interest:
"Do not keep silent when your own ideas and values are being attacked.
Do not proselytize indiscriminately, do not force discussions and arguments on those who are not interested or on those who are not willing to argue it is not your job to save everyone's soul. If you do the things that are in your power you will not feel guilty about not doing somehow, the things that are not. Above all do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements in order too do something..."
View some related articles here: https://formuchdeliberation.wordpress...

[sologdin · Rating 1 out of 5]

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.

[سقراط جاسم · Rating 5 out of 5]

#سقراطيات
.
معظم البشر يقضون أيامهم وهم يكافحون للتهرب من ثلاثة أسئلة، والاجابات التي تكمن وراء كل فكرة وشعور وعمل لدى الانسان، سواء أكان واعياً بذلك أم لا: أين أنا؟ كيف أعرف ذلك؟ ماذا عليّ أن أفعل؟
ومع تقدم الوقت يكبرون بما يكفي لفهم هذا الاسئلة، إذ يعتقد البشر أنهم يعرفون الاجابات!
أين أنا؟ الجواب: في العراق!
كيف أعرف ذلك؟ الجواب: انه بديهي!
ماذا عليّ أن أفعل؟ الجواب: كلّ ما يفعله الجميع!
رغم هذه الاجابات فهم ليسوا واثقين من انفسهم، وليسوا سعداء جداً، ويعيشون في بعض الاحيان خوفاً لا سبب له! وشعوراً غير محددّ، لا يمكنهم تفسيره أو التخلّص منه! فهم لم يكتشفوا قطّ حقيقة أن المشكلة تأتي من الاسئلة الثلاثة التي لم تتم الاجابة عليها. وأنّ هناك علماً واحداً فقط يمكنه الاجابة عليها وهو الفلسفة.
.
لا يمكن للإنسان أن يوجد من دون أيّ شكل من أشكال الفلسفة، أي دون نظرة شاملة إلى الحياة. فمعظم البشر ليسوا مبتكرين للأفكار، لكنهم مجرد متقبّلين لها، وهم قادرون على الحكم على تلك الأفكار بشكل نقديّ واختيار المسار الصحيح، متى أمكن لهم ذلك ومتى قُدم لهم.
.
هناك عدد كبير من البشر الذين هم غير مبالين بالأفكار وغير مكترثين بأي شيء خارج نطاق المحسوس المرتبط باللحظة الفورية المباشرة؛ وهؤلاء البشر يقبلون لا شعوريًّا بكل ما تقدمه بهم ثقافة زمانهم، والتبني الأعمى لأي تيار يصادفهم. إنهم مجرد سبّورة اجتماعية  -سواء كانوا عمّالًا أو رؤساء شركات- وهم باختيارهم يكونون غير ذوي صلة بمصير العالم.
.
واليوم، يدرك معظم الناس تماماً فراغنا الثقافيّ الأيديولوجيّ؛ فهم قلقون ومرتبكون ويتلمّسون الحصول على إجابات. فهل أنت قادر على تنويرهم؟ وهل يمكنك الإجابة على أسئلتهم؟ وهل يمكنك أن تقدّم لهم حالة من الثبات؟ وهل تعلم كيفيّة تصويب أخطائهم؟ وهل أنت محصّن من تداعيات الوابل المستمرّ الذي يهدف إلى تدمير العقل؟ وهل يمكنك تزويد الآخرين بصواريخ مضادّة للقذائف؟ فالمعركة السياسيّة هي مجرّد مناوشات تُخاض بالبنادق؛ أمّا المعركة الفلسفيّة فهي بمثابة الحرب النوويّة.

[Christopher · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book changed my life! The first work I read by novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand, (author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead") is the stunningly clear rationality I’d always been searching for in her philosophy of Objectivism.

Objectivism, according to Miss Rand is: "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

Rand's ability to reduce the most complex of issues to simple-to-understand fundamentals is unparalleled in history, except for perhaps, Aristotle.

This particular book focuses on proving the crucial need of philosophy in everyone’s lives, of the necessity of a reality-based philosophy knowable by reason, and that regardless of whether or not one has a conscious philosophy that everyone operates by some kind of philosophy. Reading this book was the most important thing I’ve ever done, and I can’t recommend it more highly.

[Otto Lehto · Rating 2 out of 5]

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.

[Kelly Murray · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Matthew W · Rating 2 out of 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.

