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

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. >:)