I know everyone here is just about sick to death of the 'who is a
philosopher?' and Rand threads, but it seems that this same conversation is
repeating itself on a couple of lists that I'm on.  I like John Shand's
line below: "philosophy is what happens when people start thinking for
themselves."

>From what I've seen of Rand's ideas lately, I would say that if one had to
sum up her essential philosophy, Shand's statement fits her viewpoint
pretty well.  And for Rand, capitalists/ industrialists symbolize the
people who think for themselves, i.e. they are productive "traders" in
ideas. fwiw,

Jim



>Status: U
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Date:         Mon, 5 Jun 2000 07:28:46 EDT
>Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>Sender: Philosophy in Europe <[log in to unmask]>
>From: John Shand <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject:      What philosophy is
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>Dear All,
>
>But the problem is, nothing really does become 'out-of-date' in philosophy.
>There is no parallel in philosophy for the way in which, say, chemistry made
>alchemy out-of-date, or quantum mechanics made Newtonian mechanics at the
>atomic level out-of-date. Indeed it is one of the strengths and glories of
>philosophy that nothing is out of bounds - that no view should be confronted
>with the 'oh no-one takes THAT view seriously anymore, no-one even bothers
>considering it'. That this isn't the case is one of the main reasons I
>started doing the subject when in other subjects one was frustratingly met
>with walls whereby 'we don't question that; it's assumed'. None of this
>implies any view is as good as any other; but that's not the same as drawing
>down the shutters. To do so is dangerous too, risking dogma and an
>untouchable creed. Claims such as Rupert makes are always going to be
>contentious within philosophy in a way they wouldn't be in subjects that do
>genuinely make progress. All the great practitioners of philosopher are
>themselves proof of the way in which the deepest of assumptions can be
>challenged.
>
>I agree this rather leaves the criterion of good philosophy unspecified and
>philosophy floating strangely anchorless. But I don't see there is anyway
>around that.
>
>To quote one no doubt out-of-date philosopher. (He refers to 'reason', but
>means I think philosophy - or at least one could substitute that.)
>
>Thus Reason works itself out of the chains of dogma, of caprice, of
>arrogance, of passion…It knows it is lost if it clutches prematurely at a
>part of the truth and makes it the ultimate absolute truth…it must not leave
>out anything, must not drop anything, exclude anything. It is itself a
>boundless openness…Reason is like an open secret that can become known to
>anyone at any time; it is the quiet space into which everyone can enter
>through his own thought.
>
>    Karl Jaspers
>    (from: Reason and Anti-Reason in Our Times, pp 39 and 92)
>
>Philosophy is not, I think, a body of truths, but a way of thinking and
>living. It might not make you happy - but it does embody that courageous
>openness and questioning that is perhaps the noblest feature of human beings.
>Without philosophy, as far as ones basic beliefs are concerned one will just
>end up believing what one is given. The duty of a philosopher is to free
>people to think for themselves.
>
>So next time you're at a party, and someone asks you, having heard you're a
>philosopher, 'So what is philosophy then?' - instead of shifting about
>looking for an excuse to leave or falling back on the old classic of  'well,
>that's best understood by doing it…errm, mind if I go and get another
>drink?', try: philosophy is what happens when people start thinking for
>themselves.
>
>Philosophy is not science, it is not religion, it is not art. The combination
>of its presuppositionlessness and use of argument, makes it distinct from all
>of these and unique.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>John Shand.
>
><< Insofar as it is meaningful to speak of 'progress' in
> philosophy at all, I suggest in response to Stephen Voss's
> thoughts below that such progress has already been made:
> Frege and early Wittgenstein have already made the
> 'paradigm shift' beyond 'Kantianism' that renders
> 'analytic' and 'post-Kantian' continental philosophy
> out-of-date. For justification of this claim, which
> probably sounds strange to many list-members, I recommend
> looking at the work of the following on Frege and
> Wittgenstein: Alice Crary, James Conant, Cora Diamond,
> Kelly Dean Jolley, T. Ricketts, Martin Stone, Ed
> Witherspoon.
> Rupert Read. >>
>


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%