[Laila · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's actually pays to read Atlas Shrugged (1957) and to lesser extend Capitalism: the unknown ideal (1966) before reading this book because Ayn Rand made a lot of reference from these books to make her point across. It's hard to follow if you're not familiar with her other works.
You won't believe that the compilation of articles in this book was written in the early 70s in which Ayn's succinctly peeling off layer by layer the moral, cultural, societal, intellectual decays of her time in the US and to some extend the western world; because what we see today in the US and to some extend the western world, not much has changed, perhaps for the worse. For example, the establishment that she described then had evolved into a "swamp".
I'm curious what Ayn would make of Donald Trump and his efforts to drain the swamp.
Ayn Rand was a brilliant thinker like no other, from reading this book I came to admire how good she was at articulating her ideas e.g. objectivism and rationality, and how she argues to refute nonsense ideas
If any disagreement that I have with her would be on her stand on abortion as women's right; I'm for the right of the unborn.
Now, I feel compelled to read Atlas Shrugged.

[K.A. Ashcomb · Rating 3 out of 5]

Philosophy: Who Needs It is a collection of essays by Ayn Rand. In them, she summarizes her philosophical views and argues for rationality and unbiased observation, and brings up her objectivism philosophy. She sees philosophical principles important part of our lives, arguments, and communication. She argues that we should understand philosophy better to understand better how we all use it in our lives even in things like proverbs.

I agree with Ayn Rand on the importance of philosophy, using rationality, and using an objective view of the world. But I found her argumentation weak and biased in over one occasion in the collection. She disappointed me how she let her hatred guide her and judge others. However, I think we humans are prone to errors and are inseparable from our experiences that it is understandable where her hatred and scorn stems from for example Europe.

I'm not sure what I think about the book or what I should say to you. Yes, follow Ayn Rand and read philosophy even those she despised like Rawls, Aristoteles, and Kant and form your own mind. This collection is worthy of your time, but it helps to have read her previous works and know something about her before you start. I think it is a good thing to give yourself a reality check and read something you don't agree with or you have certain expectations. Ayn Rand is often misunderstood, but she never helped the case. There is something in her which makes it easy to surpass, ignore, and hate her which is a sad thing as she should have as a rightful change to state her views as of any other philosopher.

[Lollie · Rating 1 out of 5]

Nope. just not going to happen.
The only people I can see this book appealing to are one's with the same psychopathic tendencies and Rand herself.
This book would resonate with people looking for a way to make selfishness justifiable in every aspect of life, for those who have a complete lack of empathy and think compassion an unnecessary weakness... or those who have no idea what either of those actually are.
This was just too depressing to finish, especially when I realised there is a whole mess of people who follow this way of life like a religion.
maybe one day, for purely academic purposes, I'll return to it... but I hope that day never comes.

[Walter Sylesh · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great collection of essays that I'd keep going back to. It was a rewarding experience to have gone through the entire set of essays along with Angel Walker Werth from the Objective Standard Institute and her insightful questions.

Would recommend to those wanting clear thoughts on the why? "Why does one need philosophy?" and its answers through the prism of 1970s culture and state of affairs in America.

This book is not a collection or compendium of philosophy as written by other " philosophers " but is much more effective as it clarifies rather than confounds. It brings philosophy back to Earth and Man over mystical unknowables.

[Lokeshvnkatesh · Rating 3 out of 5]

Her ideas are convincing and this is the first time I am coming across the Objectivist school of thought. Though I do not posses a natural inclination to many of her ideas, I must appreciate the easy flow of ideas (ignoring veracity).

[Yash Arya · Rating 5 out of 5]

The essays in this book target several audiences.

If you're new to Philosophy
Chapter 1: "Philosophy: Who Needs It"
Which is now also available in the form of a video here: Philosophy: Who Needs It

Chapter 6: An Open Letter to Boris Spassky

If you're new to Ayn Rand's philosophy

Chapter 7: "Faith and Force - The Destroyers of the Modern World."

For practical tips on how to study Philosophy critically
Chapter 2: Philosophical Detection

Most of the other chapters are better read after reading Rand's novels (particularly The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged), and 3 of her non-fiction books: Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, The Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

[José Antonio Lopez · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Haider Al-Mosawi · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Jeff Yoak · Rating 5 out of 5]

It was amazing to revisit this classic. The final essay, including an appraisal of American culture and where it might head, was written two years before I was born. I wish her insight could be applied to evaluate the change in the last 45 years.

[Bismark · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best thing about this book is not that you will agree with every conclusion but you will be motivated to draw your own conclusions on sound basis of reason.

[Kamila · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was given this book by a friend who is a student of objectivism, who claimed it had profoundly influenced him.

I'll start with some quotes from the book:

"I am confident enough to think that if you accept the importance of philosophy and the task of examining it critically, it is my philosophy that you will come to accept."

