Ayn Rand on Philosophy

[rowyn]

seraphimsigrist wrote a bit on philosophy today, which reminded me of a piece I'd heardon NPR some time ago, commencment address by Ayn Rand on philosophy.

I am not a great fan of Rand, my libertarian inclinations notwithstanding. But I found this essay quite well done. This bit was my favorite part:

You might claim — as most people do — that you have never been influenced by philosophy. I will ask you to check that claim. Have you ever thought or said the following? "Don't be so sure — nobody can be certain of anything." You got that notion from David Hume (and many, many others), even though you might never have heard of him. Or: "This may be good in theory, but it doesn't work in practice." You got that from Plato. Or: "That was a rotten thing to do, but it's only human, nobody is perfect in this world." You got that from Augustine. Or: "It may be true for you, but it's not true for me." You got it from William James. Or: "I couldn't help it! Nobody can help anything he does." You got it from Hegel. Or: "I can't prove it, but I feel that it's true." You got it from Kant. Or: "It's logical, but logic has nothing to do with reality." You got it from Kant. Or: "It's evil, because it's selfish." You got it from Kant. Have you heard the modern activists say: "Act first, think afterward"? They got it from John Dewey.

Some people might answer: "Sure, I've said those things at different times, but I don't have to believe that stuff all of the time. It may have been true yesterday, but it's not true today." They got it from Hegel. They might say: "Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." They got it from a very little mind, Emerson. They might say: "But can't one compromise and borrow different ideas from different philosophies according to the expediency of the moment?" They got it from Richard Nixon — who got it from William James.

Now ask yourself: if you are not interested in abstract ideas, why do you (and all men) feel compelled to use them? The fact is that abstract ideas are conceptual integrations which subsume an incalculable number of concretes — and that without abstract ideas you would not be able to deal with concrete, particular, real-life problems. You would be in the position of a newborn infant, to whom every object is a unique, unprecedented phenomenon. The difference between his mental state and yours lies in the number of conceptual integrations your mind has performed.

You have no choice about the necessity to integrate your observations, your experiences, your knowledge into abstract ideas, i.e., into principles. Your only choice is whether these principles are true or false, whether they represent your conscious, rational conviction — or a grab-bag of notions snatched at random, whose sources, validity, context and consequences you do not know, notions which, more often than not, you would drop like a hot potato if you knew.

But the principles you accept (consciously or subconsciously) may clash with or contradict one another; they, too, have to be integrated. What integrates them? Philosophy. A philosophic system is an integrated view of existence. As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define you philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation — or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind's wings should have grown.

I really ought to read more philosophy. :)

Comments

[pyat.livejournal.com]

Excellent post. Thank you for sharing it!

[rowyn]

You're welcome! Glad you liked it. :)

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

Defining your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation works about as well as running an economy that way.

oh that's correct too

[tahkhleet.livejournal.com]

The thing is her essential point is correct: if you don't participate in philosophy, you are the random average of other people's philosophy. Her ideas on how to participate...well, let's just remember she wasn't known for moderate and balanced argument with attention to avoiding eclecticism. (the practice of not pre emptively answering the strongest arguments against you)

Re: oh that's correct too

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

Her point that you get bits of philosophy from other people is correct. But if you don't participate, you don't end up as a 'random average' -- you're still picking the bits that make sense to you and assembling them subconsciously.

There's no reason to think that that's a bad way to go about it -- philosophers are useful because they tend to spin off in wild directions and think up new ideas of which bits are useful to other people, but most of them that are known for anything at all are known for being eccentric and for espousing controversial and often immoral idea(l)s. Not for being wise, or kind, or otherwise the sort of person that you'd want others to emulate.

And yes, I got that from Kant. };)

Re: oh that's correct too

[rowyn]

I have to admit, the real reason studying philosophy appeals to me is that I'm geeky like that. :)

[sebkha.livejournal.com]

You got that from Mill.

[rowyn]

Hee!

Some things do not scale up well

[rowyn]

I don't know. I think that running an economy by a "conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation" is generally going to result in complete disaster, Soviet-Union-style.

OTOH, I think defining your philosophy that way will generally work somewhat better than not trying to define it at all. >:) Pretty much what Tahkhleet said. Rand's decision to portray a vast array of possible choices as only two is silly. But sensible rhetoric always sounds so wishy-washy when compared to "You have two choices! The Good Way, and the Dumb Way!"

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

'My way or you're stupid' is definately what always pisses me off about Ayn Rand.

But I think not defining your philosophy at all works better than trying to be rigorous about it... even if something in the middle *is* the better choice.

[rowyn]

Huh.

There are distinct disadvantages to being rigorous about it. For instance, if you've thought long and hard about your philosophy, you're even less likely to be humble and willing to set aside your conclusions if they don't work. And people are likely to build false assumptions into their logic, and following that logic rigorously leads to dangerously persuasive but flawed philosophical systems, like Marxism and Objectivism. >:)

So I can see how it might be worse than no thought at all, but I'm not sure that's the default result. If only because most people's efforts to be rigorous aren't. >:)

bear in mind

[tahkhleet.livejournal.com]

Rand was largely a bad philosopher. but this section (its from Atlas Shrugged, or paraphrased in there) is here she does ok. Except for her bit at the end. The point is, we don't always choose wisely. Her confidence in the surety of the intuition and logic of each person to choose what is best for them is totally unfounded, unproven, and unprovable.

We can go as far as John Stuart Mill and say "you would think that a person would be the best to seek their own welfare. They have the most information so they should get to decide". But he does admit this is not always the case. The point is not that we shouldn't follow his model. Its that we should be humble about how well rational choice works out for most people. It is necessary. Saying its a wonderful untrammeled blessing is just not reasonable.

But it definitely is true: ideas are a big part of your life and to the degree you don't participate in them is the degree you didn't have a say in being who you are.

Re: bear in mind

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

I feel compelled to say that this was not in Atlas Shrugged. Just so that people don't go looking for it in that book and spend a lot of time not finding it. :)

Re: bear in mind

[rowyn]

Thank you! I was thinking that I didn't remember anything like it, but it's been decades since I read the book so I could easily have forgotten. :)

Re: bear in mind

[rowyn]

It's that we should be humble about how well rational choice works out for most people.

Yes, exactly. Being the best approach is not the same as being the perfect approach. Or even a good approach. It just means all the other options are worse. >:)