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!

[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.

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.