Later on:

"If his professed beliefs—i.e., the rules and slogans of his group—are challenged, he feels his consciousness dissolving in fog. Hence, his fear of outsiders. The word “outsiders,” to him, means the whole wide world beyond the confines of his village or town or gang—the world of all those people who do not live by his “rules.” He does not know why he feels that outsiders are a deadly threat to him and why they fill him with helpless terror. The threat is not existential, but psycho-epistemological: to deal with them requires that he rise above his “rules” to the level of abstract principles. He would die rather than attempt it."

In the second quote, she is literally describing herself. She categorizes anyone who doesn't think like her as evil, and someone who fails to critically examine philosophy. According to her, the evidence that you arrived at the truth is that you accepted her philosophy, because her philosophy is the truth.

Despite her attempts to promote 'rationality' and 'objectivity,' I experience Ayn Rand through her writing as a highly emotional person. Her writing is paved with emotional outbursts, expressing her disdain for those who hold opposing opinions, and labeling and associating anything "evil" with being a "kantian" or "mystic". In her opinion, the source of all evil is kant.

She even labels communists as "neo mystics."
That one actually made me laugh. I do like her roasts.

One of the central ideas in her book is the dichotomy of being either connected to reality or not. By doing so, she indirectly acknowledges the existence of a reality beyond her perception. This recognition that individuals can be disconnected from her version of reality, implies the existence of a tangible reality beyond her perception, because if someone is not connected to reality, well, then were he is connected to? To nothingness?

I also found myself questioning the basis on which she deduces that the prevailing spirit of the world is altruism. Where, in reality, are these altruistic people she speaks of?

She has a tendency to make sweeping generalizations based on a few examples without explaining the connections to the poor outcomes. She attributes these outcomes to "altruism" and claims that "mysticism will always lead to the rule of brutality." However, it's unclear how she backs up this argument. She seems to cherry-pick instances from history where mysticism was present and then concludes that mysticism is the sole cause of these historical periods' problems. This approach oversimplifies complex historical contexts, reducing them to singular causes. This reductionist approach ignores the intricate interplay of various factors in shaping historical eras, and by doing so, she's ironically taking an anti-conceptual stance.

As I progressed through the book, it became increasingly repetitive, with Rand continually condemning Kant, attributing him and anyone who remotely agrees with him, to the world's all evil.

She perpetuates the notion that the rich are virtuous while imposing taxes on them is a punishment for the talented, and helping the poor is rewarding the unskilled.

She has a whole chapter dedicated to a rant against chess where she explains why russians are lame because they are good at chess. Yup. Ayn Rand? More like Ayn Rant. This was the epitom of the ridiculousness of her philosophy, in my opinion.

Objectivism offers a perspective that suggests we are living in a world populated by individuals detached and disconnected from reality. Rand and her disciples, in this view, stand as the sole bastions of reality in a world filled with kantian-mystics loonatics.

While she claims to condemn ideologies that hate people, she herself labels entire groups as "parasites" if they don't subscribe to her ideology. The irony!

In essence, this book represents a classic case of "the pot calling the kettle black."
Projection, is a recurring theme in her philosophy, wherein she often assigns to others the very characteristics she criticizes, while she presents the exact same characteristics herself.

In conclusion, I find her philosophy to be very shallow. I did enjoy reading it, she is funny, and it lead to some interesting discussions with my friend.

I think this book is worth reading for people who are interested in psychology, rather than in philosophy. It's a good look to how a mind of a low self-awareness person works.

[Brad Dugg · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a powerful book and there are few books that question our own faith and also give us an alternative way of thinking, this is one such book. A collection of essays by Ayn Rand edited by Leonard Peikoff, this books has all it takes for a must read book.

I was introduced to Ayn Rand with her novel "The Fountainhead" and in my exploration of Ayn Rand and her thought process, I supposed that this book "Philosophy: Who Needs It" would help me know more about Ayn Rand and her philosophy and also try and see if I can drive few principles that I can implement in my own life. That was 2006 when I first read this book. Even today, that is 11 years later it stands tall and has almost got a divine place in my mind. There is too much to say and how much ever I review I cannot complete the substance enough.

Ayn Rand seems to be a mix of many contemporary and also the oldest philosophers. For me, she is a mix of Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and one of the one earliest philosophers, Aristotle. Also, she rants against altruism. Rand made altruism the root of all evil in the existing world and that was a radical approach and the thoughts are put so very objectively that I could not help but heed to her words in the book.

