Tan Wei Xin 1601A
What makes philosophy different from other subjects? Philosophy is different
from other subjects in the sense that philosophy is concerned with the method of
thinking, whereas subjects such as physics are mainly concerned with factual
knowledge. The goal of philosophy is to figure out the best way to think about things,
and the beauty about philosophy is that it can be done just by sitting in an armchair in
your living room. This course explores several branches of philosophy, for example :
epistemology, which is devoted to studying and theorising about our knowledge of
the world. The two important questions for epistemologists are: What is knowledge?
Do we have any? The philosophy of science is also covered, which raises the
question of how we should understand the aim of science. The next branch is known
as the philosophy of the mind, where questions are asked about what it means for
something to have a mind, and how minds should be understood and explained. On
the other hand, moral philosophy attempts to understand the nature of our moral
judgements and reactions – whether they aim at some objective moral truth, or are
merely personal or cultural preferences. Lastly, metaphysics, where the fundamental
questions about the nature of reality and the world that encompasses it are explored.
When covering moral philosophy, the course introduced three main concepts,
which was: objectivism, emotivism and relativism. According to philosopher Ayn
Rand, objectivism can be summarised as: 1) Facts are more important than man's
feelings. 2) Reason is the only way to perceive reality and the sole knowledge source.
3) Every man exists for his own sake. 4) The ideal political-economic system is
laissez-faire capitalism. Personally, I disagree with Rand’s view to a certain extent.
"Laissez Faire" is French for "leave alone" which means that the government leaves
the people alone regarding all economic activities. It is the complete separation of
economy and state. In other words, it cannot actually exist in our world because the
free market disproportionately maximises wealth and not welfare. Therefore, as a
philosophy, it needs to be judged on how it gets implemented in the real world, with
all the real world's inherent inconsistencies. Just like Marxism, in the real world,
produced the Soviet system in Russia, the real world implementation of laissez-faire
capitalism produced the great recession. Hence, laissez-faire capitalism has been
proven as an unsuccessful concept compared to the more popular economic models
these days such as the mixed economy model.
Furthermore, reason has real-world limitations. While I think that we should
value reason over superstition, the idea that a non-sociopathic human being can use
reason without emotion is impossible. Emotion governs the "why" behind every
exercise of reason, determining our choices of interest and intention. In fact, people
use reason as a way to strengthen what their emotions desire. Besides that, I do not
believe that reality is an objective absolute. There's no way to tell whether reality is
objective or not because it can only be perceived subjectively by every single person.
What is reality to me might not be considered as a reality for you.
I would also like to refute the point that every man only exists for his own sake.
While Rand believed that pursuit of one's self-interest and one's own happiness is his
life's moral purpose, the scientific fact is that man evolved as a communal creature,
with bonds of family and community being tightly tied to health, happiness,
longevity, and pretty much everything that makes life pleasurable. Objectivism thus
contradicts demonstrable scientific fact. Rand failed to fully recognise that though
human beings are not programmed to be self-sacrificial, they have an innate need to
see others prosper. Another thing I dislike about Rand’s philosophy is that while
individualism has some value, objectivism largely discounts the fact the every
successful person stands on the shoulders of those who have once assisted them.
Success devoid of gratitude and the inferred obligation to help others would only lead
to the deterioration of society.
In conclusion, the distinct impression that I got from Rand’s philosophy is that
an individual’s first duty is to cultivating his own passions rather than taking interest
in the welfare of those around him. Personally, Rand is hard to accept because my
concerns about those very close to me, such as my family, are more important than
my personal project of self development and self actualisation. The relentless, singleminded dedication to one’s passions that Rand seems to advocate requires a coldness
of the soul, a narrowing of one’s humanity that I find is not exactly conducive to my
happiness.