The book begins with the chapter "Philosophy: Who Needs It" and in this, she strongly puts the need of Philosophy and also giving examples that everyone indeed has a certain philosophy of living that makes his/her own way of life. In "Philosophical Detection", she conveys that every man ought to have the eye for discrimination to understand the difference between the "fundamentals" and "derivatives". It is the fundamentals that form the core philosophy for a human.

Then, she moves onto differentiating the metaphysics and the artificiality of humans in "Metaphysical Versus The Man-Made". In the "Missing Link" she gives examples to help us understand the method by which mind habitually deals with the content in the mind. Also, I encountered a beautiful term "Psycho epistemology" which I cannot explain in a blog but is worth reading about in the book.

Then, my favorite and perhaps a powerful chapter "Selfishness without a self" arrives and here, she talks about the herd (collective mankind following faith and beliefs with irrationality). This herd has a basis for what they do and they believe what they do is right. "I did this based on an existing and well-accepted principle, so it is right" is what herd (referred to as a pack of wolves) says in the real world. Personally, this stands as my favorite in the book.

In the chapter, "An Open Letter to Boris Spassky", she writes a letter to the Russian chess champion explaining her views on Capitalism and why real world rules in soviet union are unbearable if it had to be chess game

In, "Faith and force: the destroyers of the modern world", she attacks Mysticism, Collectivism, and Altruism brutally and also reasons out how Immanuel Kant wanted to save altruism through mysticism. "From the horse's mouth", gives examples of modern philosophers who disagreed with Kant and also debates with the existing "Kantians". Again, in the next chapter "Kant versus Sullivan", she debates on how many people in the current world need the help of "Annie Sullivan" (Annie Sullivan is the teacher of Helen Keller). This chapter takes reference from the play "The Miracle Worker"

In perhaps, the most talked and rather the most controversial chapter "Causality Versus Duty", Rand kills the conventional concept of duty and says "Duty cannot be for self-interest or virtue; driven by parents, church, and government". She goes on saying that life or death is the fundamental alternative. The only obligation that matters is a personal promise as per Rand.

"An untitled letter" conveys how the ability is the biggest challenge of man. To understand whether one is "able to do" or "not" is the biggest challenge for a human being. She gives a good number of examples to put the point. Although I could not relate to many of the examples, I could understand what she was trying to convey. In "Egalitarianism and Inflation" Rand talks how these two words are tough to understand and are more often than not misconstrued and misinterpreted.

In "The Stimulus and the Response" she talks about how power/muscle without consciousness leads to destruction. In "The Establishing an Establishment" she talks about how funding through government bring an enforcement and how only a few exceptional men can withstand and break through censorship. In the chapter "Censorship: Local and Express", she gives lot more details on these points.

"Fairness Doctrine for Education" conveys that fairness cannot be applied justly. Fair in itself is a perspective and what doctrine means a set of beliefs by an Orthodox organization. This is not justifiable as per Rand. There should be fairness in teaching all ideologies as against set principles and ideologies.

In "What can one do" Rand conveys action items of which I am listing a few which I believe in doing
Develop own convictions
Speak on any scale you can
Express views on issues
In "Don't let it go", Rand tells to have conviction, fight for reason and to have a sense of existence and also be responsible for what we do.

To sum it up, this is a powerful book. Ayn Rand has been of great influence on me. She made me question the existence of GOD. She made me believe that above all "What we do" matters. How selfishness is the root of all good things that we do.

This book helped me shape my character and I owe some part of me to the books by Ayn Rand. A 4/5 for this. A must read for all those who believe in reason, selfishness, and objectivism.

[Abdullah · Rating 2 out of 5]

not as good as "the Virtue of Selfishness"

[ouliana · Rating 5 out of 5]

wow, this is impressive

[Zell · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[John Martindale · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was Curious about Ayn Rand's philosophy, so I checked out this book. Having finished it, Rand seems to me a mix of Nietzsche and Rush Limbaugh.

Every chapter she rants against altruism i.e the Christian ethic, thinking its the root of all evil, stunting civilization and the brain. She passionately hates Immanuel Kant. like a hyper-Charismatic who thinks there is a demon behind every bush, so she see Kant behind every bush, practically every chapter she can't help but make another stab at hi. Little did I know before this book, Kant is the villain who managed to deceive the world with his blasphemous (against reason) teaching of duty and altruism and now were all going to hell (the wastelands of irrationalism)Because Kant is so vague, he managed to slip his anti-reason poison in all our minds without us knowing it!! Even right now, you who are reading this are under the sway of Kant!!!! shutter and repent and turn to almighty reason (well, her version of reason that is)

Interesting that one of the main conservative philosophers is a militant atheist and is pro-choice. She thinks pride is a virtue, and so does nothing to hide her ego and arrogance, making her writings rather untasteful to me. She is not the kind of person you would want to have a conversation with! Rush Limbaugh at least says he is only right 98.8% of the time, Ayn Rand would not even humble herself with that 1.2% of error, she could make it on the short list of stuck up, full of themselves people.

But with all that aside, I loved what she shared on politics, she indeed was a genius, there is no doubt about that

[Michael Lewyn · Rating 2 out of 5]

Someone with whom I was not getting along with once said "Who you are speaks so loud that I can't hear what you say." That would be an accurate summary of my feelings about this book. Rand's furious rhetoric speaks so loud that her message gets overshadowed; I get the impression that if Rand was alive today, her emails would be full of angry CAPITAL LETTERS to show how FURIOUS she is that people were too stupid to see the world the way she does.

Her treatment of 18th-c. philosopher Emanuel Kant is an example of her style. She quotes Kant for only a few paragraphs, but ceaselessly demonizes him, calling him (for example) "the man whose influence has almost succeeded in destroying the achievements of the Renaissance"(!). A better stylist would have spent much space explaining and rebutting Kant and less space blaming him for pretty much everything that has gone wrong for the last few centuries. (To her credit, she does do this occasionally- I just wish she had done so more often and less nastily).

In addition, she seems wedded to false dichotomies, whether in politics or in broader philosophical respects: she seems to believe that if reason is good, mysticism and religion must be completely worthless, if capitalism is good, anything other than pure laissez-faire is a suicidal compromise with communism, and if some rich people are deservingly so, everyone else (especially who might be in need of assistance to survive) must be incompetent, stupid or slothful. While she claims to follow Aristotle, Aristotle's support of the "golden mean" is not on her ideological radar screen.

[Nerine Dorman · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[May Ling · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a good supplemental piece to the fictional Fountainhead and Atlas shrugged. I find her logic pretty straight forward. I was intrigued by all the lovers of Kant who rate this book low because she does attack Kant's feelings about moral "stuff". I tend to think Kant was a bit full of crap myself, so this book doesn't bother me one bit. People don't just do things because it's right. They do things because they like doing things that are right, (morally right), but let's not fool ourselves, the self is still coming first. I'm down with that.

I love her article on education that discusses the biases inherent in education. Her ideas are still exceptionally controversial. it's important to understand that less of this "structure" that we live in now existed during her time and she was fighting the structures that currently oppress us in indirect ways. For that reason, I think she's libel to be misunderstood.

[Matt Smart · Rating 4 out of 5]

Any Rand’s first two essays are worth the price of admission. Her central thesis is that philosophy underpins everything we do, say, or think whether we acknowledge this or not. It is therefore, in one’s own interest that they examine their core philosophical beliefs so that they may form their life in accordance to their own values, not the values that rub off from others. It’s witty and compelling.

Her essays

Philosophy: who needs it?
And
Philosophical Detection

Should be considered necessary reading for anyone who cares about the meaning of their life.

The majority of her remaining essays are a rage against the machine of what she deems is the growing philosophical trend of the culture: collectivism. I find in her a helpful ally on this front. I tend to ignore her teachings on objectivism because I find the philosophy as a whole completely unfulfilling. Yet, I applaud and recommend her work on the importance of philosophy and the logical weakness of collectivism.

[Islam · Rating 5 out of 5]

لم اوفي اين راند حقها في مراجعة روايتها اطلس متململا لما تبثه
الرواية في النفس من صراع او بسبب الملل الذي شعرته اثناء قراءة الرواية
لكن هنا اكتب اني اخيرا وجت ضالتي التي فقدت
اين راند تقول الكثير ولا تقول غير ان العقل هو الطريق للعيش اين راند تتكلم عن العقل وليس كما صور لنا ان هناك صراع بين العقل والقلب
الصراع ليس داخلك الصراع في الخارج بين متصوفين الروح
والجسد متسولي العيش علي نفقة تضحيتك بجسدك او تضحيتك بعقلك.


اقتباس من الكتاب
"‎وانطلاقا من الفكرة الساخرة من يهتم بالعدالة؟ ينزل الإنسان إلى: «من يهتم بالحقيقة؟» ثمّ ينحدر إلى التعميم: «من يهتم؟» وهكذا يستسلم معظم البشر لفساد غير ملموس ويبيعون أرواحهم وفق برنامج بيع بالتقسيط من خلال تقديم تنازلات صغيرة، عن طريق إنجاز التسويات في الزوايا الصغيرة المظلمة - حتى لا يبقى شيء من عقولهم سوى الخوف".